Women in authority

[Littlelambseativy]

That said I'd probably not join a church where a woman was an ordained pastor. An elder? Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with women being elders. Of course I see the office of a deacon (servant) and an elder (leader) in the church as two different positions.

I understand Timothy's position on elders and deacons but how do you see them in regard to women as opposed to minister?

[Littlelambseativy]

Actually, this has been bothering me for a while - a long while and I have been struggling with it until now!!

1. Did Jesus pick women to be disciples? or did the women 'minister' to the Lord and the disciples?

2. If we believe that Jesus is God in the flesh then the words of God the Father when He said - "I am the Lord I do not change" have to mean something more for us than "If Jesus was here now He would see that things have changed - He would understand."

So I ask is it for women to be leaders/elders/ministers/pastors or is it for men? Yet if there are not sufficient men - qualified men can women be leaders/elders if  they are more godly than any available men? What if the men that are available are not godly? 

I think the words of God - I am the Lord I do not change - still hold. Am I wrong??? I do not think so. I think it will be for God to judge in the end. He will have to winnow the choices that we make.

I shut my computer off and mulled this over and said, "Father this is something You have to help me with." That is when the 2 above thoughts came to me. God does not change for man. Man has in 6000 years changed and changed repeatedly - yet the one constant has been God the Father and His Word. "I am the Lord. I do not change."

[ajchurney]

 

That said I'd probably not join a church where a woman was an ordained pastor. An elder? Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with women being elders. Of course I see the office of a deacon (servant) and an elder (leader) in the church as two different positions.

I understand Timothy's position on elders and deacons but how do you see them in regard to women as opposed to minister?

 

A couple of things. Separation of the role of pastoring (shepherding) and being an elder is a a contrivance and not scriptural. A plurality of Elders co-pastored the early churches, and these Elders would have a mixture of the ministry gifts. Look at the church of Antioch for a prime example. The word "pastor" is a verb pertaining to shepherding, leading, everywhere in the NT except where directly connected to teaching, which happens to be the primary difference between the qualifications for Elder and Deacon (look it up!) A pastor and Elder are two different things only in the mind of the traditions of men, not the scriptures.

This entire discussion seems to miss a key point. Look at the verse that Paul quotes to support his statement about women in authority over a man.  Paul goes all the way back to the original marriage, which is God's pattern of authority. This has nothing to do with ancient culture (sorry Spock!) nor is it any sort of bash on women. Paul, by the Holy Spirit, is protecting the sanctity of divine order in the home by maintaining this order also in the church. If the woman is Elder, then she is now head over her own husband in all matters pertaining to the church. Even if she is a co-Elder, there still is no clear headship there.

Notice how Paul links teaching and authority over the man. This is the key to understanding the issue. Having said this, women should be free to exercise any Spiritual gift in the church as long as it is not an action of taking direct authority over her husband, and is in submission to the eldership, as with the men also, The NT absolutely encourages, even COMMANDS women to teach younger women and many other things. We need to not dig around to put artificial boundaries on anyone, neither do we have liberty to disregard such a clear doctrine by injected cultural arguments. Headship does not indicate any inequality! Jesus is not oppressed by His Father's headship!!

This is such a highly charged issue because people interpolate scripture and try to read their own pre-conceived notions into it, instead of simply studying it out prayerfully and accept the interpretation of scripture weighed against scripture alone. Culture and tradition tend to be the purest enemies of absolute truth. Would that I, and all of us could steadfastly guard against every single influence of these when we approach the scriptures. Let us not become so familiar with debating the Word that we get lax and flippant with it! May it never be!!!!!

PS- creepy oppressive men who abuse their authority and do not love their wives as Christ loves the church fuel huge fires of difficulty with the issues. This in no way, though changes absolute truth. 

[Littlelambseativy]

Yet, man is to be head over his wife as Christ is head over the man.

I understand how things have changed in today's society with man abrogating  authority to the woman by his absence in the home - but should this apply to the church? or do we follow the institution as ordained by God. I understand that there may not be willing men to be elders in the church and that women take their place but is that acceptable to God? I don't think so - His word stands firm not to be changed by man.

[enoob57]

That said I'd probably not join a church where a woman was an ordained pastor. An elder? Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with women being elders. Of course I see the office of a deacon (servant) and an elder (leader) in the church as two different positions.

I understand Timothy's position on elders and deacons but how do you see them in regard to women as opposed to minister?

A couple of things. Separation of the role of pastoring (shepherding) and being an elder is a a contrivance and not scriptural. A plurality of Elders co-pastored the early churches, and these Elders would have a mixture of the ministry gifts. Look at the church of Antioch for a prime example. The word "pastor" is a verb pertaining to shepherding, leading, everywhere in the NT except where directly connected to teaching, which happens to be the primary difference between the qualifications for Elder and Deacon (look it up!) A pastor and Elder are two different things only in the mind of the traditions of men, not the scriptures.

This entire discussion seems to miss a key point. Look at the verse that Paul quotes to support his statement about women in authority over a man.  Paul goes all the way back to the original marriage, which is God's pattern of authority. This has nothing to do with ancient culture (sorry Spock!) nor is it any sort of bash on women. Paul, by the Holy Spirit, is protecting the sanctity of divine order in the home by maintaining this order also in the church. If the woman is Elder, then she is now head over her own husband in all matters pertaining to the church. Even if she is a co-Elder, there still is no clear headship there.

Notice how Paul links teaching and authority over the man. This is the key to understanding the issue. Having said this, women should be free to exercise any Spiritual gift in the church as long as it is not an action of taking direct authority over her husband, and is in submission to the eldership, as with the men also, The NT absolutely encourages, even COMMANDS women to teach younger women and many other things. We need to not dig around to put artificial boundaries on anyone, neither do we have liberty to disregard such a clear doctrine by injected cultural arguments. Headship does not indicate any inequality! Jesus is not oppressed by His Father's headship!!

This is such a highly charged issue because people interpolate scripture and try to read their own pre-conceived notions into it, instead of simply studying it out prayerfully and accept the interpretation of scripture weighed against scripture alone. Culture and tradition tend to be the purest enemies of absolute truth. Would that I, and all of us could steadfastly guard against every single influence of these when we approach the scriptures. Let us not become so familiar with debating the Word that we get lax and flippant with it! May it never be!!!!!

PS- creepy oppressive men who abuse their authority and do not love their wives as Christ loves the church fuel huge fires of difficulty with the issues. This in no way, though changes absolute truth.

[Littlelambseativy]

So in absolute truth, women should not be elders in the church. Adam was head over Eve, Jesus over man and man over woman when it come to the spiritual. This is the law of God. When this is altered there is a breakdown of family as we see in Eve and Adam who submitted to Eve and in the leadership of the family. Yet there have been many women in history who have been excellent as ministers of the gospel - but they have not had leadership of the church. 

[ajchurney]

So in absolute truth, women should not be elders in the church. Adam was head over Eve, Jesus over man and man over woman when it come to the spiritual. This is the law of God. When this is altered there is a breakdown of family as we see in Eve and Adam who submitted to Eve and in the leadership of the family. Yet there have been many women in history who have been excellent as ministers of the gospel - but they have not had leadership of the church. 

In Israel, when there was spiritual apathy and no man would lead righteously, God raised up Deborah. I am not saying that there is never an exception to the principle put forth, as in this example of Deborah. However, the exception should never, ever be made the rule, but we should seek to understand why God made exception and correct ourselves! Here again, it has nothing to do with intrinsic superiority of giftedness of men, but merely God's divine order of headship and authority. Many times, God has much smarter and more gifted people under the authority of another simply because the person in authority handles that aspect of things better.

Women are amazing and wonderful and gifted!!!!

Blessings, Andy

[Hashe]

There are a number of issues which I believe are down played in this whole debate.

The first is that influence of Roman rule and law. All the New Testament was written within the Roman Empire under Roman Rule and Law. This has influenced aspects of that. For example slavery. This is allowed in the OT, but it is also foundational for Roman Rule. Within the NT we no where see writing against slavery. Rather we see comments on how slave masters should treat their slaves. Today, we understand that slavery is against God's original intention for humanity and Christian teaching for today for slave masters would be to free these slaves!

Likewise the place of women in society was influenced both by the OT and Roman Law. In Roman Law women were under the authority of their husbands. There are debates amongst scholars to the extent of women leadership in Roman society, but it seems it wasn't great. So, like slavery, it is unsurprising that we see this reflected in NT teaching. Should this also, like slavery, be something that should be understood in light of God's original intention for humanity?

 

A second issue is Paul's missionary heart for the Jews. Although Paul was the missionary to the Gentiles, Paul's desire to see Jews saved was so great, he would have given up his own salvation for it (Rom 9:13). He wanted Jews saved, and this is reflected in his teaching. A gentile gathering was very different to a Jewish synagogue in Paul's day. In the synagogue, women sat on the opposite side to men, and they were no allowed to talk or teach during the service. Paul's desire to see this reflected in church services is perhaps part of his desire to see Jewish people reached. If they walked into a religious meeting which was out of control and had should complete disregard to the way they did things, they were unlikely to stick around and hear the message of Jesus. Should this then become the norm for people today?

[Littlelambseativy]

I believe women sat at the back and if they did not hear something they would call out to the men "What did he say?" 

You say "Should this then become the norm for today?" Does that apply to all of God's word? "If Jesus was here today He would see that things are different and He would not command as He did in the Bible. He would understand." Is this the way we see the Bible and God? The God who said I am the Lord I do not change. Man changes and wants the Bible to suit his purpose. 

As elders or leaders they should be godly men who fear God and set an example for others. When it comes to deacons I can understand women taking that role. But elders?? NO. Nor should men/women who belong to organizations which do not hold Almighty God as the only true living God and worship Him alone.

[ajchurney]

There are a number of issues which I believe are down played in this whole debate.

The first is that influence of Roman rule and law. All the New Testament was written within the Roman Empire under Roman Rule and Law. This has influenced aspects of that. For example slavery. This is allowed in the OT, but it is also foundational for Roman Rule. Within the NT we no where see writing against slavery. Rather we see comments on how slave masters should treat their slaves. Today, we understand that slavery is against God's original intention for humanity and Christian teaching for today for slave masters would be to free these slaves!

Likewise the place of women in society was influenced both by the OT and Roman Law. In Roman Law women were under the authority of their husbands. There are debates amongst scholars to the extent of women leadership in Roman society, but it seems it wasn't great. So, like slavery, it is unsurprising that we see this reflected in NT teaching. Should this also, like slavery, be something that should be understood in light of God's original intention for humanity?

 

A second issue is Paul's missionary heart for the Jews. Although Paul was the missionary to the Gentiles, Paul's desire to see Jews saved was so great, he would have given up his own salvation for it (Rom 9:13). He wanted Jews saved, and this is reflected in his teaching. A gentile gathering was very different to a Jewish synagogue in Paul's day. In the synagogue, women sat on the opposite side to men, and they were no allowed to talk or teach during the service. Paul's desire to see this reflected in church services is perhaps part of his desire to see Jewish people reached. If they walked into a religious meeting which was out of control and had should complete disregard to the way they did things, they were unlikely to stick around and hear the message of Jesus. Should this then become the norm for people today?

Hashe, ultimately, the scriptures interpret the scriptures. It is highly speculative to inject ideas about Paul's motives, particularly when He appeals to scripture to support His point, and nothing of any cultural reference. Paul used Adam and Eve as his foundation, nothing else. You have to give this serious gravity before you go looking to things outside the scripture to interpret it, and that by speculation. I am not saying that historical and cultural references do not have some utility, but one must be careful when drastically altering a clear statement or negating it altogether, simply on an assumed cultural frame of reference that has now changed. If Paul had appealed in some way to any of the things you mention as a basis of his instruction, then we can give it credence, otherwise, we are close to revisionism. I am also not saying that there are not places where Paul makes these types of "advice" but this is not one of them. The entire NT never presents a female Elder, and this is consistent with Paul's rhetoric. 

Blessings, Andy