|
Post by Soulfyre on Feb 18, 2005 13:34:39 GMT -5
There is much discussion today about the role of women in the church. The topic has been very polarizing across Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant (mainline) and Evangelical Christianity, although for different reasons. In Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, there has never been much question concerning the capability of women as theologians and doctors of the church. The primary issue has been one within the apostolic hierarchy. Both traditions tend to view the priest as alter christo, i.e. as one standing in the place of Jesus Christ. Hence, since Jesus Christ was unalterably a male, the generally accepted tradition is that a priest, specifically one who can celebrate the Eucharist, must be a man. Since this is not, in fact, pertinent to the Protestant or Evangelical churches, the issue of women in the pulpit tends to revolve around whether women should be in a position of authority over adult males in the church. Rather than expressing an initial opinion concerning this issue, I would like to find out what the results of your studies have been (don't worry...I will most certainly "spout off" later). God bless and keep you all, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Feb 18, 2005 15:33:44 GMT -5
Well, I guess I might as well start this off, though this is another area I am still exploring. When I first started attending church, almost four years ago, the only women preachers I had ever heard were on television and I didn't particularly care for the idea much. There was just something "not quite right" about a woman in the pulpit and I couldn't get past their high-heels and skirts. For those of you who don't know about the Methodist church, the larger the church, the more pastors you have; some preach, some teach and some simply minister to the congregation. In other words there are many levels of pastoral responsibility shared by both men and women. Needless to say, I was skeptical when I saw that one of our female pastors would be preaching on the third Sunday I attended what is now my church home. At this point I was still trying to grasp the idea of multiple pastors and now I realized that I was about to be subjected to a woman in the pulpit. I began to question if this would be my church home after all, which was a bit of a let down because it had felt so right until that point. I decided to give it a try, after all, I liked to think of myself as open-minded. As the sermon started I was uncomfortable and noted that she was fairly stiff in her presentation, it appeared she preaching was not her cup of tea on a Sunday morning. As I listened though, something happened to me, it was as if her gender faded away, leaving only God's Word; His message conveyed through an uncomfortable, yet willing servant. I walked away from that service knowing that God had placed me where He wanted me to be, my decision to join the church firm in my heart. I have since heard a few other women preaching at church and loved each and every one of them. I suppose you can tell that I now have to problem with women being pastors, ministers, preachers or whatever title you want to give the person delivering the weekly sermon. However, I think the question goes much deeper than delivering God's word. I think we are ultimately questioning whether a woman should be the head of a church. While I don't have a problem with a woman preaching, or being in a pastoral position, I have less definite ideas about a woman being in charge of a church. Even though Paul said that women should be quiet in church, he openly recognized Priscilla/Prisca in many of his letters and five out of the seven times Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned, Priscilla's name comes first.What does that mean? I don't know. I'll be looking for more information though. I haven't had time to read the whole article, but here's a link that might be of interest on this subject: www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1191Anyway, I look forward to your thoughts on this subject. Melinda
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 18, 2005 16:37:52 GMT -5
Being Southern Baptist and from studying and reading my Bible I have came to the conclusion that women are not suppose to be in places of authority over men, such as deacon and pastor.
I was at a Christian Camp last week and I went to one of the classes called HeadShip. Well, there we learned all about it (again)...however one comment that the person made is that women should just teach women and men should just teach men, which I think is totally wrong.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Some poeple say, like the one at the camp, say that 1 Tim 2:12 says that women should teach; however, in Acts 18:24-26 says that Priscilla taugh Apollos. (A woman teaching a man). In commentaries it says that Paul was telling the Ephesian women not to teach because of their lack of knowledge and experience...and they had trouble with false teachers (2 Tim. 3:1-9).
This belief also goes well with the fact that sin entered intot he world through Adam...even though Eve sinned first. Since the male is the head of the family he is responisble for the 'misdirection'. This belief is also used when talking to catholics about the immaculate conception of Mary...which I have been doing the last few days...lol. Well, I am done. I am quite sure that rgrove, fairbank, and soulfyre will just utterly kick my butt at articulating my thoughts and beliefs. lol
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Feb 18, 2005 17:08:27 GMT -5
Nah, I think they'll be right there with you. It's me you need to fear!!! LOL
Seriously, I disagree about women pastors, but I think I could say that a female pastor should still fall under the authority of a male. That may not make sense to those of you whose churches only have one pastor. In my church, we have the Executive and Senior Pastors, who are men. They are the top dogs. The EP is the ultimate authority who does 98% of the preaching. The SP handles more of the day-to-day business of the church and preaches on occasion. We then have three other pastors who are women. Only one preaches, but her sermons are always done in the form of dramas. Of the other two women, one is in charge of Adult Education and she teaches. The other is a seminary student and will be specializing in support ministries (i.e. grief support).
In the case of my church, the female pastors definitely take a submissive role to the men and I believe this is okay. I suppose in other denominations, the women would be referred to as teachers and assistants and not given the title of Pastor, but they could still be doing those same jobs.
What is truly the difference between preaching and teaching? I'm sure there is a fine line, but I'm not sure what it is.
Melinda
|
|
mpethe
Supporting Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by mpethe on Feb 21, 2005 16:33:50 GMT -5
In brief, I find the Bible to be much closer to a complementarian view point rather than an egalitarian one. I do not really find the issue so ambiguous as many people would try to point out. Therefore, that is also the stance I take - with some slight modifications to the CBMW position. www.cbmw.orgInterestingly, I attend a church that is egalitarian - and while that does bother me a little, we don't actually have any women serving in the role of Pastor (yet). Though many women do serve on leadership teams and even as elders. *BUT* - those terms are probably used differently at our church than at most - so don't jump to conclusions. Perhaps it would become a contentious issue for me if they did hire on a woman to fill the role of teaching pastor. I don't know if I would stay under those conditions. That probably sounds very closed minded and old fashioned to many. Nevertheless, I believe it to be the clear Biblical position. In fact, it is often something I find difficult for a couple of reasons. 1) Clearly the secular world in NA has wholeheartedly embraced an egalitarian view. To even suggest otherwise is laughable to most. But 2) also because I am in the vast minority at my church who would take the complentarian view. What can I say... it's a bit lonely over here. Though this does sometimes cause me to question my view - it has never moved me from it. I am always open to entertaining arguments for an egalitarian stance, but have not really ever heard anything convincing. FYI - CBMW has a lot of good resources - if you're interested in the issue.
|
|
|
Post by fairbank on Feb 21, 2005 19:44:41 GMT -5
Men and women are equal in Christ. They have the same status, and prestige before God. Neither is gifted or loved more than the other. None deserves a greater place of honor than another.
They are however different, and their differences are reflected in the roles to which God has called them. I find the Bible to be quite clear on this point.
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Feb 23, 2005 11:37:47 GMT -5
I agree with Fairbank. The Bible is clear to as well that men and women are equal before God spiritually, but that he has ordained different roles in the church for men and women. In our society we want to take our societal prejudices of egalitarianism and apply them to the Bible's teaching on worship services. But as "backwards" as poeople view the Bible's teachings on the roles of men and women in the worship of the church, it's God's Word and God's worship service. We need to humbly submit to His Will in these matters. While I do see biblical warrant for females to serve as deacons (which is a servant role, not one of authority IMO) I see absolutely no possible way one can overcome the Bible's teaching about the role of men as elders (I come the reformed Baptist position advocating a plurality of elders).
Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Feb 23, 2005 21:45:21 GMT -5
I agree with Fairbank. The Bible is clear to as well that men and women are equal before God spiritually, but that he has ordained different roles in the church for men and women. In our society we want to take our societal prejudices of egalitarianism and apply them to the Bible's teaching on worship services. But as "backwards" as poeople view the Bible's teachings on the roles of men and women in the worship of the church, it's God's Word and God's worship service. We need to humbly submit to His Will in these matters. While I do see biblical warrant for females to serve as deacons (which is a servant role, not one of authority IMO) I see absolutely no possible way one can overcome the Bible's teaching about the role of men as elders (I come the reformed Baptist position advocating a plurality of elders). Yours In Christ, Ron 'Twas what I was saying...or trying to say...lol
|
|
mpethe
Supporting Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by mpethe on Mar 3, 2005 11:49:20 GMT -5
So, a question I have for those of you who are complementarian and believe that God is clear in his word...
How serious/important is the issue?
Certainly within the 'Church' (universal) there are many disagreements over doctrine - some major, some minor. Which is this?
This is a divissive issue, but should it be one that's pressed? Or should we leave it up to the conscience of individuals or individual churches?
Would you warn a brother or sister against such practice/thinking, or just let each come to their own conclusions?
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Mar 3, 2005 12:20:04 GMT -5
Personally, I believe that we all share the "core belief" of Christianity or we wouldn't be here.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.†(John 3:16, NIV)
It would seem that we also agree that there is but one way to the Father and that is through the Son
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.†(John 14:6, NIV)
and...
“Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.†(John 14:19-22, NIV)
I know there are a lot more fundamental things that as Christians we agree upon. To me the things that we disagree upon, though not unimportant, seem to have increased value placed upon them because there are disagreements. I know I don't have all the answers, so I try to keep an open mind and to let God guide me to the truth of things.
I can tell you that I disagree with a lot of Catholic doctrine, birth control for example, yet when you get right down to it, I have to admit that I can see where God might not like us trying to take control of the creation of life. On the other hand, I feel certain that if He decides a couple should procreate, it will happen whether there is birth control or not. So what is ultimately "right."
I think that when we start thinking we have the answers and that what we believe is the "right way" to believe that we set ourselves up to find out in the end that we shut the door on God leading us to greater truths.
Hope this makes sense,
Melinda
|
|
|
Post by fairbank on Mar 3, 2005 23:58:03 GMT -5
I stand by my conclusion stated earlier, but Melinda brings up an important issue...the core. In choosing a church to lead, or attend, I would be most uncomfortable with an egalitarian model that supports the ordination of a woman to the office of elder, because I believe that runs contrary to scripture. While I would never attend such a church, neither would I assume that they are preaching "another gospel."
My assumption would be that we have very different understandings of Pauline (and biblical) theology, but that in the end we will all end up in glory together because we love the Lord Jesus.
How do we identify the issues that are truly core? In my opinion, if you won't go to hell for getting it wrong, that's not a core issue...it is a denominational (or local church) distinctive.
Infant baptism vs believer's baptism, sacraments vs ordinances, contemporary vs traditional worship, Calvinism vs Arminianism, egalitarian vs complementarian...these are all issues with deeply held convictions by many. We often select the church we attend and serve by these criteria, and it is difficult to imagine a church who can play both sides of the fence on any of those issues, or at least play well. The point is that I think it is ok that churches are different. But unless they hold to the gospel of salvation by God's grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ alone, they are not churches, but a collection of lost souls.
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Mar 4, 2005 0:17:16 GMT -5
How do we identify the issues that are truly core? In my opinion, if you won't go to hell for getting it wrong, that's not a core issue...it is a denominational (or local church) distinctive. Yes! This is exactly what I was thinking. I do think that there are differences in opinions as to what you will and will not go to hell for getting wrong. For example, my dad worries about my salvation because I wasn't dunked when I was baptized. To him the manner in which one is baptized is a core issue. I think I've said it before, but I really think we will all be surprised in one way or another when we enter into Paradise. Melinda
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Mar 4, 2005 9:11:40 GMT -5
I'm glad to see the tone in which this topic is discussed. I believe that this particular topic often gets skewed by the inevitable conflict between our current egalitarian predispositions in society which are often an understandable (but inevitably exaggerated) reaction against the excesses of patriarchal role differentiation and a more traditional view which holds that there are at least some reasonable understandings of role differentiation between the genders. And while I instinctively react against the feminist view of a "hermeneutic of suspicion" which must be applied to every Biblical text which indicates gender role differentiation, which assumes the Bible is not inspired or inerrant, but the product of megalomaniacal patriarchalists whose only intent has been to displace and original peaceful "earth-mother" religion and substitute a warlike, male oriented cult, I do believe that we must take care that the sometimes Victorian sensibilities the American culture has inherited do not in fact infect our Biblical interpretation. That being said, I do think there is value in looking carefully at how these practices were addressed in the context of early church development. One must remember that even an emphasis on teaching women would have been considered a radical departure to rabbinic Judaism, who equated teaching women the Torah with teaching them adultery. Hence, to inveigh against a perceived patriarchalism, especially in the New Testament, would seem inappropriate. After all, it would hardly have been more radical to assume a purely gender egalitarian structure to the Church, having already breached the proverbial dike. But this was not done, for what I believe to be expressly Biblical reasons. First, however, one must emphasize that the early Church gave far more respect to the role of women in the Church than we do today. Mary Magdalene has traditionally been assigned the title of "Apostle to the Apostles", for it was by her that the joyful news of the resurrection, the capstone of the gospel, was related to the male disciples. It was the women in their obedience who returned to annoint the body of Jesus Christ with spices, and Mary in specific who was entrusted by our Risen Saviour with the first "great commission", "Go and tell...!" It is also noteworthy in the New Testament that when referring to the disciples that taught Apollos the fullness of the gospel truth, Priscilla is named before her husband Aquila. This is particularly interesting, because it foreshadows the understanding of the early church concerning role differentiation: since the early church viewed the husband as having the honor of position, reflecting the priority of order in creation, it is inevitable that Aquila should be mentioned; however, it is clear that having established this structure, pre-eminence is given to Priscilla in naming her first (in contrast to convention), so that it is likely that Priscilla was in fact the primary teacher of Apollos. In the economia of the Kingdom of Heaven, the foretaste of which is represented by the Church, the man provides the governing structure, but the woman is given a place of honor. In the Orthodox practice, priests (the word being derived from the Greek presbuteros, or "elders") are ordained to govern and officiate over the worship of the Church. They offer not simply the elements of the Eucharist to the Lord, but the congregation and themselves as a sacrifice "holy and acceptable to God" (cf. Romans 12). They then offer the gift of God, represented in the elements of the Eucharist, to the Church as the foretaste of the wedding feast, and the offer of the Bridegroom to His Bride. In this, their priesthood is to reflect the greater Priesthood of Jesus Christ, our High Priest, who offers Himself to God, and in Himself brings our prayers and needs, and offers Himself through the Holy Spirit to the Church, and us, as individuals. As Jesus Christ was the Second Adam, and thus His gender is important, so also is the gender of the priests, who are to be, in a sense, icons of Jesus Christ to the Church. Yet within the structure of the Church, women and men were traditionally ordained to the Diaconate, which had far more importance to the ministry of the Church historically than the almost parenthetic role it "enjoys" now. And there were many women theologians, as well as women who led monastic communities (not simply of women). While men led in worship, women often governed the "household" of God. And because women were far more involved with the formal instruction of their children, a grasp of theology and praxis was valued among women. In the early Church, the formal meeting of the Church was centered about the Eucharist. It was not simply a ritualistic seminary extension. Its purpose was the worship and adoration of God, not the exegetical exposition of scripture. Although there is, in fact, much scripture read and used in Orthodox worship, and there is usually a homile given, formal study is generally carried out outside of the worship service itself. This, of course, is not the case in most Evangelical churches, in which Communion is sometimes treated as an after-thought, occurring maybe once a month, and often appears to be a sort of "doff of the hat" to Jesus Christ which occcasionally interrupts our weekly institute for Biblical training for a brief memorial service. Now please don't misunderstand me. I believe a thorough knowledge of the Scripture is indispensable to the Christian life, for in it we approach the Holy of Holies as Abba, and are taught all things necessary for godliness. But the Church is not simply an outpost to seminary. Because of the Evangelical emphasis on worship as teaching, there is, I believe, an inevitable skew towards an extreme patriarchy in which the women are not simply to "learn in silence and submission", but are to "sit down and shut up" (unless, of course, they are singing or "sharing"). The priestly function of the man in worship and rule is extended to all teaching and ministry. In the approach of the early Church, women did not teach in an official capacity within the worship of the Church, for the framework of Church is authority is regnal, not republican, and reflects the rule of the Second Adam, Jesus Christ. But within the Church-as-community, women were considered foundational to the ministry of the Church, and were respected leaders and theologians. The Church, in Orthodoxy and Biblically, is unalterably feminine as the Bride of Christ. The primary icon of the Church is Mary, who said, "Behold, I am the handmaiden of the LORD. Be it done unto me according to thy word." In this response is demonstrated the response we should all emulate, male and female alike, to the Triune God in our lives. And as it is woman who is the glory of man, the men of the Church should, in a spirit of self-sacrifice, nurture and encourage the growth of women in the Christian community, in deed AND word, and respect and heed their insight and learning. Do I believe that women should perform a pastoral role in the Church? I believe that this, in fact, is the wrong question. I believe the question is more accurately put, "Should women perform the role of priesthood in the Church?" To this I would answer, "No." I believe the role differentiation in the authoritative structure in the Church is significantly taught by Paul in his first letter to Timothy (chapter 2). And I believe that efforts to culturally dispense with this passage are inadequate at best and heretical at worst. Nevertheless, within the authoritative structure of the Church, women can indeed minister by teaching. Under the authority of the Bishop or Priest, a woman may decidedly teach (and, yes, I recognize that in the Church at the time of the Apostles, these offices were in practice undifferentiated). Certainly, in the history of the Church, women have founded missions and churches, teaching the men who were to serve in the regnal function of the Church hierarchy. And thus, it is all the more important that women receive instruction, and endeavor themselves to study, for without them, the full flowering of the church is impossible. God bless you always, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Mar 4, 2005 10:21:16 GMT -5
...I believe that this particular topic often gets skewed by the inevitable conflict between our current egalitarian predispositions in society which are often an understandable (but inevitably exaggerated) reaction against the excesses of patriarchal role differentiation and a more traditional view which holds that there are at least some reasonable understandings of role differentiation between the genders. As I was reading this I realized that I am someone who has fought traditional gender roles for quite some time. I think this is because the men in my life have always let me down. My biological father was never an active part of my life. I've been married twice and neither of my husbands took a leadership role and looked to me to make the decisions and take care of the details. I feel sure now that the problem with these relationships was that God was not present, let alone at the head, of any of them. Needless to say, through all of this I have become a capable, independent woman. Perhaps too much so. I feel that God is now reshaping me into a woman more able to allow a man to lead the way. Maybe with this change He is working on in me I'll come to a more distinct conclusion on this subject. Ever pondering, Melinda
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Mar 4, 2005 11:24:37 GMT -5
As I was reading this I realized that I am someone who has fought traditional gender roles for quite some time. I think this is because the men in my life have always let me down. My biological father was never an active part of my life. I've been married twice and neither of my husbands took a leadership role and looked to me to make the decisions and take care of the details. I feel sure now that the problem with these relationships was that God was not present, let alone at the head, of any of them. Needless to say, through all of this I have become a capable, independent woman. Perhaps too much so. I feel that God is now reshaping me into a woman more able to allow a man to lead the way. Maybe with this change He is working on in me I'll come to a more distinct conclusion on this subject. Actually, Melinda, I believe a major fault lies with the unbalanced view of "male dominance" that has been taught as both a sin of commission and omission in our society. One aspect of the Fall often overlooked in Genesis is that the woman would attempt to usurp the regnal role of man, and man would seek to dominate woman. Neither, of course, is appropriate. Adam functioned as prophet, priest, and king of God's creation. In that role, he was to convey the word of God, offer creation back to God in his work and worship (thus establishing the appropriate relationship between God, humanity, and creation), and rule God's creation as a Servant to God and creation. It was not a role of dominance, but of self-giving...of self-sacrifice. Adam turned aside from this purpose, seeking rather to use creation for his own glory. This was not forced upon him by the woman, later to be named Eve, for even then he could have chosen self-sacrifice. Buth Adam did not, and all of creation fell with him. It was Jesus Christ, who became the Second Adam. Yet far too often the predominant Evangelical viewpoint of "Federal headship" reduces the atonement of Jesus Christ to His crucifixion and resurrection. Little importance is given to His life (except that it fulfilled the requirements necessary for Him to be the sacrificial Lamb of God). Rather, we should see ALL of Christ's life in the framework of atonement. His work was not simply to fulfill the juridical requirements of a just God (although it did indeed do so), or to simply return mankind to its original state before God at creation. Rather, His life was to fulfill God's intention of providing humanity, the crown of God's creation, with a participation in the life of the Trinity. We are called to adoption by our Abba Father as "sons" with His only-begotten Son; we are wooed by the Heavenly Bridegroom to be His Bride; we are indwelt, corporately and individually, by the Holy Spirit, who conveys the resurrection power of God to us to live the Christian life, and conveys our prayers, through Jesus Christ our High Priest, to God, in words that cannot be uttered. Yet all this was accomplished through the life of Jesus Christ, whose love for us underscored His life of self-sacrifice, in which he did not consider His relationship in the Godhead something to be held on to at any cost, but emptied Himself, took on the form of a servant, and died not the cross. This relationship of Jesus Christ to the church is to be exemplified in both the rule of the Church (the earthly "priesthood"), and especially in marriage, the primary icon of God's realtionship to us. A man is not to dominate his wife, but to serve his wife, in his desire to present her to Jesus Christ. The rule of the husband is structural, not tyrannnical, and is to be one which, like Barnabas, encourages the heart of the wife. The husband is to provide for her growth and participatory rule of the household (which exists with or without children). He is to be, to use a phrase that in over-use has become hackneyed, but portrays and important Biblical truth, the "wind beneath her wings". Too often, the husband, or other such men in a woman's life, merely shrugs off his duty as servant-king. In a marriage, the one who is literally "queen" of the household is left to fend for herself and the family. The structure and support for her function is absent. In what should be a relationship of compatibility and love, she is left alone. And there is no loneliness which is more poignant or hurtful than the loneliness of a togetherness in which one partner is not fully present. When she then attempts to manage both roles, the man often becomes embittered. At other times, husbands (or other men) are tyrannical, stifling the growth of woman, as though to suck the life out of the relationship by taking it all into themselves. But such a vacuum is never satisfied. Vampiric in its nature, it leaves the woman a shadow of herself, and often then moves on to other prey. Forgetting that the "first must become last", as He who was Lord of all became Servant of all, such a husband seeks to lord himself over his wife, leaving her to rebel or wither. The husband, however, is called to love his wife as Jesus Christ loved the church. In the Orthodox marriage ceremony, both husband and wife are crowned. This crowning has a dual significance: both reign together over a family that is to be a picture of, not unfallen creation, but redeemed creation (in iconic kingdom within the Kingdom of God); and both receive the symbolic crowns are martyrdom, as both are to submit, one to the other, in self-sacrifice. Yet this self-sacrifice is to be initiated by the man. The woman's submission is in response to this self-sacrifice of the man, not given in order to achieve man's self-sacrifice. And man's self-sacrifice does not begin and end with a "job" or "financial support", nor should it be absent if for any reason the man is "unemployed". Rather, self-sacrifice IS the "job" of the husband, and is to be exemplified in all of his relationship to his wife. I honestly believe that if all husbands portrayed this attitude and behavior in their marriages as an examply to all men in the Church, the issue of the "role" of women in the Church would be a moot point. God bless us and give us all that attitude which was in Christ Jesus (but especially the men), Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|