WOMEN PASTORS

[EricH]

A book I recommend highly is Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood A Response to Evangelical Feminism edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. It covers many facets of this issue and deals with them in a sensitive and biblical manner

[chimoku]

Well I'm not persuaded either way ...

However, having been in the mission field myself (in a minor capacity) and having read what so many missionary women accomplished almost single handed forging into hostile pagan territories - living in substandard situations, developing churches, leading & teaching, yes, men and women and children in the way of the Lord I am careful not to be presumptive about this sort of thing . . .

if its o.k. for a woman to preach in Africa - its gotta be o.k. for a woman to preach in No America -

But its not prescriptive.

God is not prescriptive - He does honor and use context -

Deborah for instance was a prophetess who judged Israel - and she also in a sense became a military leader - as Barak agreed -( if I remember the account ) to fight the Canaanites only under the proviso that she accompany him . ...

She taught and had authority over men in both capacities

And Zipporah circumcised her son (Exodus 2) -

Had she not, the account in Exodus tells us God would have killed Moses -

I suppose she usurped the authority of her husband to obey the authority of God ....

If there isn't an obedient godly male, God can use a woman to complete His work . . .

[Smalcald]

Yeah I see your point. Let us ere on the side of getting the Word out, I agree.

But from my perspective I was not talking about women being missionaries, or evangelists or preaching, I think all of those things are acceptable and biblical and we wouldn

[Trust & Obey]

Yeah I see your point. Let us ere on the side of getting the Word out, I agree.

But from my perspective I was not talking about women being missionaries, or evangelists or preaching, I think all of those things are acceptable and biblical and we wouldn

[Smalcald]

I agree.

I think what we really need to guard against is using that very specific proscription in the scriptures as an excuse to denigrate women, or as an excuse for men who have issues with females to express some sort of chauvinism or male dominance, which I think is un-Christian. I don't oppose women Bishops or Elders becuase I don't think they are qualified to do the job, I think that they are, I oppose it simply based on Paul's specific guidence on exactly who these people should be.

We are all exactly equal in the eyes of God.

[Trust & Obey]

I agree.

I think what we really need to guard against is using that very specific proscription in the scriptures as an excuse to denigrate women, or as an excuse for men who have issues with females to express some sort of chauvinism or male dominance, which I think is un-Christian.  I don't oppose women Bishops or Elders becuase I don't think they are qualified to do the job, I think that they are, I oppose it simply based on Paul's specific guidence on exactly who these people should be. 

We are all exactly equal in the eyes of God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points.

Another thing to remember is that Christianity is and always has been, a very liberating element in the lives of women. Women are historically suppressed and trampled in a culture without Christ. Look at the cultures around the world. It is really only in "Western Culture (i.e. culture that has been impacted by Christianity)" where women have equality and dignity.

In all other "non-Christian cultures" you easily see how women are treated as less than equals. This is true in Asian cultures, Islamic cultures, and even in much of the Latin world.

Those who argue that the Bible is sexist and chauvinistic simply do not know history.

Just as the Captain is no better than the Private, so neither is the man better than the woman. They simply have different roles in God's hierarchy of the family and society.

[EricH]

Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.

1 Timothy 2:11 NASB

This instruction by Paul was actually liberating to the women of Paul's time. It was not common for women to receive instruction. The fact that Paul allowed them to receive instruction was a new privelege, and went counter culture. This was a new thing Paul was introducing. So, we think of it as restrictive, but in Pauls' time it was liberating

In that light Paul's instructions make sense. He provides the new paradigm, but then issues a limit:

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.

1 Timothy 2:12-14 NASB

Even though Paul is creating a new paradigm, he realizes people may be tempted to take it too far. So he places limits on the new paradigm (notice the word "but"). This new freedom can not be used as permission to violate the creation order or the the results of the fall. So women's new freedom in the church is still conditioned by creation and the roles for which God created men and women.

This does not imply either one is more important than the other. It is just a difference in roles.

[Guest JAR61]

Theology 101 states that Scripture was given to bring man back into a right relationship with God. It also states that the culture of man is never to influence or alter how we shape God

[chimoku]

Now, in the mission field example is it acceptable on a temporary basis? I would have to agree that it is better than the alternative... that alternative being nobody filling the role. But, the woman serving abroad in that capacity ought to know the situation to be temporary as they actively seek a man called of God to fill the role.

Well, either God said women categorically cannot teach & have authority over men or He didn't.

Now you [/b( not God) ]are qualifying that, giving provisos . . .

Besides missionaries are called by God - generally it is a lifettime service.

Although men enter into those mission fields, those female missionaries stay on and continue in their leadership roles forging into other areas or working collaboratively with men.

What about seminaries...?

We have seminaries filled with women professors and teachers with degrees coming out of their ying yang, published to the hilt- TEACHING men who will in turn become pastors and priests ...

Women are TEACHING & having AUTHORITY over the men in that context.

Edited September 15, 2005 by chimoku

[Trust & Obey]

Now, in the mission field example is it acceptable on a temporary basis? I would have to agree that it is better than the alternative... that alternative being nobody filling the role. But, the woman serving abroad in that capacity ought to know the situation to be temporary as they actively seek a man called of God to fill the role.

Well, either God said women categorically cannot teach & have authority over men or He didn't.

Now you [/b( not God) ]are qualifying that, giving provisos . . .

Besides missionaries are called by God - generally it is a lifettime service.

Although men enter into those mission fields, those female missionaries stay on and continue in their leadership roles forging into other areas or working collaboratively with men.

What about seminaries...?

We have seminaries filled with women professors and teachers with degrees coming out of their ying yang, published to the hilt- TEACHING men who will in turn become pastors and priests ...

Women are TEACHING & having AUTHORITY over the men in that context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't want to get into all of the problems at the seminaries today.