Women in the Church today

[Ovedya]

It is incorrect to say that Jesus never used women.

Mary.... he told her to go tell the disciples that he had risen. When the men did not believe without seeing.... she did and obeyed Jesus. She never denied him like Peter did.

The woman at the well... "go tell" your husband... and the whole town... and many were saved because of her.

Paul used women in the ministry who worked along side him "labouring in the Lord" and dying for the faith as he did. Their names are in Romans 16. There were women apostles. Phoebe was a minister... not just a deaconness.

Priscilla was a pastor. She was so good at her doctrine that she had to correct Apollos who was preaching incorrect.

God uses women... Always has..... what about Deborah .. the judge of all Israel... heard from God... a prophet... lead the war in which they won. The men were too chicken. Deborah had faith where others did not. You can argue she was not a pastor... well, the church did not exist then either.... however, to lead over all Israel, hear from God, pass on this word is what pastors do.

Isaiah married a woman prophet.

Anna was a prophetess who recognized who Jesus was.

etc etc

These are incorrect examples. You are confering authority upon the women cited in your example that they never had. Yes, the Lord chose Mary as a vessel to bring forth Christ. However, she never took a position of authority over men, unless the Lord permitted it.

Neither Priscilla nor Aqiula were pastors. The Bible does not give them that title at all; nor does it give them any such authority. In Acts 18:26 it says that they "expounded the way" more accurately to Apollos. It does not say whether Priscilla took more of a lead than her husband. In fact, it does not explain her role in that incident at all.

And since we are discussing the role of women in the New Testament church, your examples of Deborah and Isaiah really don't apply. You indicated such yourself when you wrote, "Well, the church did not exist then either."

The roles of prophetess and deaconess in the New Testament church were different than the role of elder/teacher - or what we commonly refer to as the office of pastor. There were really only two offices in the New Testament which held the type of authority which Paul did not permit women to have: Apostle and elder. The apostleship was a role that Paul and Timothy both exercized, and it consisted mainly of establishing local churches and shephering them in "The Way." The eldership was a role in the local church which consisted of oversight. They were overseers of the church, who continued in the fellowship of the apostles and built up the local churches according to the teachings of the apostles. Both the apostleship and the eldership held positions of authority in the churches which permitted them to define doctrine and to establish the pure teachings of the church.

A deacon (Diakonos) in the church was a "serving one," as the word in the Greek indicates. Those in this office took care of the many practical affairs of the church such as caring for the poor and handling the treasury. This office was one of serving the church and taking care of the practical needs of the church. The office did not involve the establishment of church doctrine, nor did it involve the teaching of church doctrine to the saints in the local churches.

Throughout the many ages of church history we have added positions in the church and we have granted certain positions with certain authority. In some local churches a deacon may take an active role in the establishment of doctrine, and in teaching. In other places there are several other "levels" of church authority. But in the early church there were no such offices. There were only two offices which held the kind of authority which Paul prohibited women from holding: Apostle and elder.

[Smalcald]

Secular feminist political pressure? I think not. There is nothing secular about it. In fact, the whole notion that masculists are believing is secular.

I have no idea what this means.

The reason we don't ordain women is because the role of pastor and its requirements are clearly shown in scripture to be reserved for males. Any idea, which would contradict that, would come from outside of scripture and be secular in nature. In the case of the Episcopal Church USA it came from the secular feminist movement who claimed that Paul himself was sexist as were his writings in the New Testament. So now we see ECUSA saying that fornication is acceptable, that gay sex is acceptable among their bishops, and that Christ is not the only way to salvation. This is where this junk leads, and it is junk.

Is the bible itself a masculist document? I mean why didn't Christ appoint any female apostles? Was Christ a masculist? Certainly feminists would criticize Him today for only selecting men as Apostles correct? Maybe God should be seen as a Mother Earth type figure, a Goddess? This is the common claptrap language from those who are in the process of politicizing the bible for use in their own secular hang-ups. We cannot create a God that fits our notions or our politics, the only God we have and the only true God is revealed in Holy Scripture.

But I don't know if you are in that camp or not, and I am not laying that all on you at all, if not accept my apologies in advance.

[Ovedya]

I personally prefer the Bible over Luther and Calvin.

Me to Ovedya!

Which is why I agree with worm, Luther, and Calvin.

But come on, if you can't hug someone or lay hands on someone, or hold hands with someone, or pray as one, you don't have a visible church. Baptism takes a human touch, communion means to eat together as one, to be as one with Christ. The eternal universal Christian Church is present among believers on worthy who have true faith.

Now worthy is indeed a tool of evangelism and I support it. I don't agree with many that post here on some points of doctrine, in fact there are many differing points of view here on doctrine, which is a great thing. I think Christians need more of this kind of discussion, it helps us and brings us together on the core things we indeed do agree on. But a congregation cannot have that diversity of belief it must be in unity of belief and doctrine.

I do think and firmly believe that there are many here who are part of the true eternal universal church, and I do believe Christ does indeed use Worthy!

If the church is universal, as you and I both agree, the Worthy is the church.

I don'e believe at all that in order for a baptizm to be "genuine" it has to be conducted under a certain authority in a certain sect or denomination. When a believer is baptized he is baptized into the Body of Christ, which is universal. A believer need not be re-baptized when he goes from one Christian sect to another. Neither must he renounce his former communions in favor of taking a "new communion" with another congregation. These two acts are matters of the Body, not of religious institutions, not of local churches.

It is not wrong to say that Worthy is the church because we are. It may not be "a church" in your concept of what a "true church" is, but it is "the church." Try to think of it like this: The church is universal, but it has local expressions. The local expressions of the church are the congregations which most of us attend on a regular basis. It is those places where the Body of Christ is expressed practically on a local level. In terms of locality, no, Worthy is not "a church." It is however an expression of the universal Body of Christ.

[st. Worm]

I think the visible church is real and has certain characteristics. Luther said the marks of a true church are that it properly preaches the gospel and administers the sacraments. Calvin added church discipline as a third mark. I think both of those are biblically reasonable. Worthy board really exhibits none of those and is not a church. It is a gathering of those who are both in the church and out. There are both unbelievers and those who have rejected Christ's church here as part of a bad anti church movement. This is not a criticism of worthy board in any way. But it is not a church.

sw

I personally prefer the Bible over Luther and Calvin.

But that's just me.

I am so glad that you believe you are more studied in the Bible than both Luther and Calvin. Btw, overdya, you forgot to throw in the term "man made doctrine".

sw

[st. Worm]

The church I attend is blessed with a wonderful husband and wife ministry team. It's my belief that when the Lord calls upon someone to minister to his people that their gender isn't equated into their qualification or dedication.

The Lord calls men to the pastorate through the truth of His Word. You are making up your own rules and qualifications just because you perceive it works. Your belief appears independent of what God has already said.

sw

[Smalcald]

The church I attend is blessed with a wonderful husband and wife ministry team. It's my belief that when the Lord calls upon someone to minister to his people that their gender isn't equated into their qualification or dedication.

I think women are actually more dedicated in many of the congregations I have seen, and they are certainly just as qualified as men to hold the position of pastor. But that does not change scripture, which I am bound to follow.

[Ovedya]

I think the visible church is real and has certain characteristics. Luther said the marks of a true church are that it properly preaches the gospel and administers the sacraments. Calvin added church discipline as a third mark. I think both of those are biblically reasonable. Worthy board really exhibits none of those and is not a church. It is a gathering of those who are both in the church and out. There are both unbelievers and those who have rejected Christ's church here as part of a bad anti church movement. This is not a criticism of worthy board in any way. But it is not a church.

sw

I personally prefer the Bible over Luther and Calvin.

But that's just me.

I am so glad that you believe you are more studied in the Bible than both Luther and Calvin. Btw, overdya, you forgot to throw in the term "man made doctrine".

sw

O-V-E-D-Y-A

I didn't say that I was "more studied" than either Luther or Calvin. I just said that I prefer the Bible over........

man made doctrine."

[st. Worm]

I think the visible church is real and has certain characteristics. Luther said the marks of a true church are that it properly preaches the gospel and administers the sacraments. Calvin added church discipline as a third mark. I think both of those are biblically reasonable. Worthy board really exhibits none of those and is not a church. It is a gathering of those who are both in the church and out. There are both unbelievers and those who have rejected Christ's church here as part of a bad anti church movement. This is not a criticism of worthy board in any way. But it is not a church.

sw

I personally prefer the Bible over Luther and Calvin.

But that's just me.

I am so glad that you believe you are more studied in the Bible than both Luther and Calvin. Btw, overdya, you forgot to throw in the term "man made doctrine".

sw

O-V-E-D-Y-A

I didn't say that I was "more studied" than either Luther or Calvin. I just said that I prefer the Bible over........

man made doctrine."

Yeah, me too. And what I said flows from that same Bible just as Luther and Calvin believed.

sw

[Ovedya]

O-V-E-D-Y-A

I didn't say that I was "more studied" than either Luther or Calvin. I just said that I prefer the Bible over........

man made doctrine."

Yeah, me too. And what I said flows from that same Bible just as Luther and Calvin believed.

sw

...And many others who formulated doctrines outside the apostles teachings.

[Nero's Fiddle]

Not that it isn't interesting debating whether worthy is or is not a church...

But I still haven't seen a single explanation as to why this is directly relevant to female pastorship.

Twice now I've posted an explanation as to why it is not relevant in the first place, why worthy being a church (if it were) would not make the roles females have here unBiblical, and no one has said anything to indicate otherwise.

I don't mean to nag by continuing to bring it up, but I believe it is an important point.