Michael Wrenn
New Member
According to you, but not according to the true Biblical meaning of headship:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is the role of women in the Church?
- Thread starter following-Him
- Start date
- Status
According to you, but not according to the true Biblical meaning of headship:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/i-believe-male-headship
What part did the culture of the Paul's day play in the regulation(s) of the new born church in regards to women serving in the church and has it changed?
Yes, the culture has certainly changed in many ways since then.
The question is (as someone has alluded) are we given any latitude to change along with it in regards to women's service?
Paul uses phrases like "your women" but later uses "women" in a generic sense.
Personally I have a bottom line in my view of these scriptures: that the authority of the male leadership not be usurped.
I don't believe a woman should be a pastor. If she is single and feels led to the mission field, she could have a teaching ministry to women and children, or as a doctor, nurse, etc.
But, I don't believe the 1 Corinthinas passage disallows singing, praying, giving testimony or teaching other women and children but is in the context of teaching men and the appearance of usurping the ordained authority.
Also, a woman missionary or missionary wife or pastor's wife should be able to give a report or testimony to a mixed audience of men and women assuming the pastor and/or her husband are present in the church.
Then there are "offices" in which women participate .e.g. Sunday School superintendant, Mission board, financial board, librarian, etc.
Compromise? Maybe, but as long as the male leadership and doctrine is not compromised IMO it is allowable. Maybe not the best decision but allowable.
Where would we be if all the women in all Bible believing churches kept the letter of the NT rules - absolute silence?
Could any church find enough qualified men to fill these roles above?
No female Sunday School teachers, no singing, no praying out loud, no testimonies, no report(s) to the pastor and deacons (in the church), no children's church, etc...
What about pot luck dinners are women to prepare and bring the food to church and then eat in absolute silence? May it never be (in the words of Paul)!
Is absolute silence what Paul meant (I don't think so as there are other places he talks about women praying, prophecying in church)?
If it's not what he meant then because of church autonomy every local church must decide those parameters.
HankD
Yes, the culture has certainly changed in many ways since then.
The question is (as someone has alluded) are we given any latitude to change along with it in regards to women's service?
Paul uses phrases like "your women" but later uses "women" in a generic sense.
Personally I have a bottom line in my view of these scriptures: that the authority of the male leadership not be usurped.
I don't believe a woman should be a pastor. If she is single and feels led to the mission field, she could have a teaching ministry to women and children, or as a doctor, nurse, etc.
But, I don't believe the 1 Corinthinas passage disallows singing, praying, giving testimony or teaching other women and children but is in the context of teaching men and the appearance of usurping the ordained authority.
Also, a woman missionary or missionary wife or pastor's wife should be able to give a report or testimony to a mixed audience of men and women assuming the pastor and/or her husband are present in the church.
Then there are "offices" in which women participate .e.g. Sunday School superintendant, Mission board, financial board, librarian, etc.
Compromise? Maybe, but as long as the male leadership and doctrine is not compromised IMO it is allowable. Maybe not the best decision but allowable.
Where would we be if all the women in all Bible believing churches kept the letter of the NT rules - absolute silence?
Corinthians 14:35 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.
Could any church find enough qualified men to fill these roles above?
No female Sunday School teachers, no singing, no praying out loud, no testimonies, no report(s) to the pastor and deacons (in the church), no children's church, etc...
What about pot luck dinners are women to prepare and bring the food to church and then eat in absolute silence? May it never be (in the words of Paul)!
Is absolute silence what Paul meant (I don't think so as there are other places he talks about women praying, prophecying in church)?
If it's not what he meant then because of church autonomy every local church must decide those parameters.
HankD
Last edited:
The "Biblical meaning of headship" in that article is in complete error.
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-2-No-5/The-Meaning-Source-Does-Not-Exist
What are some things you have a problem with in that article.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I found nothing wrong with the article unless I missed something. Head can mean a number of things just like bat can. Too often RCC and Anglican theology is read into American protestant theology as though it were truth.
Usurping means to take something without the right to do so.
It doesn't say women should not be in leadership (like some modern versions read) but should not usurp it.
If a church ordains a woman to any leadership position, she has not usurped anything. She has been given something.
As to Paul's appeal to creation order, remember he was dealing with goddess worship that taught woman was created first.
Many believe he was addressing a situation where men could not lead, or if they were leading women freshly out of goddess worship would come into a fellowship and toss the guys out of leadership, thus "usurping" it and appealing to a pagan creation myth.
Now it seems we have turned the situation on its head, with the men usurping leadership and appealing to creation order.
It doesn't say women should not be in leadership (like some modern versions read) but should not usurp it.
If a church ordains a woman to any leadership position, she has not usurped anything. She has been given something.
As to Paul's appeal to creation order, remember he was dealing with goddess worship that taught woman was created first.
Many believe he was addressing a situation where men could not lead, or if they were leading women freshly out of goddess worship would come into a fellowship and toss the guys out of leadership, thus "usurping" it and appealing to a pagan creation myth.
Now it seems we have turned the situation on its head, with the men usurping leadership and appealing to creation order.
the Lord has established that men were to be the head of their households, that they were to be in senior leadership positions within local assemblies...
he established that as the biblcal norm...
again, can someone give us NT verse supporting women be able to meet the biblical qualifications of elder/pastor?
Where ANY were ever listed in one of those positions?
As is clearly shown in the counter article, saying that "head" means "source" is incorrect.
I am sure there are a few who hold to that.
There are many meanings for head. Source is one of them. Saying that head is not source is like saying the head of a river is not the source of a river.
Talk to any divorce lawyer and ask the person what church most of their clients come from and then pay particular attention to the theology of the church. There is a consistent pattern.
Go to any organization that trains marriage counselors and see what kind of churches have the higher percentage of marriage troubles.
Stats easily prove the husband's role in the home. In homes where the woman goes to church it is something like 7% of the children who do.
In homes where the man goes to church it is something like 93% of the children who do.
The husband is the source of peace, teaching, and encouragement, etc. in the home. The woman has little influence compared to a man both in the church and in society. People listen to men much more than woman.
America could steer itself to where the woman are less than cattle and men could be positioned as the authority in society. So that what he says rules.
I guess you didn't read my article.
Yes, and I can name the many women in my church who are wonderful servant leaders as well. But were any of these women pastors?
The article you cited is way off base in trying to define what headship is in the NT. That particular lexicon has absolutely nothing to do with the any words used in the NT. It would be much like trying to use an old English dictionary to define the word gay.
The best way to determine headship is not by a lexicon but how it is used in context.
I would have trouble using the definition as authority (as an expert) when viewed in light of Eph. 5:21. Eph. 5:21 is a transitional phrase that ties the previous passage to the following passage. (As authority in terms of who has the power to be leading then I agree but not in terms of a man always being the expert.) Source can be part of the definition in that any leader who leads is the source of all that happens under his authority. In my company there are many who know a whole lot more than I do. I am not always the authority on a particular subject. I am the authority in the sense of leading my company but not in the sense of knowing everything. I determine where the company goes but I am not always an expert. My wife is an expert in drugs and I know very little. So when it comes to medications she is the authority not me. I would be stupid to come across as an authority in her field of work.
The article mentioned that the man has the authority to lead his home and I would agree with that but that does not make him any kind of an authority on everything else in the sense that he is an expert. I have seen some rather dumb church leaders who thought they were an authority on leadership in the church.
If one wanted to define head as place of prominence and being the head of those whop are under my care then I would agree.
Grudem slid off the banana peel when it comes to ignorance in using a lexicon that has nothing to do with the NT. That is something I learned in elementary Greek. He should know better.
Muraoka defines head as used in the LXX as one who plays a leading role.
I think the following two articles are much better.
http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/what-should-be-the-husband-s-role-in-marriage
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-9-No-2/Gender-Roles-and-the-Glory-of-God
Yes, you think those articles are much better because you have that view of Scriptures. However, I believe that to be a very wrong view of Scriptures as do many scholars as well. So we have two sides. I believe your side to be unBiblical. You believe my side to be. I guess we will see which is right when we see Jesus. But I will not accept anything from the website you post because I believe that they come to Scripture with a wrong premise and as such, explain away the clear teaching - teaching that a child can clearly understand - regarding women in leadership. I will never be under the leadership of a woman pastor. I believe it to be a VERY wrong position and one that is wrong enough that I would question the rest of their theology.
It is not a matter if I agree or disagree. Grudem violated a very basic hermeneutical principle taught in a basic hermeneutics class. The matter is not so simplistic as a one size fits all. For Grudem to use that lexicon to define words in the NT simply shows his ignorance or willful conduct to mislead. If you participate in B-Greek you will find very few denominational leaders there. The majority are the top scholars in the world. Some are fluent in both Greek and Hebrew. One of the statements I made was directly from that forum.
Where in the world did you ever get such an erroneous view of what I believe? I have hear very few who could give any kind of rational view of why women should not be pastors other than "the Bible says"__________. Why is that so many cannot give a well thought out explanation why women should not be pastors and lead men? I would never need to give one verse or ever quote the Bible to give a reason that is indisputable. Just looking at societies and civilizations gives the answer to that.
When I was thinking of authority I was thinking of being an expert not of one in a position of leadership. To use Liddell Scott for anything in the NT is done out of plain ignorance. Grudem should have known better. Nobody ever uses that lexicon for the NT.
You did challenged me to look a little further and I did.
I do not necessarily disagree with you. I would add to what I had and what you had and that is where I am now.
I used the same authority you used for an article and you disagree?
It is not just Grudem. He is responding to others who have used that Lexicon to support their view that the Greek word translated as "head" means "source" and doesn't denote any leadership but instead denotes where something came from - just like the article that you posted says. So whether you agree with his lexicon or not, it comes down to the same end: the idea of the Greek word being able to be translated as "source" is wrong.
I listen to the clear teaching of Scripture. It's not like it's written in some obscure passage and beaten around a bush. It's written twice and quite clearly. The qualifications for a pastor require one to be a male. There's no arguing that. The fact that Jesus NEVER called a woman to be in His close circle really speaks volumes as well. He never sent out women in the group of 72. Why is that? Jesus certainly wasn't afraid to rock the boat culturally, was He? Even if He needed to send women to women, don't you think He would have? But He didn't. Paul didn't ordain women - and never spoke of ordaining women to the ministry. The Scriptures are really quite clear. Yes, there are those today and in the past who teach differently but I don't see that in the Scriptures so I will not accept it. I will continue to attend a church with male leadership and MANY women who are very actively working alongside them as well. But never will I be in a church with a woman pastor.
One cannot use a lexicon that is never used for NT work to support or refute NT work. His point is useless. Personally I have never heard anyone use that lexicon to support the definition of source in the NT.
You wrote nothing I disagree with here except your point about scripture being so easy to understand and so clear. Again I ask you the same exact question, "Where in the world did you ever get such an erroneous view of what I believe?" So now answer the question instead of reading into what you think I believe with erroneous assumptions.
Your argument that the Bible is always quite clear is in clear violation an example we see in scripture (Acts 18:26) and what is written in 2 Peter 3:16.
If the Bible is so clear then explain why in Mark those whom Jesus called followed him immediately. What did they know that allowed them to make that decision so quickly. If the Bible is so easy to understand then explain the historical context behind what Jesus said in Jn 15:16.
There are more arguments to support your point beyond "The Bible says _____________." How would you convince a non-believer using that argument? I would think you could give an argument that would be indisputable and have nothing to do with the interpretation of scripture. The problem is that too many have a "repeat after me" theology.
What is the biblical greek wording used by the inspired writers, and in contex/syntex/grammer by a NT Greek lexicon...
What did it mean?
perhaps JUST as important...
Where was there ANY change in the NT as reagards to allowing women to serve in pastoral/Elders positions?
IF was JSUT a transistional/culturally mandated position in scriptures...
WHAT verse grants us means to alter/change it today?
- Status