Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic?

[stevevw]

I think if you reread the article you will see that the study did not compare time with mothers vs. fathers, and was only focused on time with mothers. Only a broad study that compared time with mothers and time with fathers could lead to the conclusion you draw. Also, I’m guessing you would not say that a child raised by two women would be better off than a child raised by a woman and a man. This indicates that there is value in time spent with a father as well.

Yes I agree and I did mention that in my post that studies have shown the value of both parents. But I think as the mother has the child and there is an important maternity relationship and bonding that it is almost common sense to realize that the mother child relationship is important. It does relate to the OP as the OP is more or less premising not only a womensplace in the church but this is based on the general view of a womens place in society. The church usually follows secular societies views so that is why it has become an issue in recent decades.

 

[Paidiske]

But - as someone who is a mother and in ministry - I'm not seeing how people think allowing the ordination of women is going to detract from mothering.

Honestly, they combine really well. Sure, I worked part time for four years or so, but there is a real need for good part-time ministers, too!

 

[stevevw]

I find that me being in ministry has enabled us to be very close and hands-on parents. Whether that was in the earlier years, where I worked part time (and so did my husband) and we shared child-related responsibilities, or now that my daughter is at school and I work full time, because my office is in the house, I have no commute time, I'm home when she gets home, I'm able to work flexibly fairly easily.

Women working doesn't mean children being abandoned in soulless institutions; it just takes a bit of creativity and willingness to be flexible.

There are also other social problems when women don't work; problems to do with poverty and vulnerability to abuse and so on. It's not as simple as women staying home being some sort of golden ideal.

And of course, none of that is an argument against women in ministry outside a very narrow number of years of our lives, anyway; even allowing for the fact that not all women have children.

I agree it is not a simple solution and in an age where both parents have to work it is hard to juggle things. I am sure that many women bond with their infants as this is a natural thing to do but I can also imagine the pressure of having to go out and work as support during the early years of upbringing is not available.

I think this relates to the OP as it is associated with a womens role in society generally. Whatever happens in society regarding gender roles and rights will then be taken up by the church. But sometimes the church can follow society and not make its own stand on these matters. I agree it is important to always support peoples rights but I think the way modern society is treating individual rights above the good of the group, family and society is not always the best.

 

[stevevw]

But - as someone who is a mother and in ministry - I'm not seeing how people think allowing the ordination of women is going to detract from mothering.

Honestly, they combine really well. Sure, I worked part-time for four years or so, but there is a real need for good part-time ministers, too!

I agree it is an individual thing and part-time is different to full time. I agree they can be two separate issues and they should both receive the proper consideration. Women should have the right the same as men and when it is important to dedicate time to other areas such as childcare then proper time if possible should be available.

But what often happens with these situations in society is the lines get blurred and then people apply a small concession to rights to everything and go to the extremes and son people are demanding their rights regardless of what the consequences are. That seems to be how western nations which are more individualistic is happening in society today. It trumps all else including what is best for the family, group and society.

It is a cultural thing as if you look at collective countries especially Asian or indigenous ones you will find the family and group is put first. But then they do not have the economic pressures western nations have. So it is a cultural thing but does that determine what is best.

 

[Paidiske]

I think it's really patronising to suggest that women aren't capable of making decisions for the good of their families. As if ordaining women automatically means families will be neglected.

 

[stevevw]

I think it's really patronising to suggest that women aren't capable of making decisions for the good of their families. As if ordaining women automatically means families will be neglected.

I am not saying that at all. Like I said they are two separate situations. It is a cultural thing where the pressure of having to go and work forces people into situations that are not necessarily the best. The individual women or man may realize that this is not the ideal situation for them to work or work extended hours but are forced to do this to make ends meet. But if the individual may decide their individual wants to trump the children or families needs regardless of what gender it is then I think this is where it becomes a problem.

Still, in individual societies, individual success is viewed as more important than all else. I realize that you are coming from a different position and you may have a calling to help people. That is also important as it is helping many and not an individual want. But there may be many who want to pursue their individual wants at the expense of their responsibility to their family. This is where much consideration is needed on this topic as it can be very sensitive because it involves individual and the group's needs and wants and people can very protective of their rights.

 

[Paidiske]

I am not saying that at all. Like I said they are two separate situations.

Then I'd say don't bring it into this discussion. Because it comes across as an argument from you against the ordination of women.

 

[Sparagmos]

Yes I agree and I did mention that in my post that studies have shown the value of both parents. But I think as the mother has the child and there is an important maternity relationship and bonding that it is almost common sense to realize that the mother child relationship is important. It does relate to the OP as the OP is more or less premising not only a womensplace in the church but this is based on the general view of a womens place in society. The church usually follows secular societies views so that is why it has become an issue in recent decades.

I took your post to mean that the study supported your belief that women should be the primary caretakers of children.

If women were all “meant” to be solelystay at home mothers and domestic caretakers, we wouldn’t have the desire, aspiration, skill and ability to do so much more. What a horrible curse, to be equal in intellect, wisdom, and skill yet denied an equal place in the world. God didn’t do that, men did as a way to maintain control.

 

[Sparagmos]

I agree it is an individual thing and part-time is different to full time. I agree they can be two separate issues and they should both receive the proper consideration. Women should have the right the same as men and when it is important to dedicate time to other areas such as childcare then proper time if possible should be available.

But what often happens with these situations in society is the lines get blurred and then people apply a small concession to rights to everything and go to the extremes and son people are demanding their rights regardless of what the consequences are. That seems to be how western nations which are more individualistic is happening in society today. It trumps all else including what is best for the family, group and society.

It is a cultural thing as if you look at collective countries especially Asian or indigenous ones you will find the family and group is put first. But then they do not have the economic pressures western nations have. So it is a cultural thing but does that determine what is best.

I’m not seeing how ensuring equal rights for all humans hurts the family or collective. If we are talking about women’s equality, 50% of the family or group feeling suppressed, silenced, or held back from their aspirations causes major problems, one of the biggest being a lack of true intimacy, love, and cooperation between women and men.

 

[stevevw]

Then I'd say don't bring it into this discussion. Because it comes across as an argument from you against the ordination of women.

No worries, sorry about that. Did not mean to cause any offence. I am not against the odination of women.

 

[Paidiske]

Honestly, steve, from what you'd posted here I thought you were very much against it. All that stuff about political correctness and how bad it was if mothers worked outside the home... I'm not sure how you intended that to be read as supportive?

 

[stevevw]

I took your post to mean that the study supported your belief that women should be the primary caretakers of children.

If women were all “meant” to be solely stay at home mothers and domestic caretakers, we wouldn’t have the desire, aspiration, skill and ability to do so much more. What a horrible curse, to be equal in intellect, wisdom, and skill yet denied an equal place in the world. God didn’t do that, men did as a way to maintain control.

But maybe why many feel that way is because this is what we have been told becuase of the way society promotes the importance of getting work and buying things. Maybe there is just as much meaning in being with your child in the early years but as a society we have made this less important becuase of the pressure of having to work.

The thing is what we in the west regard as being the fulfilment of the meaning of life with pursuing careers, getting the best job and earning better-paid positions may not be the best for family and community wellbeing. It may not equate to the true meaning of life and we have been deluded into thinking that all meaning in life comes down to what career and job we get. I would say that in a western society that bases everything on capitalism we equate meaning with material gains which require people to have a good career and jobs.

In a collective society, they will not equate meaning with career and jobs but with supporting the family, group and community. So it depends on what you use as a measure of meaning and happiness. It seems to me that it is the western cultures who have the highest unhappiness and lack of meaning because we measure everything with materialism and individual happiness. I am not saying we should not get a career but rather what priority we put on getting that career and job to make that money to get that life.

What about all those who cannot get that good job and career. It seems the system is causing more unhappiness and we are being pushed into having to get better careers, higher paid jobs just to pay for the increasing cost of living. Years ago it took one wage to look after a family. Then it took a wage and a half. Now it's taking more than two wages. When does it stop? It is consuming all our time and we have little left for the family. It seems a bad way to measure success as there will never be enough for all. Maybe we should use something else to measure what can give meaning in life and to what is regarded as important.

 

[stevevw]

Honestly, steve, from what you'd posted here I thought you were very much against it. All that stuff about political correctness and how bad it was if mothers worked outside the home... I'm not sure how you intended that to be read as supportive?

It is a complicated issue because there has to be a balance approach and everything needs to be considered. Like I said earlier people can take things to the extreme on either side of the debate. You have to ask yourself even though it is important for women to have a career. Is it also important for women to look after their children in the important years of a child's life. So though I supportive I think it needs a proviso.

In other words, on the one hand society is pushing for women's rights to have a career which is important considering how they have been suppressed. But on the other hand, this comes at a cost if we do not have that balance because other responsibilities can be overlooked. When someone says what about the welfare of the children some react and say that the person is being discriminatory for even mentioning this. When all they are doing is bringing up something that should also be considered. Unfortunately, with these topics, people go to the extreme sides of the debate.

When you add the pressure of society causing people to have to get work it complicates it even more because people have to do things that they may know is not the best. I may be over thinking this but I have years of working in social welfare and see the bigger picture. But rest assured I am all for women having the right to be pastors and get careers but it has to be seen in the context I have mentioned.

 

[stevevw]

Just an additional point I noticed in the OP "Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic" It should not be about promoting women over men as this is reverse discrimination. That's like in the past where men got the job over women despite the women maybe being just as qualified or more qualified. It should be about allowing all to apply for the position of Pastor or whatever the job may be and the person being appointed based on merit and not gender.

 

[~Zao~]

[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 73510185, member: 342064”].... on the other hand, this comes at a cost if we do not have that balance because other responsibilities can be overlooked. When someone says what about the welfare of the children some react and say that the person is being discriminatory for even mentioning this. When all they are doing is bringing up something that should also be considered. Unfortunately, with these topics, people go to the extreme sides of the debate.[/quote]


Considering the children at this point in time when most families need both parents working ... the children have been going to a form of schooling their whole lives, starting with daycare all the way up to kindergarten. Compare them to those who are home-cared-for that fall far behind in the educational system. It’s not an even playing field for them either. The criteria for kindergarten is for those who have much previous training. The scramble for good daycares for that reason astounds me.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Publicly educated children routinely worship demons instead of the one true God. Their parents do routinely, as do the school administrators and the teachers and those who support them. (as does society according to Scripture) ....
Home schoolers also may do this.

Some publicly educated children, and some home schooled children,
serve the one true God. Some parents do also.
Yahweh knows each one by name; He Knows who IS HIS .

 

[Archivist]

I noticed that 5.6% of the respondents to the poll say that women should be barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink. If that is a serious response I find that to be very scary.

 

[Roseonathorn]

Yes I agree but it is the politically correct brigade that makes this harder to do and therefore as you say standing up for your beliefs despite this. Religious belief is being rideculed and cast out in favour of the agendas of some minorities that have much sway in secular society.

The ” Ladyboys?”, well we have to remember that they are people that are humans with feelings and no matter what background they might have, they too might be hungry for Jesus and long for Christian friends and Gods word. You need to remember that some might be honest about their daily struggles and that the bible call a sin some have hidden sins and others sins are not so hidden but all have come short of being sinless. If we first preach Jesus and forgiveness for sins and then throw out the sinner from our churches that have yet not come to Christ, then we do not show love of Christ, sorry, then we are like the pharisees. No, we are not to accept all they claim, but we are to allow them to sit in Church and listen to the service as long as they do not start a riot. Same should go for other out of the ordinary people, however, I understand there are certain dresscodes like we should at least wear something more than our underwear to church...no matter what folks drool over at their computers at home.

 

[Roseonathorn]

Besides... How many does not remember at least one nice female sunday school teacher?
I can count to three nice ladies.
Some was fun and right but got some old, stiff male leadership upset and left church but was still a cheriched memory of a lovely sundayschoolteacher.

 

[tkolter]

My take on this based on my strong belief in Sola Scriptura as the principle of faith there should be no church hierarchy and therefore no one or in authority but the Bible as the source of all so men and women and even children are each a 'minister' and 'all should preach and all submit'.

The fact God elevated women to Judges to defend the Hebrews one Deborah did judge men and women, and defended the Hebrews with her leadership proves to me woman can be elevated and lead men and are important.