Women pastors

[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

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

Exactly so! No being salt, no in the world but not of the world, just blind following the world. Judgement begins in the house of God and we have much to answer for.

In Jesus,

Ruth

[Ovedya]

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.

Perhaps it's because the church is so worldly that they view it as odd or stupid.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Ovedya

[firehill]

The link is important because, as having the first place in creation, Adam is given the authority.

Don't you find it telling though that Paul didn't conntect Adam being created first to authority? That is not what vv. 13 & 14 say. Those verses do not make such a link.

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.

I've not even begun to discuss the meaning of that unusual word translated 'authority'. I'm still at the link Paul makes between Adam having been created first and it wasn't with authority.

13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Where does Paul link authority, (or even responsibility over Eve, leadership or anything similar) to Adam being created first in those verses? He doesn't but rather he links something else. If you say Paul is linking his being created first to authority then you are adding to those verses of the Word. On the other hand it is VISIBLE what connection he is making.

[Floatingaxe]

I currently attend a fellowship where men and women teach and pastor ( it's all that is available within reasonable travelling distance and even then it's 15 miles away.) Actually, women seem to do so more than the men. And that's one of the things I find disturbing. I look around and see receptive men and ejaculating women (spouting teaching) - and it doesn't work well. We have dancing where women of my age - 50 ++ a few years, put on their ballet shoes and attempt to float their abundant bodies before the congregation on tippy-toes with their scarves aloft and their skirts just about covering their wobbling flesh, which I find quite distracting. It's like when all the oldies get up and try and do a Mick Jagger dance at a wedding reception - faintly embarrassing! But that could just be me, I'm quite reserved. The men meanwhile sit quietly in their seats. The women pastors/teachers go for an emotional high, dancing and waving and holding hands, while the men embarrassedly feel a need to join in, and under the direction of a female leader, hug the person to their left or right, as directed. So last Sunday, me and the adjacent male kind of cringed and did as we were told - but we both felt uncomfortable. I would far sooner listen to a man authoritatively teaching God's Word and forget the emotionalism that women seem to find so essential to worship and the building of Christ's body on earth.

Ruth

That's too bad,Ruth.

My experience is a rich one, where men and women all dance and sing together, men and women serve on the dance tream, worship teams, ushers and elders...everything is done with excellence, as God would have it no other way!

There is no line drawn between the genders when it comes to serving and worshiping God.

There is no emotionalism, except the kind that comes from the exuberance of worshiping Jesus christ in our midst. The reserved ones are the odd men out and they stick out like a sore thumb. God tells us in His Word that we are to worship Him with shouting and with the dance. We obey.

[methinkshe]

I currently attend a fellowship where men and women teach and pastor ( it's all that is available within reasonable travelling distance and even then it's 15 miles away.) Actually, women seem to do so more than the men. And that's one of the things I find disturbing. I look around and see receptive men and ejaculating women (spouting teaching) - and it doesn't work well. We have dancing where women of my age - 50 ++ a few years, put on their ballet shoes and attempt to float their abundant bodies before the congregation on tippy-toes with their scarves aloft and their skirts just about covering their wobbling flesh, which I find quite distracting. It's like when all the oldies get up and try and do a Mick Jagger dance at a wedding reception - faintly embarrassing! But that could just be me, I'm quite reserved. The men meanwhile sit quietly in their seats. The women pastors/teachers go for an emotional high, dancing and waving and holding hands, while the men embarrassedly feel a need to join in, and under the direction of a female leader, hug the person to their left or right, as directed. So last Sunday, me and the adjacent male kind of cringed and did as we were told - but we both felt uncomfortable. I would far sooner listen to a man authoritatively teaching God's Word and forget the emotionalism that women seem to find so essential to worship and the building of Christ's body on earth.

Ruth

That's too bad,Ruth.

My experience is a rich one, where men and women all dance and sing together, men and women serve on the dance tream, worship teams, ushers and elders...everything is done with excellence, as God would have it no other way!

There is no line drawn between the genders when it comes to serving and worshiping God.

There is no emotionalism, except the kind that comes from the exuberance of worshiping Jesus christ in our midst. The reserved ones are the odd men out and they stick out like a sore thumb. God tells us in His Word that we are to worship Him with shouting and with the dance. We obey.

Ah, well, I'll just have to believe that Jesus died for "sore thumbs" as well as the exuberant.

Ruth

[Floatingaxe]

He died for those "sore thumbs", but He wants to hear from them, loudly! Personality traits have a tendency to allow us to fall into the false belief that it is okay if we worship quietly according to our "nature". It isn't okay.

Our born nature is to worship God with all we've got, in obedience, no matter what our "nature" argues. We will have to stand before Him one day and answer why we didn't praise Him with our all. What will we say? We were shy? That means embarrassed. What will God think of that? It is equal to shame. What does God's Word say about being ashamed? It could also be fear...fear of what? Fear of man? What does God say about fearing man?

[OopsMartin]

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.

It is important to explain Paul's reference because there is a disparity. The way many read it is that Paul is saying that there was a God authored foundation of male authority (and female non authority) by reason of who came first. The disparity is that God did not Himself follow such an idea. Neither did God ever state such an idea.

The first three leaders God called to guide and direct the nation of Israel were two men and one woman.

New Life Version (NLV)

4 I brought you out of the land of Egypt. I took you out of the land where you were servants. And I sent Moses, Aaron and Miriam to lead you.

CEV

4I rescued you from Egypt,

where you were slaves.

I sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam

to be your leaders.

NKJV

For I brought you up from the land of Egypt,

I redeemed you from the house of bondage;

And I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

And Jewish history acknowledges that Miriam was an honored leader of the nation much loved by the people.

If interpreting Paul to mean that men had exclusive authority from God to teach and lead because Adam was created first then Eve, then the very first leaders God choose would not have included a woman. In addition, then God would never ever have chosen a woman to lead, teach, direct the nation. Yet, we have Miriam, Huldah, Deborah as the ones who stand out most among women leaders.

[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.

Perhaps it's because the church is so worldly that they view it as odd or stupid.

LOL perhaps some.

But I've heard that about Catholic, Protestant, Quaker, Baptist...... you name it.

It's because to the natural man the things of God are foolishness.

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[methinkshe]

He died for those "sore thumbs", but He wants to hear from them, loudly! Personality traits have a tendency to allow us to fall into the false belief that it is okay if we worship quietly according to our "nature". It isn't okay.

Our born nature is to worship God with all we've got, in obedience, no matter what our "nature" argues. We will have to stand before Him one day and answer why we didn't praise Him with our all. What will we say? We were shy? That means embarrassed. What will God think of that? It is equal to shame. What does God's Word say about being ashamed? It could also be fear...fear of what? Fear of man? What does God say about fearing man?

Sorry, I do not get any of that from Scripture. I would not dance and shout and float about in my home - that is not my nature - so why should I do it in a public gathering such as church? Am I to become a different person, to leave all inhibitions at the church door and just let go and do that (well, copy that, to be honest, because I have no personal inclination) which I would not even do in my own home? The only time I have done that is under the influence of alcohol when all inhibitions were abandoned, of which I am mightily ashamed. Is not one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, self-control? Should I really lose all inhibitions in church and then call it worship?

Ruth

[firehill]

Didn't King David dance about blowing kisses while worshiping God? Granted he was alone and not in a corporate setting...