Women in the Church today

[Guest jckduboise]

There's always opportunity for abuse no matter which way you go, which is just another result of the fall. The potential for abuse does not nullify specific commands and guidelines set forth in Scripture though. If anything, this only gives further reasons why humans need authority, discipline and guidance...not less of it.

Sure I am not disagreeing tess.

But I just think in many ways the Christ view of authority is different from our human view. For example power and the love of power, has no place in a Christian leader or an individual Christian, the same would go with control, and people who like to control and have a need for control of others in relationships or organizationally. These concepts are totally inverse from the concept of humility as preached by Christ. The Shepherd analogy is a good one. For those of us who have worked in agriculture, we can see that indeed herding is not controlling.

So when I see men in particular who have issues around power and control, then we must be very careful they don't confuse that prideful state of mind with the spiritual command for the role of men and women, and the spiritual roles they hold in the church and in the home.

I agree, however, I think people often use the potential for abuse argument as a means of disregarding Scripture. People are fallen, and of course we will not always reflect things the way God intends them. But again, we are each responsible for our own choices. God demands obedience and abhors rebellion. I can't refuse to obey authority figures in my life simply because they are human and fallible, or because they could abuse their authority. My responsibility is to obey, and God deals with them on their part. Of course they should lead with love and tenderness, be sacrificial and self-less....but that's between them and God. And also, we can't see Christ as only a tender Shepherd and forget that He is also a disciplinarian. Hebrews 12 teaches us that the Lord disciplines those who are His, those that He loves. Discipline is part of love, as much as we'd rather it wasn't sometimes. Even in the analogy of Christ and the Church...the Bride submits to the Bridegroom through obedience. Of course, a husband should love his wife like Christ loved the church...but her obedience to him doesn't hinge on his obedience to the Lord. That's why I say we should each focus on our own roles and our own responsibility to obey...instead of trying to use someone else's disobedience (or potential for it) as an excuse for our own disobedience.

very good Tess, very good

[firehill]

It does seem though that your ideology of male hegemony boils down to, '...we humans need authority over us to control us...'

1) You're trying to shift me into a group so you can attack my ideaology instead of what I bring up as scripture. Likewise, by doing this, it gives you the ability to say, "well you're scripture is wrong because you're interpreting it through your false ideology" without actually responding to the interpretation. This is in any debate the last call of a dying man.

[Nero's Fiddle]

I am seeing something that is disturbing me very much, and I think it needs to be addressed. Several posts have been written by the pro-women pastor individuals that I believe disclose a deeper problem in the understanding of Scripture, and it has not been mentioned yet.

The problem I'm seeing is the undue focus on women's issues in the way a few people are viewing Christianity and Scripture here.

While Scripture definitely gives us clear guidance on such issues, they are not the primary focus of Scripture, Christianity, or history itself.

Feminism is not the mindset through which theology is intended to be viewed, whether you are a feminist or not.

Satan's temptation of Eve was not a way of "going after" women specifically because of a special vendetta against them, as was implied in one post. Neither is Satan's primary mission in attacking the Church the suppression of women. Neither was Christ's focus in His life and ministry the liberating of women from male-oriented Jewish society.

---------------------------completely unrelated------------------------------

From what I can tell, the problem here seems to be that those espousing the feministic viewpoint are convinced that those Scriptures aren't saying what they seem... rather clearly... to be saying.

Exactly, what is 'clear' about what a verse or text only 'seems' to say?

To be perfectly honest, I had a hard time finding wording for this post that did not sound harsh. The phrasing I chose was an attempt not to be unkind. I didn't want to say "I believe they're twisting Scripture dreadfully", because you could only have perceived that as an attack, and that is not my purpose here.

[firehill]

---------------------------completely unrelated------------------------------

From what I can tell, the problem here seems to be that those espousing the feministic viewpoint are convinced that those Scriptures aren't saying what they seem... rather clearly... to be saying.

Exactly, what is 'clear' about what a verse or text only 'seems' to say?

To be perfectly honest, I had a hard time finding wording for this post that did not sound harsh. The phrasing I chose was an attempt not to be unkind. I didn't want to say "I believe they're twisting Scripture dreadfully", because you could only have perceived that as an attack, and that is not my purpose here.

I'm fine with you having cleared up why you posted what you did. I like that you explained yourself. I had responded to what you did write not knowing your specific reasoning behind it since the reason was not given. I understand your reason for not having written, "I believe they're twisting Scripture dreadfully". For at least some, surely it is true that such a statement could have been perceived as an attack. I agree with your purpose not to come across as attacking. I apologize if you could only have perceived what I wrote as an attack.

[Nero's Fiddle]

By the way, welcome to Worthy, firehill!

You are brave to jump right in to such a controversial discussion.

[firehill]

By the way, welcome to Worthy, firehill!

You are brave to jump right in to such a controversial discussion.

I wish I could view my jumping into this topic here at this website as bravery. I won't flatter myself for attempting to express the biblical viewpoint of equality since it is not a matter of bravery on my part. Thank you for the welcome!

[Smalcald]

Sure I totally agree that a biblical viewpoint is one of equality.

But that has nothing to do with the very clear biblical mandate that the office's of pastor, deacon and elder be held by men. Equality does not mean that men and women are the same, even children know this is not true.

Certainly we cannot look at Christian authority the same as we do human authority, I do agree with what I think you are saying on that point, as Christ stands that on its head what it really means to lead. But from a biblical standpoint, you have to do major biblical twisting, or more likely simply ignore scripture to say that women should be ordained as pastors, deacons or elders in a Christian Church.

The passages I quoted earlier which directly addressed the issue of who should be in these roles, was very clear and I have not heard anything which would contradict them.

[Smalcald]

Sure I totally agree that a biblical viewpoint is one of equality.

But that has nothing to do with the very clear biblical mandate that the office's of pastor, deacon and elder be held by men. Equality does not mean that men and women are the same, even children know this is not true.

Certainly we cannot look at Christian authority the same as we do human authority, I do agree with what I think you are saying on that point, as Christ stands that on its head what it really means to lead. But from a biblical standpoint, you have to do major biblical twisting, or more likely simply ignore scripture to say that women should be ordained as pastors, deacons or elders in a Christian Church.

The passages I quoted earlier which directly addressed the issue of who should be in these roles, was very clear and I have not heard anything which would contradict them.

[Nero's Fiddle]

I wish I could view my jumping into this topic here at this website as bravery. I won't flatter myself for attempting to express the biblical viewpoint of equality since it is not a matter of bravery on my part. Thank you for the welcome!

I think the question of equality has become skewed in terms of feminism.

I once saw a bumper sticker that read "Feminism is the Radical Notion that Women are People".

To my way of thinking, it seems more honest to say that feminism is the notion that women must be men to be equal with men.

If a woman can't hold the office of Pastor, says feminism, it is not because women and men are different and suited for different things, but rather because they are being discriminated against.

Feminism has made femininity in the Biblical sense oppression.

Is a fork better than a spoon? Of course not. Is a fork better suited for eating steak than a spoon? Absolutely. Is a spoon better suited for eating soup than a fork? Absolutely.

Feminism is telling the spoons that they have to become steak-eating utensils to be as good as forks.

This is not correct, and indeed has proven quite detrimental.

[firehill]

...but her obedience to him doesn't hinge on his obedience to the Lord. That's why I say we should each focus on our own roles and our own responsibility to obey...instead of trying to use someone else's disobedience (or potential for it) as an excuse for our own disobedience.

In the Greek and the entire Bible, a wife is never admonished to obey her husband but rather to submit though slaves were admonished to obey thier masters.