Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic?

[~Zao~]

[QUOTE="ToBeLoved, post: 73480047, member: 345030”]
That is just a straw man.

A different aspect.

 

[ToBeLoved]

A different aspect.

No. What you said is not correct.

 

[aiki]

I believe scripture means what it says. When it talks about women not being in charge of men, I'm happy enough that I've understood what it means. But do times change?

Well, yes, times change. That seems rather obvious to me...

In Genesis, the sign of (physical) circumcision was supposed to be an everlasting covenant. But in the NT, physical circumcision and the Old Testament laws were done away with (fulfilled in Christ). Although Gentiles were still not supposed to eat meat with blood, or commit sexual immorality. I can understand this - New Testament, New Covenant.

Hang on. You ought to distinguish here between God's universal Moral Law, binding in both the Old and New Testament, and the laws of separation and ceremony given only to Israel. Prohibitions against sexual immorality are issued in both Testaments but restrictions on eating certain kinds of meat are not.

So what about when women defy these verses, but are acting with genuine love to their congregations? (Not that I have seen this). What about if there are no male Christians in a newly established church, or if the only male Christians are recent converts? Is it too legalistic to say that women can never teach or have authority over a man?

A newly-established church that has been so without a male pastoring it is in breach of the structure God has established for His Church. Surely, if God wanted to establish a new community of believers somewhere, He would not need to contravene His own structures to do so but would provide a man to pastor the community.

I would say only that it is not ideal - God's ideal - that a woman is in a position where she is teaching men as their pastor. Women have in the record of Scripture been raised up as leaders, but remember that no prophet in the OT, or priest, was ever a woman. God always raised up men to fill these roles.

I'd be interested in thoughts that are consistent with scripture, but not the tired old excuses like "that was just the culture at that time" or similar, when Paul clearly links the requirement for women not to be leaders to Eve's sin (which is timeless).

This is very important to note. When Paul gives his rationale for why women shouldn't be in authority over men spiritually, he doesn't offer cultural reasons but scriptural ones.

(Oh - by the way - I'm probably what some might consider a somewhat (male) chauvinist. I like the idea of women getting married, staying home and being pregnant by the kitchen sink, but I know there's not a bible verse that says it that way.

Yikes! This kind of thinking is nothing to be proud of! Read Proverbs 31:10-31. The woman described in the chapter was not the sort you seem to prefer. My wife is well-educated and has a career and I'm very glad she does!

I also have known one or two women to be better than most men at what they do, and several online that are smarter than a roomful of rocket scientists - certainly moreso than me. I think that if scripture didn't prohibit it, I wouldn't mind the idea of women leading men

Being smarter isn't what spiritual leadership is about. Brains aren't the primary qualification for a spiritual leader in God's economy of things.

1 Corinthians 1:27-29
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,
29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.

If I were a woman, I would love nothing more than to get married, stay home and be barefoot and pregnant, so I'm not wishing on others something I wouldn't wish on myself.

Yeah, I don't think you understand what you're wishing for: Varicose veins, stretch marks, indigestion, back-ache, hormones all over the place, post-partum depression, permanently altered figure, swollen feet, and then several hours of agonizing, exhausting labor and/or a c-section. Being "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" was a way of describing an oppressive state of affairs under which many women suffered. You should choose a different description, I think, of the condition in which you think women ought to live.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course this is a valid reason. Look at Deborah going to Barak. The difficulty is in accepting/demonstrating that such women really are called by God. In the example of Cornelius (going back to an earlier example), God gives a divine symbol of His favour on the gentile believers by giving them the Holy Spirit and these speaking in tongues, demonstrating that the "everlasting covenant" of circumcision and the rest of the OT law was no longer required for such believers.

To my knowledge, there's been no similar accompanying symbol demonstrating that Paul's instructions in scripture about women in certain leadership roles (i.e. over men) are obsolete.

I would think that if we could look at churches where women are in ministry, and see them effective in mission, growing in Christian maturity, and so forth, that would be an indication that God has not rendered their ministry ineffective.

There are such churches, so where does that leave the claim that God is not with them?

And on that note, I'm off to take Sunday morning services...

The higher criticism /critical "scholars" who saw 3 Isaiah's, 4 writers of Genesis etc!
Christians should still trust the conservative views in regards to who wrote the books of the Bible!

Why? Provided we accept it all as inspired canon, why should it matter what we think about who wrote it?

 

[YeshuaFan]

You realize that is the same as saying only men can hear from God, so it’s a good thing women do not have a say in what is being heard from God. God doesn’t work that way.

Having male pastors/elders does NOT make women second rate Christians though, all of His Apostles were male, and yet did Jesus not gave equality in spiritual blessings and salvation to both genders?

 

[YeshuaFan]

Well, yes, times change. That seems rather obvious to me...



Hang on. You ought to distinguish here between God's universal Moral Law, binding in both the Old and New Testament, and the laws of separation and ceremony given only to Israel. Prohibitions against sexual immorality are issued in both Testaments but restrictions on eating certain kinds of meat are not.



A newly-established church that has been so without a male pastoring it is in breach of the structure God has established for His Church. Surely, if God wanted to establish a new community of believers somewhere, He would not need to contravene His own structures to do so but would provide a man to pastor the community.

I would say only that it is not ideal - God's ideal - that a woman is in a position where she is teaching men as their pastor. Women have in the record of Scripture been raised up as leaders, but remember that no prophet in the OT, or priest, was ever a woman. God always raised up men to fill these roles.



This is very important to note. When Paul gives his rationale for why women shouldn't be in authority over men spiritually, he doesn't offer cultural reasons but scriptural ones.



Yikes! This kind of thinking is nothing to be proud of! Read Proverbs 31:10-31. The woman described in the chapter was not the sort you seem to prefer. My wife is well-educated and has a career and I'm very glad she does!



Being smarter isn't what spiritual leadership is about. Brains aren't the primary qualification for a spiritual leader in God's economy of things.

1 Corinthians 1:27-29
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,
29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.



Yeah, I don't think you understand what your wishing for: Varicose veins, stretch marks, indigestion, back-ache, hormones all over the place, post-partum depression, permanently altered figure, swollen feet, and then several hours of agonizing, exhausting labor and/or a c-section. Being "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" was a way of describing an oppressive state of affairs under which many women suffered. You should choose a different description, I think, of the condition in which you think women ought to live.

There is no difference between male and female in getting saved, having all spiritual blessings in Christ, being gifted, but there are still gender differences in how God defines our roles and positions, as He did not have men give birth since all one in Christ now, right?

 

[YeshuaFan]

I would think that if we could look at churches where women are in ministry, and see them effective in mission, growing in Christian maturity, and so forth, that would be an indication that God has not rendered their ministry ineffective.

There are such churches, so where does that leave the claim that God is not with them?

And on that note, I'm off to take Sunday morning services...



Why? Provided we accept it all as inspired canon, why should it matter what we think about who wrote it?

The problem is that many of those into the critical/liberal view of the Bible do not hold to divine inspiration, and a woman can be effective as a pastor NOT due to them being called by God for that role, but due to His word not returning back void!

 

[Paidiske]

Having male pastors/elders does NOT make women second rate Christians though, all of His Apostles were male, and yet did Jesus not gave equality in spiritual blessings and salvation to both genders?

Actually, it really does create second-class Christians.

When you're in a situation where you have the knowledge, the skills and experience to undertake a ministry role, where there is no impediment of character, and people refuse to appoint you to that role for no reason other than your sex...

That's not equality. It's demeaning and denigrating. And it absolutely is second-class Christianity. No matter how gifted, how learned or how wise, you must always be the passive recipient of others' ministry, and your potential to contribute to the growing reign of God must always be denied and suppressed.

Sorry, but no. No woman should have the Spirit in her quenched in that way.

 

[aiki]

There is no difference between male and female in getting saved, having all spiritual blessings in Christ, being gifted, but there are still gender differences in how God defines our roles and positions, as He did not have men give birth since all one in Christ now, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by "gender differences." Christian men and women are manifestly different from one another despite being in God's family. Just look at their physical form. They also differ significantly in a general way in terms of their thinking and behaviour. Believers, though, are, as you say, all "one in Christ," but God still institutes a particular structure of roles and responsibilities within the Church that runs along male/female lines.

 

[RDKirk]

I would think that if we could look at churches where women are in ministry, and see them effective in mission, growing in Christian maturity, and so forth, that would be an indication that God has not rendered their ministry ineffective.

There are such churches, so where does that leave the claim that God is not with them?

You know the answer that's going to be given to that is "itching ears," right?

And on that note, I'm off to take Sunday morning services...



Why? Provided we accept it all as inspired canon, why should it matter what we think about who wrote it?

Indeed. The Holy Spirit inspired all of it. The same answer as regards what was spoken by Jesus and what was written by an apostle.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Actually, it really does create second-class Christians.

When you're in a situation where you have the knowledge, the skills and experience to undertake a ministry role, where there is no impediment of character, and people refuse to appoint you to that role for no reason other than your sex...

That's not equality. It's demeaning and denigrating. And it absolutely is second-class Christianity. No matter how gifted, how learned or how wise, you must always be the passive recipient of others' ministry, and your potential to contribute to the growing reign of God must always be denied and suppressed.

Sorry, but no. No woman should have the Spirit in her quenched in that way.

Have you ever asked God about that? Or is that just your feelings, emotions and ego feeling that?

What has God denied you?

Teaching of men?

Women can teach women. Women can teach children. So it’s all about men.

If that makes you feel like a second class citizen in Christ, than I would re-evaluate your relationship with God.

I think that is in your mind and heart. That one see’s themselves that way. Maybe it is your putting up a wall between you and God.

Women still preach the gospel and serve as missionaries. Maybe the limitations mean more to you then the things you can do.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Actually, it really does create second-class Christians.

When you're in a situation where you have the knowledge, the skills and experience to undertake a ministry role, where there is no impediment of character, and people refuse to appoint you to that role for no reason other than your sex...

That's not equality. It's demeaning and denigrating. And it absolutely is second-class Christianity. No matter how gifted, how learned or how wise, you must always be the passive recipient of others' ministry, and your potential to contribute to the growing reign of God must always be denied and suppressed.

Sorry, but no. No woman should have the Spirit in her quenched in that way.

God set the requirements though, and he does not agree with your assessment of women being second class JUST due to them not able to be pastors and elders!

 

[YeshuaFan]

I'm not sure what you mean by "gender differences." Christian men and women are manifestly different from one another despite being in God's family. Just look at their physical form. They also differ significantly in a general way in terms of their thinking and behaviour. Believers, though, are, as you say, all "one in Christ," but God still institutes a particular structure of roles and responsibilities within the Church that runs along male/female lines.

Yes, as many seem to take the truth of nowe one in Christ to mean that God has the same roles and responsibilities for both male and females in the Body, which He does not!

 

[YeshuaFan]

You know the answer that's going to be given to that is "itching ears," right?



Indeed. The Holy Spirit inspired all of it. The same answer as regards what was spoken by Jesus and what was written by an apostle.

Any agreement against why just men for pastors and elders should go to God Himself, as he set up that leadership model for us!

 

[W2L]

The scriptures say that the older women should teach the younger.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Have you ever asked God about that? Or is that just your feelings, emotions and ego feeling that?

What has God denied you?

Teaching of men?

Women can teach women. Women can teach children. So it’s all about men.

If that makes you feel like a second class citizen in Christ, than I would re-evaluate your relationship with God.

I think that is in your mind and heart. That one see’s themselves that way. Maybe it is your putting up a wall between you and God.

Women still preach the gospel and serve as missionaries. Maybe the limitations mean more to you then the things you can do.

Seems that for some the concept of submitting to male leadership/authority really bothers them!

 

[YeshuaFan]

The scriptures say that the older women should teach the younger.

Yes, teach other women, not men!

 

[W2L]

Yes, teach other women, not men!

That would solve the problem. IMO

 

[ToBeLoved]

Seems that for some the concept of submitting to male leadership/authority really bothers them!

Maybe because they have made a not so good choice in their church family and those in leadership there.

I would say it is actually a relief if you really trust the people in leadership.

Leadership is not as fun as people make it out to be. It is often a lot of hard work and Shepherding of sheep that maybe don’t want to be shepherded in the first place.

 

[ToBeLoved]

That would solve the problem. IMO

That is the answer.

People get all bent out of shape at the “idea” of not being able to do something, but there are so many ministries that one can do.