What is the role of women in the Church?

[DaChaser1]

This topic always makes me laugh, cry and pound the desk all at the same time.

Here's hoping spiritual discrimination toward women will one day be an embarrassing footnote of the past.

God Himself set the rules...
God ordained that men be the head spiritual authorities in local churches

Is he wrong?

 

[DaChaser1]

I wonder what the attitude was by the men when women sought the right to vote?

how many female apostles did jesus have?

how many Pastors/elders listed as women in the Bible?

Was God right, or should he accomodate curret cultural leanings?

 

[Mark_13]

My own personal experience -

The leader of the entire singles congregation at the Baptist Church I was going to several years ago was this gal who was absolutely one of the best if not the best teacher I have had of the Bible in any setting ever. Just absolutely superb. She was effectively acting as the "pastor" of that group - every single in the Church - several hundred - giving the main lesson before them every Sunday. There was not anything about her that seemed inappropriate in the slightest. She was attractive somewhat, but you weren't thinking about that. But anyway, she moved on, and I guess there was this sense of obligation to replace her with another woman, which they did. And this second teacher we had sounded just like Minnie Mouse, and I quit going. Moral? I don't know.

 

[DaChaser1]

My own personal experience -

The leader of the entire singles congregation at the Baptist Church I was going to several years ago was this gal who was absolutely one of the best if not the best teacher I have had of the Bible in any setting ever. Just absolutely superb. She was effectively acting as the "pastor" of that group - every single in the Church - several hundred - giving the main lesson before them every Sunday. There was not anything about her that seemed inappropriate in the slightest. She was attractive somewhat, but you weren't thinking about that. But anyway, she moved on, and I guess there was this sense of obligation to replace her with another woman, which they did. And this second teacher we had sounded just like Minnie Mouse, and I quit going. Moral? I don't know.

Think biblical mandate would be that fior those positions in "senior/chief" positions such as pastor/Elder, is to be male!

 

[go2church]

Women should be free to serve God as they feel led by the Holy Spirit and prepared by the church.

 

[jaigner]

The poor woman probably did badly because she feared being hit with a lightning bolt from on high that all of the ones opposed probably hoped would happen.

Its a crying shame that after so many decades and decades and decades and decades this neanderthal mentality STILL exists regarding Gods fully capable women. They are STILL being told...."You just stay in your place, we men are in charge. (and dont you forget it.)

And yet, the conservative evangelical church fully acknowleges that slavery is taught in the scriptures because it was a cultural issue, and we have now done the right thing and done away with it.

And yet...they turn a blind eye to the scriptures and continue to perpetuate this utterly ridiculous "stay in your place" attitude towards our women.

God help us.

Amen and amen. Or awomen and awomen.

No. She was not the pastor. I wouldn't be attending a church with a female pastor.

Why not? Why do you set rules for yourself that the Bible doesn't?

What I want to know is what do you consider to be a woman's role in the church today?

The question should be: "What is a person's role in the church today," because men and women should have the same roles.

[W]omen are allowed to do pretty much what the men can do in the church EXCEPT for those positions of spiritual authority such as pastor/[e]lders, due to that fact that it was NOT due to cultural norms of the time, but to timeless principle [sic] of spritual [sic] headship in the church!

"[D]ue to the fact that it was NOT due..."

Man, proofread.

This topic always makes me laugh, cry and pound the desk all at the same time.

Here's hoping spiritual discrimination toward women will one day be an embarrassing footnote of the past.

It will be, and hopefully within my lifetime. Reasonable evangelicals have been moving toward the full participation of women. The SBC will be as embarrassed about this as they are about their sordid history with race relations.

Blessings to you, friend.

I wonder what the attitude was by the men when women sought the right to vote?

No joke. That's hugely embarrassing, but it reminds us that we're a work in progress. The evangelical Church will eventually get there, but it takes some time. Then we will be embarrassed about this.

God Himself set the rules...
God ordained that men be the head spiritual authorities in local churches[.]

Is he wrong?

No, you're wrong because you don't interpret.

how [sic] many female apostles did jesus [sic] have?

how [sic] many [p]astors/elders [sic] listed as women in the Bible?

Was God right, or should he accomodate [sic] curret [sic] cultural leanings?

Of course God was right.

He's accommodated sinful humanity throughout human history.

Think [sic] biblical mandate would be that fior [sic] those positions in "senior/chief" positions such as pastor/[e]lder, is [sic] to be male!

Are you reading what you write? You just said that "those positions...are to be male." How are the positions going to be male? That's like having a male desk or a male chair.

Women should be free to serve God as they feel led by the Holy Spirit and prepared by the church.

Amen.

 

[Ed B]

....

Originally Posted by DaChaser1
[W]omen are allowed to do pretty much what the men can do in the church EXCEPT for those positions of spiritual authority such as pastor/[e]lders, due to that fact that it was NOT due to cultural norms of the time, but to timeless principle [sic] of spritual [sic] headship in the church!

"[D]ue to the fact that it was NOT due..."

Man, proofread.

......

Amen.

Now, now Jaigner. You should know that grammar smack is among the lowest forms of internet message board retorts. It weakens your overall argument no matter how correct your criticism is. Grammar smack should stand alone and be unattached from the actual debate.

For the record calling someone a NAZI falls below grammar smack in the hierarchy of internet rhetorical devices.

:smilewinkgrin:

 

[nodak]

There is more than one way to be a Baptist, and one need not be Baptist to be Christian.

I've lived in the heavily SBC areas when women were not being "put back in their place" the way they are now. I've lived in the same areas under the new Jim Crow towards women.

And I've lived where the good Baptist folks understood scripture to allow for the ordination of women, and for women to participate fully in the church, based not on accomodating feminism but on scriptural mandate.

And I've lived where Baptists were scarce as hens' teeth, and many pastors were women.

BECAUSE I take the Bible very seriously, I fall out on the side ordaining women.

I see it at work and see God using them mightily. I hear the same arguments we used to hear when Jim Crow was about race, not gender.

I thought it wrong then, think it wrong now, and believe in 50 years either the SBC will be ordaining women right and left or will have gone the way of the bustle.

Which may be good or bad, depending on your opinion

 

[jaigner]

There is more than one way to be a Baptist, and one need not be Baptist to be Christian.

I've lived in the heavily SBC areas when women were not being "put back in their place" the way they are now. I've lived in the same areas under the new Jim Crow towards women.

And I've lived where the good Baptist folks understood scripture to allow for the ordination of women, and for women to participate fully in the church, based not on accomodating feminism but on scriptural mandate.

And I've lived where Baptists were scarce as hens' teeth, and many pastors were women.

BECAUSE I take the Bible very seriously, I fall out on the side ordaining women.

I see it at work and see God using them mightily. I hear the same arguments we used to hear when Jim Crow was about race, not gender.

I thought it wrong then, think it wrong now, and believe in 50 years either the SBC will be ordaining women right and left or will have gone the way of the bustle.

Which may be good or bad, depending on your opinion

Those are very salient and helpful points.

 

[DaChaser1]

Amen and amen. Or awomen and awomen.



Why not? Why do you set rules for yourself that the Bible doesn't?



The question should be: "What is a person's role in the church today," because men and women should have the same roles.



"[D]ue to the fact that it was NOT due..."

Man, proofread.



It will be, and hopefully within my lifetime. Reasonable evangelicals have been moving toward the full participation of women. The SBC will be as embarrassed about this as they are about their sordid history with race relations.

Blessings to you, friend.



No joke. That's hugely embarrassing, but it reminds us that we're a work in progress. The evangelical Church will eventually get there, but it takes some time. Then we will be embarrassed about this.



No, you're wrong because you don't interpret.



Of course God was right.

He's accommodated sinful humanity throughout human history.



Are you reading what you write? You just said that "those positions...are to be male." How are the positions going to be male? That's like having a male desk or a male chair.



Amen.

man IS head over the woman in the spiritual area, as is the priest to God for the home, is spiritually set up to be head over household...

same way, Christ head over His church, and the Father is head over Christ!

Biblical principle, NOT based upon cultural norms, accomodating mankind etc!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The poor woman probably did badly because she feared being hit with a lightning bolt from on high that all of the ones opposed probably hoped would happen.

Its a crying shame that after so many decades and decades and decades and decades this neanderthal mentality STILL exists regarding Gods fully capable women. They are STILL being told...."You just stay in your place, we men are in charge. (and dont you forget it.)

And yet, the conservative evangelical church fully acknowleges that slavery is taught in the scriptures because it was a cultural issue, and we have now done the right thing and done away with it.

And yet...they turn a blind eye to the scriptures and continue to perpetuate this utterly ridiculous "stay in your place" attitude towards our women.

God help us.

Yes, it's a sad thing. No, worse than sad -- tragic and a great injustice.

Time to post this article again. It just shows how essential it is to understand the time, context, and locale in which something was written; not to do so can and does often lead to error in interpretation and understanding.

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

 

[jaigner]

man [sic] IS head over the woman in the spiritual area, as is the priest to God for the home, is [sic] spiritually set up to be head over household...

same [sic] way, Christ head over His church, and the Father is head over Christ!

Biblical principle, NOT based upon cultural norms, accomodating [sic] mankind etc!

I'm going to help you out, JesusChaser, because I like you. Here's what you meant:

The man is head over the women spiritually, and he is the mediator between his home and God. He is spiritually set up to be the head over the household.

In the same way, Christ is the head over his Church, and the Father is the head over Christ!

Unfortunately, you haven't interpreted the Scripture to which you've alluded. Basically, the chance of me believing anything just because you say so is zero, and it doesn't help anyone that you argue your uninterpreted points without so much as one clear statement. You damage your argument by not saying anything clearly.

Yes, it's a sad thing. No, worse than sad -- tragic and a great injustice.

Time to post this article again. It just shows how essential it is to understand the time, context, and locale in which something was written; not to do so can and does often lead to error in interpretation and understanding.

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

Fantastic.

 

[DaChaser1]

Unfortunately, you haven't interpreted the Scripture to which you've alluded. Basically, the chance of me believing anything just because you say so is zero, and it doesn't help anyone that you argue your uninterpreted points without so much as one clear statement. You damage your argument by not saying anything clearly.



Fantastic.

what is hard to understand? Apostle Paul gave us concept biblical headship/submission, and THAT principle means that men are the ones ordained of God to be head spiritual authorities!

 

[jaigner]

Original version:

what is hard to understand? Apostle Paul gave us concept biblical headship/submission, and THAT principle means that men are the ones ordained of God to be head spiritual authorities!

Corrected version:

What is hard to understand? The Apostle Paul gave us the concept of biblical headship and submission, and THAT principle means that men are the ones ordained of God to be spiritual authorities!

All you did was repeat what you said before. You didn't give me any interpretation. Interpret the passages in light of their 1st-century context and then we can talk.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Hmm.. must be time to post that link again; so many ignore it because it tears down false interpretations about headship.

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

 

[Oldtimer]

Thanks for the link. I read this article and several others there.

Much to think about, as I don't remember ever reading that viewpoint, in this article, before.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thanks for the link. I read this article and several others there.

Much to think about, as I don't remember ever reading that viewpoint, in this article, before.

You are welcome!

 

[quantumfaith]

Hmm.. must be time to post that link again; so many ignore it because it tears down false interpretations about headship.

http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship

Thanks for the article Michael. Very interesting and thought provoking read.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Thanks for the article Michael. Very interesting and thought provoking read.

You're welcome, and I'm glad you thought it so.

Taking into account the context, locale, and culture is very important in determining the meaning that the original authors were conveying. Too many times people don't do that; they read and interpret according to their own presuppositions. Or even if they don't have presuppositions, they read the scripture without regard for the aforementioned factors.

The scriptures are inspired, but God works within history and circumstance, not apart from them.

 

[DaChaser1]

You're welcome, and I'm glad you thought it so.

Taking into account the context, locale, and culture is very important in determining the meaning that the original authors were conveying. Too many times people don't do that; they read and interpret according to their own presuppositions. Or even if they don't have presuppositions, they read the scripture without regard for the aforementioned factors.

The scriptures are inspired, but God works within history and circumstance, not apart from them.

Thing is that some of the scriptures were culturally mandated , and were based upon those sittings and situations , while those such as this involving leadership in the local churches was mandated by a timeless principle involving the concept of headship and subordination with the Body of Christ!