Women pastors

[Ovedya]

I think even the cultural argument fails, because human culture is not God-ordained. Human culture is the result of the fall. So if Paul wrote to human culture, then we would be forced to confess that eventually the Bible is not truly the complete Word of God.

[Smalcald]

I think even the cultural argument fails, because human culture is not God-ordained. Human culture is the result of the fall. So if Paul wrote to human culture, then we would be forced to confess that eventually the Bible is not truly the complete Word of God.

Yes that is my opinion also. That argument is actually what was and is used by the mainline denominations which all ordain women. The argument is that scripture contains the Word of God, but is not complete and must be moderated using modern historical criticism and historical context. The bible contains both the personal opinions and prejudices of the authors but also is inspired by God, and being modern people with God given minds we can and should actually read the bible as a culturally bound document which also contains important truths for us today. But when reading it we must always keep in mind the cultural limitations of the authors.

I am certainly NOT saying that my brothers and sisters here on Worthy who happen to belong to congregations which ordain women don't take scripture seriously or believe in the above argument. But they should realize that this is the argument which was used by the majority of denominations that had this debate forty or fifty years ago and started ordaining women in the 1960's and 1970's. Remember prior to then, women were not ordained.

[exrockstar]

I think that whatever God has prophesied concerning the church does not let us off the hook. Even while the outcome may be known, we are not released from our mission to present the truth of God's Word every day, every year, every century until Jesus' return when ALL shall bow, and those things that now we "see through a glass darkly", shall be known.

Ruth

i never said we should walk around and act like we give up.

this topic isnt about presenting and letting some one know about Christ.

im all for that.

[methinkshe]

I think that whatever God has prophesied concerning the church does not let us off the hook. Even while the outcome may be known, we are not released from our mission to present the truth of God's Word every day, every year, every century until Jesus' return when ALL shall bow, and those things that now we "see through a glass darkly", shall be known.

Ruth

i never said we should walk around and act like we give up.

this topic isnt about presenting and letting some one know about Christ.

im all for that.

Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear - I was agreeing with you and adding to what you said. What I was trying to say was that even though we know through prophecy that the church will become heretical except for the little flock, that does not absolve us from fighting the heresies. I am entirely in agreement with you. My fault entirely for any misunderstanding.

Ruth

[firehill]

Thanks for answering to my second paragraph but I noticed that you didn't answer my first which I posted above. Before you can claim or interpret that Paul is reverting back to the plural of v.10 by using 'they' in v.15 BECAUSE 'she' (as you claim) refers to Eve as the prototypical woman you need to answer to what link Paul makes between Eve being created after Adam.

Wait. Why is it necessary for me to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation?

The reason for Paul's use of the anarthrous noun γυνή is because he is setting himself up to argue from the prototypical man and woman.

It would be strange to have only one particular woman in the church with this special relationship to Eve, the prototypical woman. What makes this woman so special that Paul calls her out for this proscription against teaching men that doesn't apply to other women? Does she have some unique relationship with Eve that other women do not?

From http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2499, Terri Darby Moore says:

Most commentators and scholars see these two verbs in 1 Tim 2:15 as both referring generically to all women, with the conditional clause qualifying the discussion to refer to Christian women in particular. The singular swqhvsetai applies collectively to the whole sex while referring especially to the representative woman, Eve, mentioned in the previous verse. The shift to the plural in the conditional clause makes it clear that the entire sentence refers, not merely to one woman, but to the women addressed in the entire passage. Thus the main clause of the sentence cannot be separated from the conditional clause since it must be interpreted in light of the qualifications presented by the ejavn clause. The shift from Eve to the women at Ephesus is subtle, with the proper name, Eve, used in verse 13, the generic noun (hJ gunhv) used in verse 14, the singular verb in verse 15a, and the plural verb in verse 15b. The entire paragraph (verses 9-15) concerning women often shifts from the plural to the generic singular, thus explaining the awkwardness of the change in number here. The plural use of gunhv in verses 9-10 refers to the larger sphere of women, the singular uses in verses 11-12 and in verse 14 referring to Eve have a generic or representative force, and verse 15 expands from the representative back to the larger sphere of Christian women with which the passage began. This shift in number is a characteristic of paraenetic style and occurs throughout the passage, thus there is no reason to interpret it as connoting a change of subject.

Given the problems with the alternative (taking γυνή to refer to some particular woman), I'm not sure why these arguments for understanding γυνή as a generic noun aren't sufficient for you.

-Neopatriarch

Wait. Why is it necessary for me to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation?

K, wait. You first ask in response to my post why is it necessary for you to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation? In response, how can you ask why you need to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation? Is that ALL Paul referenced in vv13 & 14? Is this what Paul said:

'I do not alow, a woman...for Adam was creadted first and then Eve.' NO. It is not.

He makes a connection between the order. So if he makes a connection between the order then he's not simply referencing the order of creation. So does it matter what link he made between Adam being created first then Eve or NOT? Did he link the order of creation to Adam's responsibity over Eve, his authority over her, his leadership, his headship? NO. He linked Adam's being created first to NONE of those. So what did he link the order of creation to. He STATED the links.

[methinkshe]

Incidentally, I think the argument that, "Well men aren't doing the job so women have to step in and take over" is specious at best. Who says that men aren't doing the job? In my opinion, mostly women who want the job!

From my observation it seems to be that when women step forward, men step back, and the more men step back the more women step forward. There is a general feminisation of society that has allowed this to occur but one would have thought that the church, instructed by God's Word, would be immune to it - not so in my experience. What first allowed women to step forward and men to step back is a kind of chicken and egg debate, as far as I can tell, but the problem is that we are now on a self-perpetuating helix of female domination, both in society and in the church, and against God's ordained order of authority - and that can lead to nothing good.

Ruth

[Ovedya]

Thanks for answering to my second paragraph but I noticed that you didn't answer my first which I posted above. Before you can claim or interpret that Paul is reverting back to the plural of v.10 by using 'they' in v.15 BECAUSE 'she' (as you claim) refers to Eve as the prototypical woman you need to answer to what link Paul makes between Eve being created after Adam.

Wait. Why is it necessary for me to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation?

The reason for Paul's use of the anarthrous noun γυνή is because he is setting himself up to argue from the prototypical man and woman.

It would be strange to have only one particular woman in the church with this special relationship to Eve, the prototypical woman. What makes this woman so special that Paul calls her out for this proscription against teaching men that doesn't apply to other women? Does she have some unique relationship with Eve that other women do not?

From http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2499, Terri Darby Moore says:

Most commentators and scholars see these two verbs in 1 Tim 2:15 as both referring generically to all women, with the conditional clause qualifying the discussion to refer to Christian women in particular. The singular swqhvsetai applies collectively to the whole sex while referring especially to the representative woman, Eve, mentioned in the previous verse. The shift to the plural in the conditional clause makes it clear that the entire sentence refers, not merely to one woman, but to the women addressed in the entire passage. Thus the main clause of the sentence cannot be separated from the conditional clause since it must be interpreted in light of the qualifications presented by the ejavn clause. The shift from Eve to the women at Ephesus is subtle, with the proper name, Eve, used in verse 13, the generic noun (hJ gunhv) used in verse 14, the singular verb in verse 15a, and the plural verb in verse 15b. The entire paragraph (verses 9-15) concerning women often shifts from the plural to the generic singular, thus explaining the awkwardness of the change in number here. The plural use of gunhv in verses 9-10 refers to the larger sphere of women, the singular uses in verses 11-12 and in verse 14 referring to Eve have a generic or representative force, and verse 15 expands from the representative back to the larger sphere of Christian women with which the passage began. This shift in number is a characteristic of paraenetic style and occurs throughout the passage, thus there is no reason to interpret it as connoting a change of subject.

Given the problems with the alternative (taking γυνή to refer to some particular woman), I'm not sure why these arguments for understanding γυνή as a generic noun aren't sufficient for you.

-Neopatriarch

Wait. Why is it necessary for me to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation?

K, wait. You first ask in response to my post why is it necessary for you to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation? In response, how can you ask why you need to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation? Is that ALL Paul referenced in vv13 & 14? Is this what Paul said:

'I do not alow, a woman...for Adam was creadted first and then Eve.' NO. It is not.

He makes a connection between the order. So if he makes a connection between the order then he's not simply referencing the order of creation. So does it matter what link he made between Adam being created first then Eve or NOT? Did he link the order of creation to Adam's responsibity over Eve, his authority over her, his leadership, his headship? NO. He linked Adam's being created first to NONE of those. So what did he link the order of creation to. He STATED the links.

The link is important because, as having the first place in creation, Adam is given the authority. Of course it matters. Paul's reference was Scriptural support for his statement that a woman is not to assert authority over a man. Arguing against this, then becomes an issue between you and Paul.

[Ovedya]

Incidentally, I think the argument that, "Well men aren't doing the job so women have to step in and take over" is specious at best. Who says that men aren't doing the job? In my opinion, mostly women who want the job!

From my observation it seems to be that when women step forward, men step back, and the more men step back the more women step forward. There is a general feminisation of society that has allowed this to occur but one would have thought that the church, instructed by God's Word, would be immune to it - not so in my experience. What first allowed women to step forward and men to step back is a kind of chicken and egg debate, as far as I can tell, but the problem is that we are now on a self-perpetuating helix of female domination, both in society and in the church, and against God's ordained order of authority - and that can lead to nothing good.

Ruth

So it looks like the church is following the pattern of the world rather being a pattern for the world to follow.

[OopsMartin]

Incidentally, I think the argument that, "Well men aren't doing the job so women have to step in and take over" is specious at best. Who says that men aren't doing the job? In my opinion, mostly women who want the job!

From my observation it seems to be that when women step forward, men step back, and the more men step back the more women step forward. There is a general feminisation of society that has allowed this to occur but one would have thought that the church, instructed by God's Word, would be immune to it - not so in my experience. What first allowed women to step forward and men to step back is a kind of chicken and egg debate, as far as I can tell, but the problem is that we are now on a self-perpetuating helix of female domination, both in society and in the church, and against God's ordained order of authority - and that can lead to nothing good.

Ruth

That rather demeans men. Believe me men are not so afraid of women or so lazy as a group that if women are doing something we don't think we need to participate. Well, unless it's the dishes or changing diapers. But that's because we don't LIKE to do those JOBS. And who would dare say that men don't LIKE to lead, boss, direct, control.....

And who says that leading in the church ministries is about "taking control". I suppose many actually DO approach it that way. But that isn't what God has in mind. The foundation for ALL ministry is to be service..... humility, meekness, service yet with the dunamis/power of the Holy Spirit.

Foolish Poodles was the author that introduced a most nutsy idea that the problems with modern church is women's involvement. Not Scriptural and not even true. All leadership throughout all denominations is predominantly male. Even when women are given the freedom to serve, still males are predominant. Poodles even went so far as to categorize songs (the more masculine in tone are the preferred) and to question women's participation in church decoration. Follow this nuts ideas and we'd have a wall separating the women from the men while the men only sing marching war songs in a decoration of sports and drabs.

But to each their own. Someone once mentioned (not on this forum) a male only church and a female only church might be the way to go for some groups.

[OopsMartin]

So it looks like the church is following the pattern of the world rather being a pattern for the world to follow.

I don't think so. Even on a good day, the non believing look at churches as odd at best, stupid at worst.