Women Pastors part 2

Having children and being a nurturer isn't relegation if it's what someone wants. But the way this plays out is that women with other gifts, talents, ambitions, are discouraged from pursuing them because "woman=nurturer" (rather than leader or engineer or pilot or whatever). And that's the relegation bit; when it's used to limit women to certain types of roles.

I didn't find pregnancy a blessing, by the way. But most of the reasons for that were the social impact of being pregnant; the negative impact it had on my studies and work at the time, and so forth. Perhaps if people in positions of power had been running less of a "woman=nurturer" script I would have encountered more support and encouragement in those parts of my life, instead of being told to just stay home and "enjoy my baby."

Ya...I try to stay away from arguments from nature (unless they are expressed in Scripture already). I know plenty of women smarter than I and could deliver a sermon better than I could (my wife probably being one of them). Does that mean they should deny their role outlined in Scripture? Nope. But we are on the same page that only men are to be overseers and only men should teach men, per the Scripture. Nothing to do with ability, IMO. Just the God-given Biblical roles of the genders.

I've already posted my arguments from Scripture. I think it's clear cut, and has nothing to do with culture or time period (since Paul's argumentation would stand in every culture and time).

bsd058 said:

Ya...I try to stay away from arguments from nature (unless they are expressed in Scripture already). I know plenty of women smarter than I and could deliver a sermon better than I could (my wife probably being one of them). Does that mean they should deny their role outlined in Scripture? Nope. But we are on the same page that only men are to be overseers and only men should teach men, per the Scripture. Nothing to do with ability, IMO. Just the God-given Biblical roles of the genders.

I've already posted my arguments from Scripture. I think it's clear cut, and has nothing to do with culture or time period (since Paul's argumentation would stand in every culture and time).

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, when you say only men should teach men, are you only talking about religious settings? Or do you believe women should not teach at mixed gender universities, when adults are in the class? Can women hold positions of authority outside the church?

All4Christ said:

Out of curiosity, when you say only men should teach men, are you only talking about religious settings? Or do you believe women should not teach at mixed gender universities, when adults are in the class? Can women hold positions of authority outside the church?

Click to expand...

Only in the context of the church gathering and church government, since that was what Paul was referring to when he spoke of women not being allowed to teach men and men being overseers.

bsd058 said:

Just the God-given Biblical roles of the genders.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, and I don't mean to be difficult, but I just cant see how the Biblical text can be excised from it's historic and cultural setting if you really want to understand the core message of the text. The roles and relationships I found in Papua New Guinea were quite different to the roles and relationships I had grown up with. I worked in PNG for 4 years. In some sense it caused me to question my own culture and cultural values, and it caused me to understand that the family I had grown up in did not match the families typical in Australian culture. I think we need to be very aware that in scripture sometimes we find things that are descriptive, and sometimes prescriptive.

What I don't know about Paul to Timothy is whether the determination was intended to be general and universal, or specific and perhaps addressing particular issues and/or culture. I have long wondered would Paul have written these things if he thought he was writing the scriptures of the New Testament, and that the things he was writing would have been held of equivalent value to the Decalogue or the Tetragrammaton. I suspect if he had realised the weight he would have been more careful in his Greek, and maybe paid better attention to sentence structure!

Philip_B said:

I am sorry, and I don't mean to be difficult, but I just cant see how the Biblical text can be excised from it's historic and cultural setting if you really want to understand the core message of the text. The roles and relationships I found in Papua New Guinea were quite different to the roles and relationships I had grown up with. I worked in PNG for 4 years. In some sense it caused me to question my own culture and cultural values, and it caused me to understand that the family I had grown up in did not match the families typical in Australian culture. I think we need to be very aware that in scripture sometimes we find things that are descriptive, and sometimes prescriptive.

What I don't know about Paul to Timothy is whether the determination was intended to be general and universal, or specific and perhaps addressing particular issues and/or culture. I have long wondered would Paul have written these things if he thought he was writing the scriptures of the New Testament, and that the things he was writing would have been held of equivalent value to the Decalogue or the Tetragrammaton. I suspect if he had realised the weight he would have been more careful in his Greek, and maybe paid better attention to sentence structure!

Click to expand...

I find that posing hypotheticals is not useful. It's not reality. IF Paul knew his commands would be Scripture? Well, I think he did in a sense. For instance, Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

Paul also wrote things like, "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. (1 Cor 7:10-12)

In a sense, he was declaring his authority as an apostle that what he taught should be taken as a command just as we would take a command from the Lord.

This one is extremely important: "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours..." (1 Cor 1:1-2)
Paul knew that what he was writing was to be used by every saint everywhere (and I would argue in any time).

Further, Apostle, as a legal title indicates that Paul knew his role was one of agency. That whatever he taught needed to be taken as God's honest truth.

But like I said, I already made the case from a previous post that the commands given regarding women teaching and men overseeing were to be for all places and times. Hold on...I'll see if I can link to it.

Women Pastors part 2

After checking out the above highlighted link, I'd also like to add that it wasn't just a Scriptural reason (Woman deceived, Man not), but an argument from creation itself (Man was created first, then woman). So the man being overseer and woman willingly submitting to that role is symbolic of a reversal of the Garden of Eden (where man willingly submitted to the woman who was deceived).

Paidiske said:

Having children and being a nurturer isn't relegation if it's what someone wants. But the way this plays out is that women with other gifts, talents, ambitions, are discouraged from pursuing them because "woman=nurturer" (rather than leader or engineer or pilot or whatever). And that's the relegation bit; when it's used to limit women to certain types of roles.

I didn't find pregnancy a blessing, by the way. But most of the reasons for that were the social impact of being pregnant; the negative impact it had on my studies and work at the time, and so forth. Perhaps if people in positions of power had been running less of a "woman=nurturer" script I would have encountered more support and encouragement in those parts of my life, instead of being told to just stay home and "enjoy my baby."

Click to expand...

Thank you for honesty. Your position is one of exception. If you acknowledge that that's one thing. If you think it's good that majority of women don't feel blessed to bear children, think of it as some lowly experience, find husbands who will nourish their children better than them while they dream of being engineers and pilots, I don't know what kind of world would that be like.

Furthermore, if your position is one of exception, you received it by God's mercy and wisdom. In my opinion, it's better to be humble about it than to publicly demand similar exception to become the norm. Do you see it? Your exception is not the case for that exception, but for the norm. You are to serve as an example of what can be done from disadvantaged position while respecting the norm, not to demand that disadvantaged position becomes the norm. (Disadvantaged position here is that you have not felt blessed to bear child, while God's norm is for woman to feel blessed for it, which puts you in disadvantaged position against God's norm.)

On the other hand, if you think your position is not an exception, you basically see majority of women as not feeling blessed to bear children, while at the same time you want for that situation to get even more intensified.

I think there are two separate issues running there. One is what roles in society we see as "normal" or "exceptional" for either men or women. Here I'd say, well, I may be an exception, but so what? Shouldn't exceptions be accepted as valid? And if they are, then shouldn't we stop promoting a "norm" which excludes them?

The other is the issue of pregnancy as a blessing. What I'm trying to point out here is that what made my pregnancy difficult was the way people treated me. So again, what I'm promoting is not that more women should have a difficult time in pregnancy, but that all women should be treated well, regardless of how they decide to manage issues of mothering, studying and work!

1 Corinthians 1:1-2
Corinth was large city and sea port at the Isthmus to the Peloponnese. It was a city rebuilt around 50 BC following Roman Destruction, and its population included Greeks, Jews, Romans, and many travellers and traders. I see the point that you are making, but the text can be seen to make perfect sense without that layer of understanding.

Apostle
I accept that the title Apostle carries a sense of Agency, meaning as it does, one who is sent. The concern that Paul faced was acceptance in Jerusalem, far more than in Europe, where people argued that an Apostle was one who had been with them from the beginning. There is no reference to Paul that I am aware of in the Mission of Jesus, the Crucifixion, or indeed the day of Pentecost. Paul's argument was that he had been sent to the Gentiles - as a Roman Citizen and a Jewish Believer, he was a dual citizen. I am not sure I accept that Apostle was understood as a 'legal' title.

Hypotheticals
(your word) For instance, Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). Again it is still an awkward argument, and a reasonable read might suggest that the writer of 2 Peter thought Paul was obscure and easily misconstrued, and that opponents would twist his words as they did with other writings.

Paul on Marriage
It seems that Paul did not have time for a wife. Paul's status is clear and it seems that he is addressing pastoral issues in Corinth, which may well have been a bit of a hot spot in the Mediterranean, as sea ports sometimes are I'm told, and as a single man clearly needs to draw on some authority here, and his instructions here seem clearly in line with the Old Testament on marriage and divorce. I don't really think he is saying anything new here.

I absolutely respect the right of any person to take another view on these matters. I believe that the text needs to be seen in context in order to be properly understood.

bsd058 said:

I find that posing hypotheticals is not useful. It's not reality. IF Paul knew his commands would be Scripture? Well, I think he did in a sense. For instance, Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

Paul also wrote things like, "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. (1 Cor 7:10-12)

In a sense, he was declaring his authority as an apostle that what he taught should be taken as a command just as we would take a command from the Lord.

This one is extremely important: "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours..." (1 Cor 1:1-2)
Paul knew that what he was writing was to be used by every saint everywhere (and I would argue in any time).

Further, Apostle, as a legal title indicates that Paul knew his role was one of agency. That whatever he taught needed to be taken as God's honest truth.

But like I said, I already made the case from a previous post that the commands given regarding women teaching and men overseeing were to be for all places and times. Hold on...I'll see if I can link to it.

Women Pastors part 2

After checking out the above highlighted link, I'd also like to add that it wasn't just a Scriptural reason (Woman deceived, Man not), but an argument from creation itself (Man was created first, then woman). So the man being overseer and woman willingly submitting to that role is symbolic of a reversal of the Garden of Eden (where man willingly submitted to the woman who was deceived).

Click to expand...

Precisely. The headship of man is explicitly revealed as universal and culturally unrelated. Not only does Peter confirm Paul's writings and affirm them as Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), but Peter himself repeats this doctrine of male headship in an explicitly culturally unrelated manner. Peter references Scriptural women of the past and indicates that this is how holy women who put their hope in God behave throughout the generations, submitting themselves to their own husbands; more specifically, he even isolates an example of Sarah who called her husband Lord and obeyed him. What does he then conclude with? "You are her [Sarah's] daughters if you do what is right..." (1 Peter 3:6)

This confirmation of Paul, and Peter's echoing of this doctrine is Scripturally secured even more undeniably as the one whom Jesus assigned to be the rock on whom He would build His church (Matthew 16:18).

I'm always baffled by the comparatively infinitesimal quantity of men who will emerge to argue their God-given role, but the vast majority of professing Christian women subvert their role and forge Christ's signature on their ignorance. Not only is the role rejected, but the women tend to even feel super-spiritual, esoterically educated and Christ-like for doing so. The only reason it is hilarious is because I fortunately am not married to a woman who doesn't know how to read the Scriptures without feminists goggles on. Speaking of culture, the only cultural perversion I see of the Scriptures is that of the feminists who have so blinded the senses of women (and some men) that they are no longer able to distinguish the separation of authority from human value (which logically is painful to observe). A woman (or man) who thinks that authority and value are related have dishonoured the Trinity and, more specifically, Christ Himself, who is equal to the Father and one with Him yet submits to His authority (John 10:30, Philippians 2:6, 1 Corinthians 15:28). Though Christ is God, that last verse explicitly indicates that He will be in perpetual submission to His Father.

It is plain that God does not share this ridiculous view within the Godhead, and, as the Scriptures explicate, He does not share it towards the male and female roles either.

It is disturbing how many women who profess to belong to Christ (whether that be true or not, depending on the individual) reject the Christ-like behaviour that He Himself exemplifies towards His Father though He is His equal. Worse, there is a considerable amount of men abandoning sound doctrine and helping them do it. It's just a recurring case of Eve bringing back the fruit and men partaking in it with her all over again.

All4Christ said:

Your statements go way beyond the view of complementarianism (which can be debated elsewhere), which supports the first part of your statement (women being nourishers). Instead of saying that men are leaders of the household, are supposed to lay their lives down for their wife and family, be the head of the family, etc., you state that men are the spiritual nourishers, while women are physical nourishers. This is where the chauvinism comes in (stating that your own sex is superior). Which is more important: physical or spiritual?

Click to expand...

Never have I stated one gender superior to the other.

There is a reason that my parent post was so lengthy. It uses the foundation of one Church body, different roles in it, equal love. Now the Bible clearly says some are given different gifts and some spiritual gifts are greater than others. There is absolutely no scripture saying all have the same roles in this life serving God's plan.

Now from nature, it should be obvious that women have the role of child bearer. One who dislikes that assignment of responsibility needs to take it up with God because that is how he made us.

I postulated that men have the role in this age of spiritual nurturers, and women physical nurturers. No where have I said that a person is held in higher regard because of the gift they were given or the gender they received as part in God's plan. You make assumption that one engaged in spiritual nourishment is automatically "more important" than one engaged in physical nourishment. Not a claim that I made. You offer no scripture and dismiss my argument using the same method that Paidiske did; call it chauvinistic, so it is therefore incorrect. As I already stated, not a convincing argument.

If you wish to rescue Paidiske and respond to a post to her than you should yourself offer up an explanation for one basis of my argument, 1 Corinthians 11:7. Why does it say men are in the image of God, but women are in the image of man?

All4Christ said:

I agree with Philip as well. I am curious where you get your premise of being neither female or male in Heaven.

Click to expand...

Because there will be no marriage, sex or reproduction in heaven.
Because we will be like angels.
Because we will have new spiritual bodies in the pattern of God, not Adam.
Because there is but a single reference to gender in heaven, the Son begotten of the Father. Not even close to what gender accomplishes on earth.

Because, what is so pertinent to this thread, gender is for earthly purposes.

Archivist said:

BTW, the author's conclusion is that yes, men and women are both created in God's image.

Click to expand...

I am not going to spend a lot of time imagining what arguments are presented in some book that aren't even summarized.

Genesis 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

Not the only apparent contradiction at first glance in scripture. It should be obvious that the two text are addressing different aspects of how men and women are formed. Genesis 1 teaches us that both men and women have souls. Corinthians teaches a difference between men and women. Argue my points about this in post 294 if you wish.

AnticipateHisComing said:

Never have I stated one gender superior to the other.

There is a reason that my parent post was so lengthy. It uses the foundation of one Church body, different roles in it, equal love. Now the Bible clearly says some are given different gifts and some spiritual gifts are greater than others. There is absolutely no scripture saying all have the same roles in this life serving God's plan.

Now from nature, it should be obvious that women have the role of child bearer. One who dislikes that assignment of responsibility needs to take it up with God because that is how he made us.

I postulated that men have the role in this age of spiritual nurturers, and women physical nurturers. No where have I said that a person is held in higher regard because of the gift they were given or the gender they received as part in God's plan. You make assumption that one engaged in spiritual nourishment is automatically "more important" than one engaged in physical nourishment. Not a claim that I made. You offer no scripture and dismiss my argument using the same method that Paidiske did; call it chauvinistic, so it is therefore incorrect. As I already stated, not a convincing argument.

If you wish to rescue Paidiske and respond to a post to her than you should yourself offer up an explanation for one basis of my argument, 1 Corinthians 11:7. Why does it say men are in the image of God, but women are in the image of man?


Because there will be no marriage, sex or reproduction in heaven.
Because we will be like angels.
Because we will have new spiritual bodies in the pattern of God, not Adam.
Because there is but a single reference to gender in heaven, the Son begotten of the Father. Not even close to what gender accomplishes on earth.

Because, what is so pertinent to this thread, gender is for earthly purposes.

Click to expand...

Do you believe that women cannot nourish others spiritually, since they are supposed to physically nourish others? Besides, going on with that verse (which seems to be related to God using Adam's rib bone to create Eve), if Adam = God's image and Eve = Adam's image, then Eve also matches God's image.

FTR, I'm not rescuing Paidiske. She is perfectly capable of defending her position; I only reflect my own thoughts on the matter. And yes, my assumption is that spiritual nourishment is more important than physical nourishment. That concept is present across all of Scripture. We are not to focus on the physical world, but rather the spiritual world.

I apologize for the brevity in this post. It is late, and today has been tight time wise. I'd be happy to discuss it more, though my time will be limited during work.

Maybe part of my own experience of life is why I have trouble with this whole argument. My Mother (God rest her soul) had, for all the tea in china, not one single maternal bone in her body. No one, least of all her four children had any idea why she had any children. She did not like children, her letters now found reveal that she consistently described us a revolting. The truth of course is she was a capable and commanding lady, she look a small charity and built it up to a multi-million dollar outfit running 16 preschools for disadvantaged children, and funded numerous doctors and nurses in many places around the world. She was held in very high esteem in the wider community and was respected by all. She provided hope, health, education and a future to tens of thousands of children all around the world. She made a real and lasting difference. She was also the scariest Mother one could have had. Did that mean that I lived in a world without care and nurture. Not at all. I had a fabulous Father (God rest his soul) who cared for us, listened to our stories, gave us advice, bandaged our wounds, and taught us about the things that matter.

I had an experience this week, following the death of a person very important to me, when my Parish Priest (a lady) knew what was on my mind and expressed not a single syllable of support caring nurture encouragement or ministry. I actually understand why that is so, and I can accept that reality - of course with a little disappointment. I spoke to a friend (also a priest) also aware and yes, he understood, supported and helped me find my balance. I just can't see how it is about this gender does this and that gender does that. People are people in given situations and that is what it is.

Sometimes Mary, sometimes Martha, sometimes Paul, sometimes Barnabas. I just can't buy into an argument that says these roles are male roles and these roles are female roles. Yes, I have no doubt that my family was dysfunctional, but I have been around long enough to think that dysfunctional is pretty close to normal.

I am sorry, I know this is no argument, but maybe you can get why I can't get it.

AnticipateHisComing said:

Never have I stated one gender superior to the other.

Now from nature, it should be obvious that women have the role of child bearer. One who dislikes that assignment of responsibility needs to take it up with God because that is how he made us.

Click to expand...

This has always been the most absurd complaint to me of all the feminist complaints. Child-bearing is a vitally important and noble gift to be given. The tremendous ability to produce offspring and nurture their growth within your very own body ought to be celebrated, regardless of the increased trouble caused by the fall. Once again, I find myself obfuscated by the need to defy gifts given by the grace of God, while men have upheld their Biblical and traditional expectations despite the troubles that come from the fall against their labours, because their bodies function with greater power and durability and the Scriptures command them to sacrifice of themselves for their wives.

I anticipate not one man will oppose the above mentioned responsibilities for himself, yet the women here will continue to oppose their Scriptually and physically obvious roles. This is because it's not men who hate women, but women who hate women. This is why feminists spend their days fighting against femininity as Biblically and physically manifested, under the guise of their ironic title. Should be called masculism, since it worships the male role with the sacrifice of womanhood upon the alter of masculinity.

You offer no scripture and dismiss my argument using the same method that Paidiske did; call it chauvinistic, so it is therefore incorrect. As I already stated, not a convincing argument.

Click to expand...

Ad hominems are for people with no argument, don't you know? It is wonderfully effective as a rhetorical device as emotions are usually more involved in people's reasoning than logical or theological considerations are.

The Bible and physical constitution explicates that men and women are distinct in ability and role.
Answer: "Well you're just a misogynist!"
The Scriptures condemn homosexual behaviour.
Answer: "Says the bigot!"

What do you think carries more weight for the average person? The brute facts of difference, or the emotional sensitivities of the offended and outraged group? An obnoxious reality for the logical and Scripturally faithful individual.

Thir7ySev3n said:

Not only is the role rejected, but the women tend to even feel super-spiritual, esoterically educated and Christ-like for doing so.

Click to expand...

While reading all of this thread, in the last couple of days, a thought came to me - I imagined a woman with a fusion of attitudes that were voiced here, and she was demanding to preach to Jesus himself. She literally demanded for Jesus to sit down, while she preached to Him in full righteous mode. It was such a strange picture, but directly "inspired" by some of the attitudes I have read within this thread.

Paidiske said:

Well, actually, I am concerned with the statement that women are made to have children, better nurturers, etc. It tends to be one of the ideas which relegates women who work to the "pink collar" jobs; nursing, childcare, various service industry roles. It also leaves no room to account for the women whose strengths lie in different directions (we're not all the same!) or for men who are great nurturers.

In my marriage my husband is by far the more patient, nurturing parent (once we got past the biological stuff like breast feeding) and yet somehow he's not allowed to claim that as a strength... because biology? I resent the way this kind of statement tries to pigeon hole both men and women.

Click to expand...

Exceptions are aberrations to a rule. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. The point being, we all know what is predominately true, that women blessed with childbearing are better nurturers. If you think it chauvinistic for men to have a different spiritual role than women, then I think it feminism to dislike the role women have as nurturers.

Don't use an exception to a rule to discredit a rule. And, if you dislike the rule, take it up with our creator.

Paidiske said:

I think Paul was appropriating the text from Genesis in a way which supported his argument about order. But that we have taken that and applied it to an argument about power and authority in a way which is inconsistent with the Christian picture elsewhere in Scripture.

Click to expand...

My question, still unanswered is what does 1 Corinthians add to the Genesis account of creation. You seem to just dismiss the text because in your mind it doesn't agree with Genesis.

My specific question is what do you think 1 Corinthians 11:7 means; that man is created in the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man?

You acknowledge that verse 7 is the foundation for a behavior, order in a church setting. Now the debate was not over the power or authority of women and men. It was over the covering of the head in church by men and women. What should be learned is that when one settles an argument, one goes to an indisputable truth as the basis for reasoning to reach a conclusion. Paul did this in verse 7, but you wish to just dismiss the indisputable truth underlying the verse.

As to your claim that verse 7 disagrees with other scripture, more scripture has been quoted in this thread in support of the verse than your one text in Genesis that does not say what you want it to say.

Paidiske said:

For questions of power and authority we need to remember that part of Genesis that says that both male and female are made in the image of God; woman is not, in that sense, a reflection of a reflection, but equally shows forth something of the divine nature.

Click to expand...

Scripture never mentions "equally" in Genesis one. As scripture does numerous times, it builds on other scripture sometimes restating what was already stated, sometimes providing additional details to the subject. Scripture is all true. If you think a disagreement in two different texts, there is something missing in the interpretation of the texts.

As I have stated multiple times the point of Genesis is that we are in the image of God and unique from animals in our having souls. Other scripture expands on the roles of men and women. Just because we have different roles, doesn't mean that God loves one above the other.

Paidiske said:

Oh, and given that we know that the Christian hope is for a resurrection in the body... I too would say that sex/gender is unlikely to be absent from the resurrection.

Click to expand...

Gender has purpose on earth, as stated in scripture. Scripture states no purpose for gender in heaven. Scripture does not mention gender in heaven. What possible purpose do you see for gender in heaven?

AnticipateHisComing said:

My question, still unanswered is what does 1 Corinthians add to the Genesis account of creation. You seem to just dismiss the text because in your mind it doesn't agree with Genesis.

My specific question is what do you think 1 Corinthians 11:7 means; that man is created in the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man?

You acknowledge that verse 7 is the foundation for a behavior, order in a church setting. Now the debate was not over the power or authority of women and men. It was over the covering of the head in church by men and women. What should be learned is that when one settles an argument, one goes to an indisputable truth as the basis for reasoning to reach a conclusion. Paul did this in verse 7, but you wish to just dismiss the indisputable truth underlying the verse.

Click to expand...

I don't think it "adds to" Genesis at all. I think Paul uses Genesis to further his argument.

The question is, what is his argument, and in what circumstances does it apply? If we're talking about head coverings, then I think we can dismiss it in a culture where head coverings for women are no longer the norm. It was for that time and place. If we want to take from that a principle about not being offensive to the wider culture in the way we comport ourselves, that's not unreasonable either, but the implications of that are very different in our own day than they were in Corinth.

What I think it is totally irrelevant to, is the question, can or should a woman be a pastor? Since it would seem to suggest that she could, even in Paul's eyes, if she covered her head. Now, have we dealt with that adequately?

AnticipateHisComing said:

Gender has purpose on earth, as stated in scripture. Scripture states no purpose for gender in heaven. Scripture does not mention gender in heaven. What possible purpose do you see for gender in heaven?

Click to expand...

Are we talking about heaven, or about the resurrection? The Christian hope is of the resurrection of the body.

HenryM said:

While reading all of this thread, in the last couple of days, a thought came to me - I imagined a woman with a fusion of attitudes that were voiced here, and she was demanding to preach to Jesus himself. She literally demanded for Jesus to sit down, while she preached to Him in full righteous mode. It was such a strange picture, but directly "inspired" by some of the attitudes I have read within this thread.

Click to expand...

If God made a second incarnation as a man in the earth and spoke to a woman without identifying Himself, I could easily see her arguing with the Creator of genders regarding proper views of those genders. It would be entertaining, at least.

Philip_B said:

I have always felt Adam's excuse 'she made me do it' has been echoing around school playgrounds forever, and the truth is, it just did not cut the mustard. It is like suggesting that women have personal responsibility and men have excuses. In the 21st Century Western World this seems childish and foreign to reason.

Now I am not a liberal, I regard myself as a conservative, and I want to conserve all that is good and true and honourable and helpful. Treating women as second class citizens, designed simply as the helpers of men, seems vastly second class. I believe women and men are co-inheritors of the image and the likeness of God, and co-inheritors of the promises of God in Christ Jesus.

I think promoting a view that sees women in any less a light is demeaning to the people who hold those views and does not give glory to the God who called us out of nothing into his marvellous light. Exegesis of the Pauline corpus to denigrate women is to my mind just another playground excuse.

I trust I have made my position clear.

Click to expand...

You have made your position clear, unfortunately is devoid of scripture. Your whole argument is one of emotion to refute arguments made with clear scriptural support.

Do you think you have made a convincing argument? In general, should one follow emotions as basis for doctrine?