Women In Leadership?

[abacabb3]

Has there been any dictator or abuser in this world who did not couch his actions in a "protector/provider" context? I can't think of one, myself.

For what it is worth, there is a reason why the expression "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." When my wife gets extremely jealous about other women, to the point of accusing me of being in love with them and that I committed adultery with them and thus nullifying our marriage, I actually believe her intentions are good. SHe wants me to be even more Godly than I am and feel more secure in our relationship.

However, what is the result? Well, a sort of "emotional abuse" for sure. So, I can think of plenty of people that think we should avoid everything from traditional gender roles to soda with sugar in it in containers larger than 16 ounces (Michael Bloomberg) all for our own good. However, I don't accuse every single person who wants to do something for someone else's "own good" of necessarily having nefarious motives as you just did.

 

[seeingeyes]

The Bible teaches we should submit to the government, but at what point do we not do so? In Acts 4 I think it says, "We obey God rather than men" when they are compelled not to preach the Gospel.

SO, I think the consistent principle is for the woman to submit unless it requires disobedience to God. For example, if the husband wants his wife to go to a church where she disagrees with the theology, then she would be right to disobey if she felt convicted. However, if she wants 1% milk and he wants 2% milk, I don't see there being grounds if something that trivial really became a huge excuse.

Hence, to invoke abuse is to slander traditionalists because no one is arguing that women submit to abuse or things that incur guilt.

So if he doesn't let her leave the house for forty years, that would be acceptable under these guidelines.

See the problem?

 

[seeingeyes]

For what it is worth, there is a reason why the expression "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." When my wife gets extremely jealous about other women, to the point of accusing me of being in love with them and that I committed adultery with them and thus nullifying our marriage, I actually believe her intentions are good. SHe wants me to be even more Godly than I am and feel more secure in our relationship.

However, what is the result? Well, a sort of "emotional abuse" for sure.

It is emotional abuse. There's no love in it, only fear and envy and greed. Yet I'm sure she can quote plenty of scripture at you if she needed to keep you in line.

And that's really the issue I'm talking about. Just going with "what the scriptures say" is not enough. The Pharisees knew "what the scriptures say" backwards and forwards and upside down, yet they missed Christ standing right in front of them.

So, I can think of plenty of people that think we should avoid everything from traditional gender roles to soda with sugar in it in containers larger than 16 ounces (Michael Bloomberg) all for our own good. However, I don't accuse every single person who wants to do something for someone else's "own good" of necessarily having nefarious motives as you just did.

I think it is a problem when those who are nefarious are indistinguishable from those who are good only by a matter of degree, yes. It should be impossible to take Christ's commands "too far". Jesus wasn't really into half measures.

 

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

UPDATE:
This thread has undergone a BIG clean up! I have removed postings that were flaming. Taking jabs other other members, goading them, name calling, insulting their intelligence are all rule violations under the Flaming/Harassment rule. There is no need to address members in such a manner. Just stick to the topic.

Opening this thread back up but don't make personal remarks!!!!
MOD HAT OFF

 

[OldStudent]

I am laying down some ideas regarding women and leadership. This will take the form of several posts in progressive development.

You make a pretty good case that perhaps there is a gender ceiling for women. But I would like to pull the pendulumn strongly the otherway for purposes of counterbalance. There has been a terrible lot of eisegetical (overlaying ones own bias on a passage) thinking overlaid on some passages that has resulted in atrocities against women and demeaning some amazing contributions they could make. Men, in refusing that women have wisdom and a much needed perspective they lack, have demeaned themselves in ways they can’t imagine.

Let me lay down this axiom: The reason for our existence is to be part of a web of relationships. (Gen 2:18)

From Jn 1, Col 1, and Rev 4 we know that before some point there was nothing – nothing but God. God is love. 1 Jn 4. They (Father, Son, Spirit) needed to expand their range of relationships. From this desire they went on a creative rampage. It was Jesus who executed the creation. Man was made in a semblance of God – multiple persons comprising a single entity. Gen 1:26, 27; Gen 2:24; Gen 5:1,2. We don’t do well understanding that because sin has broken that oneness and we have never seen anything like it. In Gen 3:16-19 God describes how sin has broken relationships. These relationships are more deeply broken by such statements of headship that endeavor to silence women, marginalize their gifts, to force submission, that normalize sin's effects rather than restore to God's original blueprint for what relationship should be. God did give humanity a dominion role over all that had been created before them. Headship theology seeks to carve dominions among people. That is not God's design.

Now let’s consider a strange question: as we look at man made in Their image, what similarities do we find? We find a unity. Yet we find some delineation of roles. When it comes to creative work who takes primary roles – Christ and women. When God was done with the six days of creation, in a sense He wasn’t quite done because in women He placed an ongoing workshop for the continuation of creation. Through women the web of relationships continues to grow. Women’s frame of reference is more inclined to be relationships – “Jimmy was in diapers when… “ “Sarah was starting high school when…” They are more wired to think and serve in context of relationships. Women are crucial to nurture especially early on. These qualities are notably parallel to Christ and the Holy Spirit. In this world the dominant ruler is Satan. Satan has it in for Christ. Women have a particular likeness of Christ in creation and nurture.. It is apparent there is a peculiar animosity leveled at Christ and women. This figures into the abusive application of some passages of Scripture apparently having to do with gender associated assignment of authority.

Also in Genesis 3 we note that men’s nose was pointed to the soil – not rulership or authority. He provides sustenance. Men build. Men seem to be wired to provide. This tends to be goal, object oriented, “get’er done,” high energy, brute force. They tend to be linear, compartmentalized, focused. Now the “brute force” thing is in great need of taming and directing. This is where men need the input of women to keep things in perspective. If we lose that, hellish existance becomes a speedy reality. How many wars, genocides, or inquisitions were instigated by women?

 

[OldStudent]

Headship theology concerns itself with establishment of authority and who rightly holds it. Let’s look at how Jesus used His authority just in His last week. We see Him exercising authority at different levels. He went into the temple and thoroughly disrupted business. Matt 21:12,13; Lk 19:45-48. He gave the corrupt leadership heavy rebuke. Matt 23. These are rare and exceptional instances of Jesus exercising assertive authority. He uses this only against those who are abusing authority.

In John 13 Jesus was facing the crisis of His life. His traitor was in the room. The disciples were contending among themselves for the best positions in His kingdom. Luke 22. He sensed that the full authority of heaven authorized by the Father was in His hands. He then laid aside His encumbering garments, laid a towel over His arm, took a basin of water and served – washing the disciple's feet. His demeanor was focused on reaching their hearts. He was set on wooing, winning, earning. There was no hint of demanding their submission, His rightful rights. The reception of great authority is not a call to demand, direct, issue orders. The reception of great authority is the call, the opportunity to deep service to those under its charge.

Now let’s turn to Ephesians 5. Note the proportions. Up to verse 21 Paul has been giving some valuable exhortations. Verse 21 (“Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”) is key context to the following exhortations. The next 3 verses are directed to wives. BUT the NEXT 9 verses are for the husbands. He points to the example of Christ. Men are NOT commissioned to shape the world according their personal pleasures. They are not to demand submission but make themselves worthy of submission. Their wives are not for their purposes and service. Wives are only asked to submit. Husbands are to face placing their lives on the line for them. In 3 verses the wives get the picture. It takes 9 verses to lay it out to the husbands. The submission of their wives is to be won, earned, wooed at a dear price. Paul makes Jesus our model. You value greatly that for which you give much. Men need that.

 

[OldStudent]

The purpose of our existence is to be part of a web of relationships. Women, our wives can do much to enable men to become desirable, strong, honorable,… if we drop our overpowering need to control and come to desire to honor and cherish our wives. Men can bring strength, toughness, yet with women's sense of relationships moderating them, powerful gentleness to the web of reationships.

Now it is not to be overlooked that there is a powerful, authoritative role for men. God desires men to have a strong leadership role. In the presence of sin there must be someone to have an overruling vote in certain extremities. I went through all the above dissertation to be able to say that when men understand their authoritative role they will exercise that role for the benefit of their household and whomever else may be influenced. The problem with “headship theology" as often executed is that it warps the whole Godly scheme of relationships.

 

[OldStudent]

Is there a place for lady leaders? It is said “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” To most men the training received of a woman is crucial – even if later discounted and demeaned. A sizable part of womens' lives are rightfully dedicated to the next generation - immensely valuable and important. Men have an amazing part in this too but from a different perspective. The place and trajectory of leadership for each will be different. But men must seek their wisdom and perspective to enhance everyone’s place in the web of relationships.

Now that the role of women has become a point of study it might be a good time to read through the gospels. A female presence resides in the background and not so infrequently in the foreground. For example, at the dedication of Jesus there were two witnesses – Simeon and Anna. "In the mouth of two or more witnesses is a matter established" Deut 19:15; Matt 18:16. Anna was given full citizenship and authority as witness to the dedication of Jesus. The first and highly successful evangelist was a woman, a broken woman who was so amazed that Messiah would accept and transform her – the Samaritan woman.

The earliest church followed Jesus' model of recognizing and accepting women's value and contributions. "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant (the word behind this is deacon) of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also." Rom 16:1,2. As Paul began closing his letter to the Romans the first person addressed was a woman. She was a deaconess, a willing, capable, free servant of the church. Paul recommended church resouces be made available to her. Paul here, and in other settings, includes a fair sprinkling of women in his salutations. Paul may not have been as chauvinistic as he has been made out to be.

As for women in leadership being shameful consider Deborah - the judge of Judges 4. People had been coming to her for her advise and wisdom. At some point Sisera took to harassing Israel. She called Barak to assemble an army and deal with Sisera. Barak said, "If you go, I go. If not, no deal." He had great respect for her and her presence. Once Sisera had been dispatched the land enjoyed 40 years of rest. Is any shame ascribed to that?

King Josiah sent the priest Hilkiah and a contingent of assistants to Huldah the prophetess to seek counsel of God. (2 Kings 22, 2 Choronicles 34). Linking her to her husband was not a matter of authority but identity.

Philip had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:8,9). The nature and context of their prophetic work is not given. It is high commendation for Philip that God would so choose his daughters for such service. But that their service was subject their Dad's authority puts him in interference with God.

When God calls a women especially to the prophetic post He is the Authority. The men in their lives have no authority in the exercise of that calling. They take the privilege to assist or get out of the way.

If you want to consider shame, consider the record of the kings recorded in the books of Samuel, Kings, Choronicles. Consider the shame of the men of the Sanhedren. Men don't have such an exemplary record of leadership. Men do well to consider their established history and seek whatever help they can. A sizable assist is to be found in women.

In all of this I am not attacking leadership. Leaders are much needed to coordinate people and materials toward goals. Considerable consideration needs to be given what is entailed in Godly leadership. What are the "rights" of leaders? How is Godly leadership achieved? How does serventhood fit leadership? What limits, guidance, controls apply to assertive, demanding exercise of leadership? What comprises qualified leadership? What guidance can we draw from Scripture about how the gender factor is addressed?

 

[NorrinRadd]

Has there been any dictator or abuser in this world who did not couch his actions in a "protector/provider" context? I can't think of one, myself.

I'm sorry, but I still find it unhelpful to make that a major focus of the discussion. Yes, I suppose I am speaking from my position of "male privilege," and I frankly don't care. I advocate for equality and mutuality because that is what I see the Bible teaching. But I know plenty of Xians in "the man is the head of the house" marriages who are thoroughly happy. The men are protectors and providers, and the women are happy to be protected and provided for. It is unfair to such families to tar them with the "abuse" brush.

 

[seeingeyes]

It is unfair to such families to tar them with the "abuse" brush.

And I never did. But when is the last time that you heard of someone who was abused describe the marriage that they were escaping as "egalitarian"?

One system is more prone to abuse than the other. It simply is.

There is a reason that Samuel warned the people not to clamor for a king...

 

[Andrea411]

If it is right for women to submit so they come under the headship of Christ it would be unfair not to teach men how to submit to His headship. I personally think the church has done men a grave injustice, by not teaching submission.
Also by always teaching them the burden of a family is on their shoulders and not encouraging them to mutually support one another.
The church has historically not defended women in abusive relationships by the mis-use of these scriptures and they should acknowledge it and re-think their own roles in what has occurred within Christian marriages.
There is a better way to interpret the scriptures without going outside of the scriptures.

God bless, andrea

 

[pescador]

If it is right for women to submit so they come under the headship of Christ it would be unfair not to teach men how to submit to His headship. I personally think the church has done men a grave injustice, by not teaching submission.
Also by always teaching them the burden of a family is on their shoulders and not encouraging them to mutually support one another.
The church has historically not defended women in abusive relationships by the mis-use of these scriptures and they should acknowledge it and re-think their own roles in what has occurred within Christian marriages.
There is a better way to interpret the scriptures without going outside of the scriptures.

God bless, andrea

There has been an unimaginable amount of discussion about the submission of women, almost all of it based on a small section of Paul's letter to the church in Ephesus about two thousand years ago. There is much, much more written in Scripture about women, but it seems to be largely ignored. In both the Old and New Testaments women played a variety of roles, from political leadership to prostitution. In the New Testament, not only were women prominent followers and supporters of Jesus, they were spiritual leaders and had the church meet in their homes. Furthermore, the men deserted Jesus; the women never did.


The church in Ephesus, a pagan city dedicated to Artemis, had real social problems that Paul attempted to correct in his letter. Among these were the roles of husbands and wives, obscenity, coarse joking, "[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the fruitless deeds of darkness", drunkenness, debauchery, We do not live in those times nor do we live in a city devoted to a pagan goddess.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Making rules about how husbands and wives should relate in the 21st. century based on the letter to the Ephesians is creating a new biblical law. The are definite spiritual principles here but we must all be guided by the Holy Spirit not a new legalism. I have been married for 45 years and have always loved my wife. It is inconceivable that I would ever expect that she who is "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" would submit to me. She has always been my partner, my lover, and my best friend, and we have always been equal partners in our life together. God made us "one flesh" and in Him we live, move, and have our being. IMHO there is no other way for those who God has joined together to live.[/FONT]

 

[Andrea411]

There has been an unimaginable amount of discussion about the submission of women, almost all of it based on a small section of Paul's letter to the church in Ephesus about two thousand years ago. There is much, much more written in Scripture about women, but it seems to be largely ignored. In both the Old and New Testaments women played a variety of roles, from political leadership to prostitution. In the New Testament, not only were women prominent followers and supporters of Jesus, they were spiritual leaders and had the church meet in their homes. Furthermore, the men deserted Jesus; the women never did.


The church in Ephesus, a pagan city dedicated to Artemis, had real social problems that Paul attempted to correct in his letter. Among these were the roles of husbands and wives, obscenity, coarse joking, "[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the fruitless deeds of darkness", drunkenness, debauchery, We do not live in those times nor do we live in a city devoted to a pagan goddess.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Making rules about how husbands and wives should relate in the 21st. century based on the letter to the Ephesians is creating a new biblical law. The are definite spiritual principles here but we must all be guided by the Holy Spirit not a new legalism. I have been married for 45 years and have always loved my wife. It is inconceivable that I would ever expect that she who is "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" would submit to me. She has always been my partner, my lover, and my best friend, and we have always been equal partners in our life together. God made us "one flesh" and in Him we live, move, and have our being. IMHO there is no other way for those who God has joined together to live.[/FONT]

My thought is that just as slavery was not directly addressed as wrong in the bible. Christians whose hearts are turned to the Lord would figure it out. If the bible outlawed slavery, the slaves would not have been evangelized and so with women. Husbands would not have allowed their wives to read the scriptures if they said, you are his equal. So the scriptures speak to our hearts and we changed our view on slavery and we will on women eventually.
My husband and I are egalitarians. I have never seen a marriage work where the wife was 'the boss'. Just not experienced that, I have seen hierarchal marriages work but also seen way too much abuse.
The happiest marriages are where two people believe they are in the Lord's will and gladly submitting.
I believe the scriptures say, submitting one to another... that is love. I desire his happiness, he desires mine... has worked well for 40 years.

The sad part is when I listen to women tell me they must submit to their husbands bc of the scriptures and I know very well they will manipulate their way to get what they want or need. If he doesn't do as they ask, he suffers. They will tell you they are submitting, while they burn dinner or sulk etc etc. Instead of treating one another like friends, they follow a system that is not healthy for anyone.
I had a guy tell me he and his wife discussed who the best political candidate was and he'd make the final decision who they'd both vote for and he thought that was complementarianism. I thought that was treating her like a child.

Marriages are very personal and we don't always know what makes them healthy but for me, I think of my husband as my best friend. Would never want to deceive or mistreat my best friend. He is a person of real integrity, I respect him our needs are different, thats ok. Thats how friends are.

Thanks for your testimony, its always encouraging to hear from men who are not afraid of respecting their wives as fully functioning adults.
God bless, andrea

 

[NorrinRadd]

My thought is that just as slavery was not directly addressed as wrong in the bible. Christians whose hearts are turned to the Lord would figure it out. ...

One gets the impression that Paul saw freedom as the ideal, even if he chose not to directly challenge the culture on the matter.

We use Gal. 3:28 to argue for equality of male and female. It also argues for abolition of the slave-master hierarchy. So do Col. 3:11 and 1 Cor. 12:13. Even though the male-female wording occurs only in Gal., the fact that the abolition of class distinctions is a recurring theme supports our argument for rejection of hierarchy between male and female, husband and wife.

In the Domestic Codes section of Ephesians, in the "masters and slaves" portion, Paul goes into some detail regarding the way slaves should behave for their masters -- then closes by telling the masters to treat the slaves "the same way"!

In the Domestic Codes section of Titus 2, we reasonably infer that the submission of wives and the obedience of slaves is for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary strife with opponents or outside observers who might "malign the word of God" and "say bad things about us."

In Philemon, we see Paul strongly exhorting -- but not commanding -- Philemon to receive the returning escaped slave Onesimus as a brother, not a slave; he presses Philemon to release him, but does not presume to command it.

 

[Floyd20]

Wow! I just read the 16 pages. "Women in Leadership" is a current topic in my denomination which is debating just this topic. Ordination of women. I did a paper on the topic maybe 20 years ago for a sociology of women course. At that time I went through some documentation from Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and also from Christians for Biblical Equality.

Sex role socialization, gender role socialization, and sexual orientation are helpfully sometimes separated.

First about similarities and differences between or among the sexes. IIRC, there are two biases when comparing the sexes on a particular trait: seeing them as more alike than different when it isn't so; and, seeing them more different than alike when it isn't so. One is Alpha bias and the other is Beta Bias.

So, what of gender roles? Four seem possible based upon stereotypes: feminine, masculine, non-gendered, and androgynous. So, for example, let's take nurturance. Is there a feminine form of nurturance and a masculine form? Or, is there a human form of nurturance and an animal form? What does it mean to be nurturing?

So, immediately after Adam was created, he was in the true sense "bisexual" in that Eve was still inside of him. He was created in God's image, therefore, God is both male and female. Eve came from Adam's side and not his head or feet. Equality. Unless as mentioned in some of the postings, her suitability as a helper made her superior.

How do we learn our sex roles, gender roles, and orientation? Was Timothy sometimes suffering from a spirit of timidity? Did his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice teach him? (2 Tim 1:5) The word "teach" in 1 Tim 2:12 could have sexual connotations. At any rate, IIRC, it is a form of verb in this case which is not common in NT (Am I right?)

Then the reference to Eve and "childbearing." If I may be permitted to throw in a monkey wrench of hermeneutic menace: is not that word "technogony?" In contemporary society, if indeed the Bible is meant for our society too, such a word smacks of "technology" and "reproduction" such that it could only mean that women shall be saved when they take control of the reproductive technology.

But is that something special for women? In their complementarity, are they to take control of the reproductive technology or can it be shared with men?

One must also avoid using men as the standard and women as being different than men on some trait. Thus, women are weak(er than men in muscle mass).

Some men take great exception to getting in touch with their femininity. Sometimes studying the masculine and feminine archetypes can be helpful.

But, this 1 Cor 14:34 thing: is it "your" women (possessive) or "the" women (definite article)? Or, is the indefinite article allowable too. Sorry, if I am a poor lay autodidact and do not know Greek very well. "Your" or "the" could be a particular subset within the church and not apply to all. It could be a specific message to Timothy. Maybe he was getting married??? Conducting weddings???

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things Jesus Christ (Charity).

 

[Andrea411]

Wow! I just read the 16 pages. "Women in Leadership" is a current topic in my denomination which is debating just this topic. Ordination of women. I did a paper on the topic maybe 20 years ago for a sociology of women course. At that time I went through some documentation from Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and also from Christians for Biblical Equality.

Sex role socialization, gender role socialization, and sexual orientation are helpfully sometimes separated.

First about similarities and differences between or among the sexes. IIRC, there are two biases when comparing the sexes on a particular trait: seeing them as more alike than different when it isn't so; and, seeing them more different than alike when it isn't so. One is Alpha bias and the other is Beta Bias.

So, what of gender roles? Four seem possible based upon stereotypes: feminine, masculine, non-gendered, and androgynous. So, for example, let's take nurturance. Is there a feminine form of nurturance and a masculine form? Or, is there a human form of nurturance and an animal form? What does it mean to be nurturing?

So, immediately after Adam was created, he was in the true sense "bisexual" in that Eve was still inside of him. He was created in God's image, therefore, God is both male and female. Eve came from Adam's side and not his head or feet. Equality. Unless as mentioned in some of the postings, her suitability as a helper made her superior.

How do we learn our sex roles, gender roles, and orientation? Was Timothy sometimes suffering from a spirit of timidity? Did his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice teach him? (2 Tim 1:5) The word "teach" in 1 Tim 2:12 could have sexual connotations. At any rate, IIRC, it is a form of verb in this case which is not common in NT (Am I right?)

Then the reference to Eve and "childbearing." If I may be permitted to throw in a monkey wrench of hermeneutic menace: is not that word "technogony?" In contemporary society, if indeed the Bible is meant for our society too, such a word smacks of "technology" and "reproduction" such that it could only mean that women shall be saved when they take control of the reproductive technology.

But is that something special for women? In their complementarity, are they to take control of the reproductive technology or can it be shared with men?

One must also avoid using men as the standard and women as being different than men on some trait. Thus, women are weak(er than men in muscle mass).

Some men take great exception to getting in touch with their femininity. Sometimes studying the masculine and feminine archetypes can be helpful.

But, this 1 Cor 14:34 thing: is it "your" women (possessive) or "the" women (definite article)? Or, is the indefinite article allowable too. Sorry, if I am a poor lay autodidact and do not know Greek very well. "Your" or "the" could be a particular subset within the church and not apply to all. It could be a specific message to Timothy. Maybe he was getting married??? Conducting weddings???

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things Jesus Christ (Charity).

I appreciate the tone of your post... the willingness to see the possibility for different interpretations. I contend that the Lord knew very well that this would happen. In some societies the hierarchy is so ingrained to offer a gospel that would elevate women would in itself be offensive. Only after the Holy Spirit gets a hold of us and changes us from the inside out will our hardened hearts be softened and changed into Christ's.
God doesn't give us a persuasive argument to end slavery. He gives us a heart to have empathy for others, to have God's heart beat within us. When that happens ... with that comes a desire to please God, to submit to others who have this same heart within them. A women who walks in the Holy Spirit should be regarded as a valuable asset to her church. There is no need for gender roles if we ourselves are looking to Christ as our head.
Why would any denomination teach a woman to look to a man as her head when men are fallible and often cruel, when she like him can go to Christ "her head". In the same way why would we prefer a male with no teaching skills over a woman who can teach scripture. That is just ingrained bias.

If we were to take the gospel into Patristic societies i.e.:Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq (may the Lord allow) we wouldn't send women missionaries or pastors... it would not be wise. In time the culture would change and their eyes and hearts would be opened to the truth of the gospel. God is not a respecter of persons, He loves us all equally.
If I love my husband I don't want to be a burden on him, I want to share in our struggles together.... as each of us is equipped.
Our society today, men still take the lead in relationships, that is allowable within the gospel. If men want their wives to be their equals or women desire to be their husbands equal... that is allowable. If a denomination wants only men in authority, they must look at what is righteous in their own hearts and each submit to one another.
The time has come, women are saying, does God think I am less than a man? In our society it is hindering the gospel to present a God who views females as less then males. Yet within the gospel is built the flexibility for all cultures to offer this gospel. For if the scriptures had DEMANDED the end to slavery, many slaves would not have been allowed to even hear it. As it was... they were taught it as a form of submission. God forgive us.

God bless, andrea

It is amazing when you view the flow of the gospel throughout history, the rise of societies was directly correlated to the influence of Christianity. When Christianity is expunged we also see those societies turn backwards. Women once again subordinate and where there was once promise of freedom, it is replaced by totalitarian societies. NOT if they allow Christianity, if they allow Christianity but don't accept it, they grow along side like Japan, Iceland and many others. But if you watch civilized society through history... first the Middle east was great, then Europe, Turkey, Greece... the Muslims came wiped out most of their advancements. The gospel continued across the sees and into Asia. Finally, Africa is being Christianized and we see great advancement in the last 100 years. The Christian countries advance, the others advance as long as they don't purge Christians. If they purge the Christians they fall into mayhem and become a dust bowl.
Look at China, while Christianity was growing, they grew, they purged and became totalitarian. With the growing Christian population we see them becoming a world power. (They have more Christians then the USA) if they purge and they may, we will see them fall as well or it will be the end bc today it looks like the end is soon to come. God help us all.

Of course the exception being Israel, the Jews made Israel, once a dust bowl, bloom in one generation and we know why....

 

[Gunny]

Amen and amen. Outstanding comments, brothers and sisters in Christ.

The primary foundation of my wife and myself and our marriage is that Jesus is each other's first love. Many years ago we were talking about issues of faith (a very common/daily occurrence) and we both looked at one another and asked: "Who is your first love?" My wife and myself responded at the same time, Jesus, (we both had some serious smiles when stating this to one another). Praise be to God!

 

[Floyd20]

I think that in the Bible Speaks Today series of books there is a book on 1 Timothy by John Stott wherein there is a discussion about "guarding" the gospel. The gospel is the "good news" and does sometimes need to be protected and kept pure -- maybe a little like protecting the ark in the OT. It is true that God protects His gospel but we truly can assist Him. However, do note that the gospel went to Africa (Ethiopia) perhaps before it went to Europe. And the gospel did travel extensively before or after prosperity happened in these places.

I do not think I buy in to the "exceptionalism" arguments too much. Of course, I am reading 2 Chronicles currently. Just because we be God's people and even if we be following His will does not mean that we must be blessed and not put through trials. In fact He indicates that if we be His people, He will bring trials to us. May we endure in Him to the end.

I know there is the "city on a hill" and the "lamp lighting the house" metaphors. I know we are to walk in the light and that is especially important today (as always). But our faith is not entirely perfected for show purposes.

Does "be ye holy" suggest that we must integrate the best of the masculine and the best of the feminine? With sometimes similarities and sometimes dissimilarities? I am not even entirely sure that "be ye holy" is about us being perfect in every sense. "Perfect" as in lacking nothing and complete (fully equipped) may be good. But, if we do our best in everything, we would eventually fail in everything. We cannot do all things at the level of best. I do not know if we can even do all things well. Perhaps reasonably well. I do not necessarily buy into the recent ideas of "minimalism" which may hearken back to simple lifestyles advocated by Greek cynics, but we cannot seek perfection as driven by the flesh to perform flawlessly. Better weakness with Him.

If women are the weaker vessel and this indeed means something other than on average less muscle mass, then, in Him, they can be stronger. And, this is true strength. If Eve sinned first, then perhaps she was humbled and prayed first. The promise of the Son was, IIRC, in Genesis 3:15. Salvation is offered and received in every peoplegroup.

Oh, and if the Bible were to suggest that "slavery" is okay, then I would accept the Bible. In our world without slavery, there are still wage slaves and domestic slaves. And there still is some real abusive subjection. God allows such. When it comes to authority, the quality of the leaders does matter. But obedience matters too. We who have true hope do not need to add troubles to those without hope.

But then even "terrorism" as a technique is still to be used by militaries everywhere. If we tell a person about "heaven" and "hell" and then suggest to them that it is their choice and decision about where they shall go after life is over, are we not, in some degree, using terrorist techniques? Does this mean that we need to find a way to retrieve a gentler gospel for hurting people? Pure gospel can be controversial.

"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb." (Revelation 7:9-10)

 

[NorrinRadd]

Wow! I just read the 16 pages. ...

I see you're a new arrival. Welcome. Those of us who have been here a while are surprised when one of these "Can women be pastors" type of threads ONLY lasts 15 or 16 pages. I've seen them go a few DOZEN.

 

[Floyd20]

Hi NorrinRadd of faith charismatic. May you have gifts of the invisible sort. IIRC, there is a thread at the Conservative Christian area that is a wee bit longer than this thread about women and leadership. I suspect it is getting a challenging run. I shall have to find out how my denomination is doing as they were going to debate ordination of women at the national conference this past weekend (true it is still 11:23 PM on Sunday, PDT).

I am still trying to develop a mood. Do not know how to do that and it seems the directions sometimes don't work too. I guess that your type of "cheeky" is the other cheeky. For the record, I am 54 too.

I just read and studied 2 Chronicles 33:1-25. In The Lutheran Study Bible (ESV), I find a linked note for 2 Kings 21:19-26:

"King Amon rejects God's ways and walks in the ways of evil King Manasseh, his father. Today, do not simply accept the antics of evil rulers, but also do not read this passage as a blessing for overthrowing your government!"

The Lutheran church is so straightforward about authority! Thanks! Of course, if it weren't for the Lutherans, where would the Protestants be now? Still Catholics? This, by the way, is good hearted fun among brethren, not insulting or name-calling.

Is a "Fideist" someone who promotes the leap of faith similar to Soren Kierkegaard? Or, someone with perhaps better Lutheran credentials who believes in salvation solely through faith (by Grace). Perhaps the "by Grace" is neither parenthetical nor optional.