Women Pastors part 2

[hedrick]

It's quite crude to relate everything back to sexual connotations. It certainly doesn't help your case. Even substituting the word initiate for penetrate would be better. Besides, love is not created by a man penetrating a woman. If that is your concept of what love is or where love comes from (sexual intercourse) ...then it's sad to hear that.

I also don't see what it has to do with ministry.

 

[Paidiske]

You're so polite, Laura.

 

[All4Christ]

You're so polite, Laura.

I had to delete my reply first. Otherwise it wouldn't sound that way.

Honestly, I had to read his post a few times to make sure it actually said what I thought it said.

 

[All4Christ]

You're so polite, Laura.

And considering it, perhaps too polite at times.

 

[All4Christ]

I also don't see what it has to do with ministry.

Agreed.

 

[Paidiske]

Nah (on the "too polite" idea). It's lovely, honestly. I just don't feel I always live up to your diplomatic example!

 

[Archivist]

- Being the one who initiates relationship (penetrates)

My long-time girlfriend originally asked me out. And we are equals in our relationship.

Frankly I find what you wrote to be disgusting.

 

[All4Christ]

Some evidence:

Women Pastors part 2

bishop/elder

This word renders the Greek words episkopos or presbyteros.

We have no examples of women in the NT being titled by these; however, we have no MEN labeled that either, except Peter and the self-designation of the author of 2 & 3rd John!

But the archeological data is significant here.

1. An early mosaic in a Roman basilica portrays a living figure titled "Bishop Theodora" (WS:WWWP:9-10) [Latin: episcopa]
   
   
2. At a burial site on the Greek island of Thera there is an epitaph for a women Epiktas, named as an presbytis in the 3rd or 4th century. [WS:WWWP:10]
   
   
3. A Christian inscription from 2nd or 3rd century Egypt reads: "Artemidoras...fell asleep in the Lord, her mother Paniskianes being an elder [presbytera]" (WS:WWWP:20)
   
   
4. The bishop Diogenes in the 3rd century set up a memorial for Ammion the elder (presbytera, feminine form). (WS:WWWP:20)
   
   
5. A 4th or 5th century epitaph in Sicily refers to Kale the elder (presbytis, also feminine). (WS:WWWP:20).

deacon/deaconess

Although this word (lit. "servant") has a wide range of meaning in NT times, there is some data that can be used for our study.

1. In Rom 16.1-2, the female Phoebe is called by the MASCULINE form of 'deacon'--strongly suggesting that it is the technical term of the office of deacon. [WS:WIC:88f]
   
   
2. Clement of Alexandria wrote about women deacons (Misc., 3.6.53)
   
   
3. The Council of Chalcedon specified that "henceforth a deaconess must be at least forty and unmarried" (ROC:108)
   
   
4. Pliny the Younger, in his correspondence to Trajan, reported that he had tortured two young Christian women "who were called deacons" (Epistle 10.96.8).
   
   
5. Origen argued on the basis of Rom 16 that the EXISTING institution of women deacons should be continued. (commentary on Romans).

In regards to episcopa (and presbytera), the Byzantine Church (and I assume to an extent the Western church) has always titled spouses of clergy by the feminine form of the word. To this day, the wives of Greek priests (presbyters) are called presbytera. Also, certainly I agree that Phoebe was a deaconess. (I doubt deacon vs deaconess was officially defined at that point). However, if you read the other canons in the council your referenced, you will see that deacon and deaconess held two different roles.

That said, women are a critical part of ministry in the church. Anyone who says otherwise misses a good portion of the gospel.

 

[All4Christ]

Nah (on the "too polite" idea). It's lovely, honestly. I just don't feel I always live up to your diplomatic example!

Thanks!

I think we need both sides of the coin diplomatic and just saying what needs to be said.

 

[All4Christ]

There always seem to be two dichotomous positions in threads like this. Not all who disagree with ordination of women to the priesthood believe that women can't teach, evangelize, preach etc.

Perhaps it is like @Paidiske said: we have different understandings of the roles (priest / pastor, deacon / deaconess / elder), so our reasonings for supporting or rejecting ordination of women may also be different.

In the Orthodox Church, it is primarily sacramental duties that are limited to men (the Sacerdotal ministry - consecration of the gifts, performing the Sacraments, though one should note that doesn't mean women can't assist). Why? For one, the priest is the ikon of Christ, and...well...Jesus is male and was born as a man. Two, the Apostolic ministry (apostles) was composed of men. That's how it was done in the early church, and thus has always been done that way. (That said, this does not make the apostles or anyone in the priesthood at a higher value than others.)

HOWEVER...and this is important...Christ showed the value of women beyond the importance that His culture place on women. While Eve was deceived, Mary said yes. While Eve disobeyed, Mary obeyed.

Think some more about this: When Christ died, the apostles scattered, but the women gathered at the foot of His cross. When He was in the tomb (and raised!), the women were the ones that found Him gone. The apostles were hiding! In more recent times, during Communism, the Church was carried on by the "grandmothers" more than the priests. Often, women are the backbone of the Church.

To demean women, or say that the are of lesser value than men, should be against all of our beliefs, no matter what we believe about ordination of women. Christ broke the boundaries of His society to show that men and women are equal in the sight of God. We don't necessarily all have the same role, but we are all equally precious in His eyes.

 

[HenryM]

Just curious, are you a Mason???

Not in the slightest. Why would you ever think that? (My guess is you misread something)

It's quite crude to relate everything back to sexual connotations.

"Relating everything back to sexual connotations" is not what I wrote, but what you decided to read.

I wrote that clear distinction between man's and woman's role in creation of new life (baby), and through it new love (again meaning baby who gets to be new bearer of God's love), is there for a reason. It's not just some coincidence, which we are to brush off.

...love is not created by a man penetrating a woman. If that is your concept of what love is or where love comes from (sexual intercourse) ...then it's sad to hear that.

Again, this is what you decided to read. I wrote of physical manifestation of new love in the world - a baby - new being capable of receving God's love and giving it back to God and others. (You could, Laura, in your politeness, ask for additional explanation when you are not sure was written, before jumping to conclusions.)

Back to the significance of penetration. What's bad about that word?

Ideas and words are penetrative. When one speaks with the idea to influence, he or she can penetrate other's soul. Again, not to be misread - this is not any kind of speaking, this is purposely speaking with the goal to change or deepen someone's mind about something substantial. That includes speaking/preaching about God. Especially speaking/preaching about God from a podium to a room full of people.

I don't say that it is absolutely forbidden for woman to do so. I am saying that we have some loud signs that tell us that it is not the greatest idea to do so. And if it is to be done, I would say that it would be an exception that exist for a reason, not a general rule. A general rule, in my opinion, would be to not have woman preachers.

By the way, and I didn't want to get in there, but alas, it is scientifically proven that our biology/physicality significantly shapes our mentality. So even science says that there is no such thing as "mere biology". There are problems when we act against the role we have been given. I am talking about earthly problems, consequences.

Finally, why are these words taken lightly by some: "Wives should submit to their husbands as if to the Lord. A husband is the head of his wife like Christ is head of the church, that is, the savior of the body. So wives submit to their husbands in everything like the church submits to Christ." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Again, this whole debate revolves, as it turns out, about the notion that woman submitting to a man is a bad idea. So, this whole debate is misleading, and in a sense disingenuous (again, not to be misread - not consciously disingenuous by OP, but it turned out that way as it progressed). I think that honest headline for this kind of thread should be "Women shouldn't submit to men". Then everybody could start with all cards on the table and work from there.

 

[Sheep4Christ]

I like that:Eve was deceived but Mary said yes. Eve disobeyed but Mary obeyed.Reminds me of when God put enmity between the serpent and the woman and between their decedents ."He shall bruise your head,and you shall bruise His heel" Christ came through a woman.Literally.

 

[Sheep4Christ]

Hi .well I believe that w

Not in the slightest.



"Relating everything back to sexual connotations" is not what I wrote, but what you decided to read.

I wrote that everything exist for a reason. And I said that clear distinction between man's and woman's role in creation of new life (baby), and love (again meaning baby who gets to be new love), is there for a reason. It's not just some coincidence, which we are to brush off.



Again, this is what you decided to read. I wrote of physical manifestation of new love in the world - a baby - new being capable of receving God's love and giving it back to God and others. (You could, Laura, in your politeness, ask for additional explanation when you are not sure was written, before jumping to conclusions.)

Back to the significance of penetration. What's bad about that word?

Ideas and words are penetrative. When one speaks with the idea to influence, he or she can penetrate other's soul. Again, not to be misread - this is not any kind of speaking, this is purposely speaking with the goal to change or deepen someone's mind about something substantial. That includes speaking/preaching about God. Especially speaking/preaching about God from a podium to a room full of people.

I don't say that it is absolutely forbidden for woman to do so. I am saying that we have some loud signs that tell us that it is not the greatest idea to do so. And if it is to be done, I would say that it would be an exception that exist for a reason, not a general rule. A general rule, in my opinion, would be to not have woman preachers.

By the way, and I didn't what to get in there, but alas, it is scientifically proven that our biology/physicality significantly shapes our mentality. So even science says that there is no such thing as "mere biology". There are problems when we act against the role we have been given. I am talking about earthly problems, consequences.

Finally, why are these words taken lightly by some: "Wives should submit to their husbands as if to the Lord. A husband is the head of his wife like Christ is head of the church, that is, the savior of the body. So wives submit to their husbands in everything like the church submits to Christ." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Again, this whole debate revolves, as it turns out, about the notion that woman submitting to a man is a bad idea. So, this whole debate is misleading, and in a sense disingenuous (again, not to be misread - not consciously disingenuous by OP, but it turned out that way as it progressed). I think that honest headline for this kind of thread should be "Women shouldn't submit to men". Then everybody could start with all cards on the table and work from there.

Hi. Just to be clear I do believe that wives and husbands should treat each other as scripture says.That being said the only man a woman has to submit to is her own husband.And not every man that struts the face of God's earth.Honestly I wasn't intending for this thread to come to this point although I am happy that some people have been honest about their feelings in this discussion.

 

[HenryM]

...the only man a woman has to submit to is her own husband. And not every man that struts the face of God's earth.

Yes, but there is much more to it.

It says: "Wives should submit to their husbands as if to the Lord." Can you imagine it, the husband as if he is the Lord. There is extended submission of lesser kind to all men, just as a man loves his wife with all his heart and actions, while he extends his respect and protection and lesser kind of love to all women.

In another words, it can't mean that a man should love his wife and threat all other women like nothing. At the same time, women submits to husband to highest degree, while she extends deep courtesy and respect to all men.

Look how you have used the verb "strut" to describe all other men except husband. Strut means to "walk with a vain, pompous bearing, as with head erect and chest thrown out, as if expecting to impress observers." Do you really look at all men (except one, a husband) like that? Imagine a man saying: "The only woman a man has to love is his own wife. And not every bi*** that walks the face of God's earth."

 

[bsd058]

Removed this post because it discussed actions against me which is against the rules.

 

[ToBeLoved]

HOWEVER...and this is important...Christ showed the value of women beyond the importance that His culture place on women. While Eve was deceived, Mary said yes. While Eve disobeyed, Mary obeyed.

I don't think women are demeaned at all by not being able to hold high church offices.

I believe that God obviously made men and women very different. Even our brains are different. Women are the only ones who can bare children and it is if we look back in history the women who primarily raised the children and the men who made the living or took care of the entire family.

I don't have a problem with the way God created men and women, nor that He made men the head of the family, spiritually.

For me, it will always be God's way. Not my way.

 

[All4Christ]

Not in the slightest.



"Relating everything back to sexual connotations" is not what I wrote, but what you decided to read.

I wrote that everything exist for a reason. And I said that clear distinction between man's and woman's role in creation of new life (baby), and love (again meaning baby who gets to be new love), is there for a reason. It's not just some coincidence, which we are to brush off.



Again, this is what you decided to read. I wrote of physical manifestation of new love in the world - a baby - new being capable of receving God's love and giving it back to God and others. (You could, Laura, in your politeness, ask for additional explanation when you are not sure was written, before jumping to conclusions.)

Back to the significance of penetration. What's bad about that word?

Ideas and words are penetrative. When one speaks with the idea to influence, he or she can penetrate other's soul. Again, not to be misread - this is not any kind of speaking, this is purposely speaking with the goal to change or deepen someone's mind about something substantial. That includes speaking/preaching about God. Especially speaking/preaching about God from a podium to a room full of people.

I don't say that it is absolutely forbidden for woman to do so. I am saying that we have some loud signs that tell us that it is not the greatest idea to do so. And if it is to be done, I would say that it would be an exception that exist for a reason, not a general rule. A general rule, in my opinion, would be to not have woman preachers.

By the way, and I didn't what to get in there, but alas, it is scientifically proven that our biology/physicality significantly shapes our mentality. So even science says that there is no such thing as "mere biology". Take heed or not to that fact.

Finally, why are these words taken lightly by some: "Wives should submit to their husbands as if to the Lord. A husband is the head of his wife like Christ is head of the church, that is, the savior of the body. So wives submit to their husbands in everything like the church submits to Christ." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Again, this whole debate revolves, as it turns out, about the notion that woman submitting to a man is a bad idea. So, this whole debate is misleading, and in a sense disingenuous (again, not to be misread - not consciously disingenuous by OP, but it turned out that way as it progressed). I think that honest headline for this kind of thread should be "Women shouldn't submit to men". Then everybody could start with all cards on the table and work from there.

Thank you for clarifying. The standard use of "penetration" when talking about a man penetrating a woman in today's society is along the lines of my interpretation. Before your post, I have never encountered the manner of sexual intercourse to be a reason for not ordaining women. That said, I appreciate the clarification. (Admittedly, I am not the most comfortable discussing the way men and women join together on a forum, so please accept my alternative wording).

So, in regards to your explanation above:

I wrote that everything exist for a reason. And I said that clear distinction between man's and woman's role in creation of new life (baby), and love (again meaning baby who gets to be new love), is there for a reason. It's not just some coincidence, which we are to brush off.

It is true that a husband and wife joining together as one, through sexual intercourse, and conceiving a child is a beautiful thing. In marriage, it is God ordained, and as all that God ordains, has multiple purposes, including love. While I don't focus on the penetration part of this, I'll go with it for the purposes of this discussion.

Ideas and words are penetrative. When one speaks with the idea to influence, he or she can penetrate other's soul. Again, not to be misread - this is not any kind of speaking, this is purposely speaking with the goal to change or deepen someone's mind about something substantial. That includes speaking/preaching about God. Especially speaking/preaching about God from a podium to a room full of people.

I don't say that it is absolutely forbidden for woman to do so. I am saying that we have some loud signs that tell us that it is not the greatest idea to do so. And if it is to be done, I would say that it would be an exception that exist for a reason, not a general rule. A general rule, in my opinion, would be to not have woman preachers.

Yes, ideas and words are penetrative (in a very non-sexual manner). Again, it is the combination of the sexual connotation moving onto another topic with the same word (apparently with a different connotation), that made it seem inappropriate from my perspective. Words have meaning in the current culture. Stringing concepts together continues the meaning of one understanding to the next section.

Moving on from that, yes, words can change or deepen someone's mind about something substantial. Certainly, that includes speaking or preaching. I'm not used to having people speak from a podium, but I see your point.

There are constructs within the Church, constructs within the family, and constructs within the world. They aren't all the same.

I actually don't fit into the description your last few paragraphs. I do however see multiple concepts about this written in Scripture. I personally don't see anything stating that women were presbyters or elders. I do see evidence of women being deaconesses, though they did not have the same role as deacons. I see many women who had roles of influence in the early church.

In light of this, we need to synthesize these scriptures together with the scriptures you quoted. Would you agree?

Here are some examples of roles women held in the apostolic church:

St Mary of Magdalene evangelized to others.

St Thecla, after converting from hearing Paul's message, was sentenced to death due to dedicating her life to Christ rather than becoming a wife to someone who was not a Christian. She was saved from this death, and preached to many in Antioch.

St Phoebe was a deaconess sent by Paul. She was a leader of the early church, though I don't believe she had the same role as the male deacons. She brought letters from Paul to the church, ministered to many, and helped in a variety of ways. Again, deaconess was a unique role.

If you are willing to look at some historical documents, you'll find that St Photini (the woman at the well) preached the gospel to many. History shows that she and her sisters traveled far to spread the word of God.

St. Lydia was a business woman. She opened up her home to the apostles, and spread her wealth to many. She took care of the poor and ministered to many. History records her spreading the gospel through Europe and further west.

St. Priscilla (or Prisca) and her husband, the Apostle Aquila of the Se
venty, are perhaps best known for their apostolic work with St. Paul in Ephesus. They not only provided hospitality for the Apostles, but they had a church in their home. In Romans 16:3-5, Paul says:"Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus . . . . Likewise greet the church that is in their house."

St. Junia and her husband (who became a bishop) spread the gospel.
In Romans 16:7, St. Paul makes a remarkable statement. He says: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."

You'll find many more both in Scripture and in historical documents. St. Tabitha, St. Mary and Martha...the list continues.

Note what happens in these examples (which were praised by the apostles):

They taught.
They evangelized.
They took care of the poor.
They spread the gospel.
They were martyrs.
They provided financial support.
They provided hospitality.
They were deaconesses (of a different role than deacon today).
There is direct evidence that participated in pretty much every ministry the men participated in, with the exception of the priesthood (and bishops / elders / some roles of deacon today).

If you didn't see this in my previous posts, my Church (and my personal opinion) does not support women being priests or deacons in the sense of male deacons. I do accept the position of deaconess, in the context of what deaconesses did in the early church. I do believe the family models after the Church, as do our parishes. I do support the priests and bishops being men, as they represent Christ, and we represent the Bride of Christ (well...we kind of are ).

In fact, I do consider my husband to be the head of my house. However, he never lords that over me, we always make decisions together (if we could not come to a conclusion, I would accept his decision - "submit" to him, though he never has done that). Despite that, we work together on everything.

That doesn't, however, mean that women can't have vocations in the business world, that they shouldn't be equal in importance, that they cannot be smart, etc. etc.

Finally, why are these words taken lightly by some: "Wives should submit to their husbands as if to the Lord. A husband is the head of his wife like Christ is head of the church, that is, the savior of the body. So wives submit to their husbands in everything like the church submits to Christ." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Again, this whole debate revolves, as it turns out, about the notion that woman submitting to a man is a bad idea. So, this whole debate is misleading, and in a sense disingenuous (again, not to be misread - not consciously disingenuous by OP, but it turned out that way as it progressed). I think that honest headline for this kind of thread should be "Women shouldn't submit to men". Then everybody could start with all cards on the table and work from there.

Considering my stance on my husband being the head of the house, I disagree with this. The debate is more than that. Like I said earlier, I don't think there are just two sides to this conversation. I also think my understanding of "preach" and your understanding of "preach" may be different. If I understand correctly, you associate "preach" with being the pastor of a church. I don't necessarily adhere to that. Being the priest of a church is much more than "preaching". If I am misunderstanding you, feel free to clarify.

 

[All4Christ]

[staff edited]
I suggest that you expand the group of women you know if all of them fit your description. Consider the women who still came to visit Jesus at His tomb. While the men cowarded away in the house, the women continued to visit their Lord and Savior. In fact, the first person to recognize Christ as the Messiah was a woman. To comprehend doctrine, we need to consider all of Scripture together, not just the Scriptures that support our opinions.

 

[All4Christ]

I don't think women are demeaned at all by not being able to hold high church offices.

I believe that God obviously made men and women very different. Even our brains are different. Women are the only ones who can bare children and it is if we look back in history the women who primarily raised the children and the men who made the living or took care of the entire family.

I don't have a problem with the way God created men and women, nor that He made men the head of the family, spiritually.

For me, it will always be God's way. Not my way.

If you read the rest of my posts, I don't believe the women should hold high church offices. I also mentioned that I consider my husband to be the head of the house.

However, that is in the realm of family and the Church (in official church leadership). That doesn't mean we are limited to being house wives or that we can't be smart. It doesn't mean that we (husband and wife) can't share in eachother's strengths, no matter what the strengths are.

 

[ToBeLoved]

If you read the rest of my posts, I don't believe the women should hold high church offices. I also mentioned that I consider my husband to be the head of the house.

However, that is in the realm of family and the Church (in official church leadership). That doesn't mean we are limited to being house wives or that we can't be smart. It doesn't mean that we (husband and wife) can't share in eachother's strengths, no matter what the strengths are.

Sorry. THen we seem to be in agreement.