- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,273
- 19,092
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I think you're reading what you want to see in the words. A striker is someone striking someone as in someone who can't control their anger and is violent. Not exactly a common phenomenon among women but quite common among men. The language used here is clearly geared towards men. At least it is when I read it.
And I think you're taking a very shallow reading of one English translation. Most don't say "striker," and the underlying Greek is not necessarily connoting physical violence.
The language only seems "geared towards men" because of stereotypes and assumptions.
Look, I admit its a dilemma. 50% of the population is female yet the Bible seems to be written towards mainly men. But maybe this is God suggesting women approach this in a different way. We all want to contribute. Even atheists want to contribute after all. Its instinctual. A wise person would seek the best way to contribute. I believe almost all women, if not all women, work much better behind the scenes, supporting others, not having to make pivotal decisions. Decisions that can't be easily reversed later because they changed their mind. Not that men don't have problems changing their mind of course. Just my observations when I see them at work.
Wow. There are those stereotypes again!
But yes, a wise person would seek the best way to contribute. A wise Christian would prayerfully and thoughtfully take account of their gifts, skills, experience and personality, and seek God's leading on how best to use those to contribute to the mission of the Church. But here's the thing (as I learned through personal experience!); when you ask God, "Here I am, strengths and weaknesses, everything I have; only tell me where you want me to serve," you don't get to control the answer. And God calls some to leadership positions; men and women both.
As for making pivotal decisions, generally, in the church, pivotal decision-making is collaborative. Not a matter of a single individual ruling by fiat.
No woman "rules her house". She cares for and nurtures her house. Men rule. This is instinctual from the beginning of time. Do we rule well? Perhaps not! But we try!
I see you haven't met my mother-in-law.
In all seriousness, though, this claim is just silly. Even in Paul's day there were women who were heads of households. (And, here's an interesting linguistic link; the word here for someone who manages their household well, is a participle form of the word Paul uses to describe Phoebe as a "benefactor" of many).
If the clergy lived on site it might be much more efficient and less costly for everyone. That's how it used to be I think. Seems to make sense. Accommodation is our biggest expense usually, after all.
I'm just going to ignore the rest of your ridiculous slander that church leaders only do what they do for the pay. (Seriously, I could make more money in the secular world tomorrow...)
But we do mostly live on site. I live on site. It's not a perfect system (nothing is), but on the whole it works fairly well.
what better job could a Godly woman have then to spend her time teaching young women to do the right thing (which is what the BIBLE says)
Nobody can have a better job than the one God has uniquely created and gifted that person for, and called them to.
As for exercising authority, I would point out (again, what feels like for the umpteenth time) that any authority exercised in ministry is not personal authority. It is the authority of the church, and the person in leadership is as much subject to it as anyone else (in fact, in many cases, much more bound by it than anyone else).
Upvote
0