Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

Question asked of "Deb", transcribed from the video:

Does that sound like "not ordaining" to you?

 

It is interesting that in ancient Celtic Christianity there was no gender discrimination in the ministry as there was in the development of the Catholic Church.

 

Actually, in the celtic history of Ireland, women had in many ways, a very high degree of authority and respect. I speak culturally, from a recent visit to the Emerald Isle. Thus, it is not surprising to me that it would be such in "the church' as well.

 

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 ¶ What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

The reasons given by Paul for women to be silence in ALL CHURCHES OF THE SAINTS is strictly BIBLICAL ("AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW") and direct revelation from God and all who oppose it are to be regarded "ignorant."

He is talking to a GENTILE church (Corinth) but includes "ALL CHURCHES". To say this is culturally based is simply to contradict the plain and explicit teaching of Paul as he later states the very same thing and grounds it in the creational design by God which is also PRE-CULTURAL:

1 Tim. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

These commandments by God through Paul are not based upon CULTURAL mores or because of male bias, nor does it have to do with any kind of personal inferiority of the woman but upon the CREATIVE DESIGN of God in regard to POSITIONAL status in God's economy for the stability of the home and society:

1 Cor. 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Headship has nothing to do with inferority of person but inferiority of position and the concept is infantilely simple - too many cheifs simply do not work in the home or in society or IN THE GODHEAD! Moreover, it is a matter of CREATIVE DESIGN and utility of purpose as the woman is not designed for leadership over men but for bearing and nurturing children and as a "help meet." If you don't like it take it up with the Creator of women and if you think you are spiritual and reject it so does God reject your thinking:

1 Cor. 14:36 ¶ What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant

1 Tim. 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.......4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

 

Those who reject this Biblical teaching attempt to overthrow it by principles of eisgesis instead of exegesis. They pit examples of Scripture against precepts of Scripture. Anyone with any common sense knows that such a precedure is pure eisgetical in nature as precepts always take precedence over examples. For example, there are examples of adultery, lying, stealing, idoltary recorded throughout scriptures but can any sane capable Bible teacher argue that such examples take precedence over God's law's concerning such things????? However, this is exactly what those who oppose the clear explicit Biblical precpets that forbid women to teach men or to hold the office of bishop.

If they don't pit scripture against scripture by pitting examples against precepts then they pervert the scriptures by suggesting that such precepts are culturally based and merely God's remedy for dealing with the current male bias in that culture! It is perversion of the scriptures because the scriptures are just as clear and explicit that such precepts are based upon the precultural design for the woman and the man and their divine purpose in God's order within the human race.

In short, the same is true with all who reject the Scriptures whether they reject the creation account as literal and historical or reject the precepts and stated purpose of the scriptures concerning the positional relationship of male and female in the home, church and society - UNBELIEF in God's Word! No, it is not a matter of interpretation as Jesus interpreted the genesis account and especially the account of the institution of marriage in a literal and historical manner just as Paul interpreted the divine design for male and females in the same Genesis account in keeping with a literal and historical manner! The problem is simply UNBELIEF in and, REJECTION of God's Word!!

 

Dr. Walter,

Then to be consistent with your interpretation of scripture and to keep from being hypocritical, you MUST demand that your wife wear a head covering, and your church MUST demand the same from all its women members.

Now being the strict legalist that you are, in keeping with the Pharisees of Jesus's day, I just know that if I walked into your church on Sunday, I would see all your women dutifully wearing their head coverings.

Sorry if I am harsh, but I don't like to be charged with disbelieving God's word. But since you did so, then you are also guilty -- unless your women wear their head coverings. And there are other legalisms I could point out, also, but this one instance will suffice for now to make my point -- unless you continue your attack against my belief in the Bible.

 

Take a minute and think how you are approaching this? You assume that because some reject your interpretation of the coverning that they reject the covering! You assume that your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:4-15 is the only correct one. You discount those who interpret the covering either to be "long hair" (vv. 11-16)or their husband (v. 3) or both. Then you assume that the artificial "covering" is necessary to obey other precepts concerning women and so according to your line of logic if you don't obey the wearing of an artificial head covering you don't have to obey any other instructions given to women in contrast to men; such as, being a good wife in submission to their own husband as that too is based upon precultural design and position (Eph. 5:22-31). Hence, your plan of attack is to pit scripture against scripture.

Obedience to God's word is not "legalism" but LOVE - Jn. 15:10!!!!!!!!!!!! For your information, I wrote a book on the head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 and I do take the position that it is additional to long hair and is a "sign" or symbol of submission in keeping with the woman's role as a type of the church in submission to Christ which the man represents (Eph. 5:22-30). Hence, in the congregational service the head covering is worn as it is the place where the angels assemble for instruction (Eph. 3:10; 1 Cor. 11:10) and is the place designated for public worship or "praying and prophesying" where she is observed by others (v. 11). Indeed, 1 Corinthians 11-14 concerns the public worship service and order.

However, neither the woman's covering or her role at home or in the congregation determines her salvation but only faith in the gospel by pure grace. Furthermore, in contrast to the scriptures that teach the woman's design and role there is little said about the covering. In addition, there is not debate that a woman should be covered but it is only the nature of the covering that is debated. Some argue it is only the woman's hair. Others argue it is the length of her hair. Others argue that it is her husband. Still others argue that it is in addition to her hair and husband.

Therefore, to use the covering and your own particular interpretation of that covering as a basis to invalidate the much much more scriptural teachings concerning the role and design of the woman in regard to the man is nothing but pitting scripture against scripture.

 

I won't argue with you.

I know that scripture and the practice of the early churches validate my belief.

 

As I said, I have defended the covering and so I have no disagreement with your understanding of 1 Cor. 11:4-16. However, the purpose for wearing a covering is based upon pre-cultural creation design and order as verses 7-10 demonstrate and this is the same basis for women's position in the home and in the congregation - precultural and by creative design. Hence, to argue that women should be ordained violates God's creative order and design. His creative design is that they are types of his church as the bride of Christ and the man is a type of Christ and thus the creative order, position of authority and submission is being violated when the woman takes a leadership role over the man in the home and in the congregation.

 

his made me think of the silly reasons given why women should not be ordained.

Except for the one where it is expressly forbidden in God's word.

 

I dare you to demonstrate that Paul did not base the prohibitions of women speaking in the assembly or teaching men on the design and order found in creation of the man and woman and thus saith the Lord which are all precultural or non-cultural reasons:

1 Cor. 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

1 Cor. 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.....36 ¶ What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

1 Tim. 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Eph. 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

 

Read Institutes 4:10:29-30, where JC decrees that such things

"ought to be applied to the edification of the Church, with a variety suitable to the manners of each age and nation, therefore, as the benefit of the Church shall require, it will be right to change and abolish former regulations, and to institute new ones"

and that

"these are not fixed and perpetual laws by which we are bound, but external aids for human infirmity, which though we do not need, yet we all use, because we are under obligations to each other to cherish mutual charity between us. This may be observed in the examples already mentioned. What! does religion consist in a woman's veil, so that it would be criminal for her to walk out with her face uncovered? Is the solemn decree respecting her silence such as cannot be violated without a capital offence?"

 

Read the Bible it is much better and higher authority than JC unless by JC you mean Jesus Christ?? I have given the Biblical evidence and I have given the challenge to anyone who can prove those biblical prohibitions based on something other than Creative design and order. John Calvin certainly failed this challenge.

All you have done is resort to uninspired traditions of men.

 

Although I disagree with it, I do understand your view, and you are consistent on that particular point, at least.

I am curious about something: What would you say to all women pastors who are certain that they were called by God to pastoral ministry and have been serving ably and faithfully in that position, ministering God's help, mercy, and grace to others? Would you tell them that they were mistaken about God's calling them to this office?

 

Wow! Dr. Walter in agreement with the Catholic Chuch...

WM

 

Annsni, what do you think about Beth Moore?

 

That's true but having seen her on TV see doesn't only speak to women. She also teaches men. What do you think of that?