Ordination of Women

Oct 21, 2009
4,828
321
✟17,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Consider the following Scripture:

1Co 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
1Co 11:4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
1Co 11:5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
1Co 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
1Co 11:9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
1Co 11:10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
1Co 11:12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
(NASB)

So from a literal, fundamentalist position, women should have their heads covered. But what does verse 1 Co 11:10 mean? According to 1 Co 11:15, is it enough for a woman to have long hair, is that enough covering? Also, according to 1 Co 11:5, women are praying and prophesying, and nothing is said against that practice. It seems like some of these rules/practices border on legalism. Most of the rules against women in the early church were because of a lack of discipline. Are these rules still to be followed for the same reasons? Just some thoughts. I do not advocate any position short of strict adherence to Biblical teaching.
 
Upvote 0

warriorforJesus

Junior Member
Jan 16, 2007
74
6
✟15,223.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
yes a prophetess is not a pastoress but she would have been teaching a mixed audience . Which illustrates a deviation from the pattern commonly observed in 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1 . And also deviating from the Corinthian pattern that forbids women to speak in the Prophecy chapter .

And since there were people who were told to "keep doing what you're doing" . and they were not praised for criticizing people for letting women speak during the church service . It would seem God really doesn't have a problem with women leaders so long as the relationships stay wholesome that develop from that leadership .

but beyond that ..

i'll ask questions . but i will not presume to convince anything .

anything worth knowing is communicated by God directly to our hearts .

until then anything that makes sense will not be for the right reason .

How about Miriam who was a leader of the Israelite community along with Aaron and Moses?

that would seem a substantial elderesque role . how does Miriam strike you?
What we need to look at here is the fact that in verse 20 Jesus says she calls herself a prophetess. She is not recognized by God as nothing more than a harlot, trying to lead Gods servants away from Him.
20Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
 
Upvote 0

NorrinRadd

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian
Sep 2, 2007
5,571
595
Wayne Township, PA, USA
✟8,652.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Allow me to stimulate the discussion a bit. Since it seems that a fair number of contributors believe a conservative evangelical can nevertheless favor the ordination of women to senior church leadership, perhaps we need to examine the hermeneutic mechanisms they employ.

If one chooses to interpret passages like 1 Tim. 2:9-15 as antediluvian, by what consistent rational means does one apply any Scripture to a contemporary context?

I take it by "antediluvian" you mean "archaic or obsolete," as opposed to "Before the Flood." Had me kind of scratching my head there.

I'm not at all sure whether we "interpret passages like 1 Tim. 2:9-15 as antediluvian" is the point. In regard to that particular passage, it is certainly not the ONLY aspect of concern, maybe not even the primary one. There are probably around half a dozen translation issues, plus the issue of where the context actually begins, plus harmonization with the larger Pauline corpus, with the rest of the New Covenant, and with Scripture as a whole.
 
Upvote 0

NorrinRadd

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian
Sep 2, 2007
5,571
595
Wayne Township, PA, USA
✟8,652.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
If your arguing for the ordination of women to the ministry which you have been doing, then technically, doesn't that make you a liberal?

You agree with the liberal position on this point?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Hmm. So, if a person agrees with one position you consider liberal, even though that issue is not part of the historic "five fundamentals" and also not part of the FF SoF, that person is a liberal? And even though the position in question is held by some scholars (such as Fee) who are far from liberal? :o

Whether one agrees with me or not is not the issue here.

I know members here do not like my position on this issue. And in 5 years of debating here, I have not changed, nor reversed my position. And it is highly unlikely that I will because unlike some, I will not compromise the scriptures, not on this issue, nor others.

Uhh... Wut? :confused: How did the issue of whether or not one agrees with YOU get into this? I affirm full equality of genders in home, church, and elsewhere. You identify this as a "liberal" position. I have no problem with that. But you extrapolate from my stance on this *one* issue that I *am* a liberal. Izzy was questioning that logic, not whether anyone "agreed" with "you." In fact, I'm pretty conservative on most social and political issues -- taxes, abortion, homosexual clergy, government spending, capital punishment, etc. By the logic implied by your opening remarks in this quote, someone who was pro-choice, advocated Socialism, belonged to PETA and Green Peace, but held the conservative stance of being in favor of capital punishment would be a conservative.

The word liberal in liberal Christianity denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture without any preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma.

I had to hunt around a bit in order to find that quotation from the Wikipedia article.

I can tell you it does not apply to me. In previous conversations on various CF boards, Izzy has said that she's reasonably comfortable with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and that her main dispute with the Fundy SoF here is the "militant" part, but I don't know what her current stance is.

Since we're refrencing Wiki-type articles, I'll take this opportunity to note that the Theopedia article linked early in the thread includes a "Reactions" section that lists some theological movements that arose in "reaction" (implying "opposition") to theological liberalism. Among these are "Pentecostalism" and "Neo-Wesleyanism." I can't find much about the latter, other than its goal of being a return to the more "pure" Wesleyanism taught and practiced by John and Charles themselves; as such, it must surely welcome women in high leadership roles. Pentecostalism is much more familiar to me, and two of the older Pentecostal denominations -- the AG and the Foursquare Church -- have for over a century embraced women in high leadership, the latter having been founded by a woman. My point is that one of the first external references cited in this thread in support of the idea that gender-egalitarianism necessarily equates to theological liberalism includes within itself refutation of that notion.


But from what I am hearing from you, my guess is that you fully support "Christian Femininism".

Its just a guess mind you, and if I'm wrong then I sincerely apologize.

Well, I know I sure don't "fully" support it. I highly doubt Izzy embraces some of that stuff, but she's well able to answer for herself.


What the issue here is does the ordination of women to the ministry line up with what is stated in scripture.

Do you remember this: "Believes whatever the Bible says is so;"?

Or: "Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";"

Set presidence for me. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am wrong.

About what? Your spelling of "precedence"? ;)

Ok, seriously -- What is it that you want proved, and what sort of evidence do you have in mind?
 
Upvote 0

Izdaari Eristikon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2007
6,174
447
69
Post Falls, Idaho
✟32,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
Uhh... Wut? :confused: How did the issue of whether or not one agrees with YOU get into this? I affirm full equality of genders in home, church, and elsewhere. You identify this as a "liberal" position. I have no problem with that. But you extrapolate from my stance on this *one* issue that I *am* a liberal. Izzy was questioning that logic, not whether anyone "agreed" with "you." In fact, I'm pretty conservative on most social and political issues -- taxes, abortion, homosexual clergy, government spending, capital punishment, etc. By the logic implied by your opening remarks in this quote, someone who was pro-choice, advocated Socialism, belonged to PETA and Green Peace, but held the conservative stance of being in favor of capital punishment would be a conservative.
Right, that was my point.

I had to hunt around a bit in order to find that quotation from the Wikipedia article.

I can tell you it does not apply to me. In previous conversations on various CF boards, Izzy has said that she's reasonably comfortable with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and that her main dispute with the Fundy SoF here is the "militant" part, but I don't know what her current stance is.
Yes, I'm good with the Chicago Statement. I was a little iffy on the concept of "verbal plenary inspiration" until I had it fully explained to me, but I'm good with that too now. I don't fit with the fundamentalist attitudes of militancy and separation (I'm about as ecumenical as you can get within the Christian fold) or with the cultural baggage, so I've made my peace with permanently being a guest here, and I thank you all for welcoming me as you have. :cool:

I'm solid on the historic "five fundamentals", but I make no claim to the fundamentalist label beyond that. I'm also very conservative on the historic Christian beliefs contained in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. But once you get beyond that, into less central matters, I'm unpredictable, but I do hold a number of positions that some here would likely consider liberal. As Joan Jett says in "The French Song", "I know what I am. I am what I am." That's partly fundamentalist, partly conservative and partly liberal, and I believe what I believe, not feeling obligated to conform my beliefs to any label. I'm just Izdaarian. :D

Since we're refrencing Wiki-type articles, I'll take this opportunity to note that the Theopedia article linked early in the thread includes a "Reactions" section that lists some theological movements that arose in "reaction" (implying "opposition") to theological liberalism. Among these are "Pentecostalism" and "Neo-Wesleyanism." I can't find much about the latter, other than its goal of being a return to the more "pure" Wesleyanism taught and practiced by John and Charles themselves; as such, it must surely welcome women in high leadership roles. Pentecostalism is much more familiar to me, and two of the older Pentecostal denominations -- the AG and the Foursquare Church -- have for over a century embraced women in high leadership, the latter having been founded by a woman. My point is that one of the first external references cited in this thread in support of the idea that gender-egalitarianism necessarily equates to theological liberalism includes within itself refutation of that notion.

<snip>

Well, I know I sure don't "fully" support it. I highly doubt Izzy embraces some of that stuff, but she's well able to answer for herself.
Hmm, "Christian feminism"? I'm not entirely sure what all that entails, and I wouldn't want to sign onto it without knowing what it means. I consider myself a libertarian or individualist feminist, but that's in a secular political context. I support the AG and Foursquare position on the ordination of women, but I recognize that the genders are different.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Uhh... Wut? :confused: How did the issue of whether or not one agrees with YOU get into this? I affirm full equality of genders in home, church, and elsewhere. You identify this as a "liberal" position. I have no problem with that. But you extrapolate from my stance on this *one* issue that I *am* a liberal. Izzy was questioning that logic, not whether anyone "agreed" with "you." In fact, I'm pretty conservative on most social and political issues -- taxes, abortion, homosexual clergy, government spending, capital punishment, etc. By the logic implied by your opening remarks in this quote, someone who was pro-choice, advocated Socialism, belonged to PETA and Green Peace, but held the conservative stance of being in favor of capital punishment would be a conservative.



I had to hunt around a bit in order to find that quotation from the Wikipedia article.

I can tell you it does not apply to me. In previous conversations on various CF boards, Izzy has said that she's reasonably comfortable with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and that her main dispute with the Fundy SoF here is the "militant" part, but I don't know what her current stance is.

Since we're refrencing Wiki-type articles, I'll take this opportunity to note that the Theopedia article linked early in the thread includes a "Reactions" section that lists some theological movements that arose in "reaction" (implying "opposition") to theological liberalism. Among these are "Pentecostalism" and "Neo-Wesleyanism." I can't find much about the latter, other than its goal of being a return to the more "pure" Wesleyanism taught and practiced by John and Charles themselves; as such, it must surely welcome women in high leadership roles. Pentecostalism is much more familiar to me, and two of the older Pentecostal denominations -- the AG and the Foursquare Church -- have for over a century embraced women in high leadership, the latter having been founded by a woman. My point is that one of the first external references cited in this thread in support of the idea that gender-egalitarianism necessarily equates to theological liberalism includes within itself refutation of that notion.




Well, I know I sure don't "fully" support it. I highly doubt Izzy embraces some of that stuff, but she's well able to answer for herself.




About what? Your spelling of "precedence"? ;)

Ok, seriously -- What is it that you want proved, and what sort of evidence do you have in mind?

I'm sorry, I didn't know you changed your name to Izdaari.

You must have since you answered for her.

I intentionally did not address you.

So, have you taken up answering for others?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

NorrinRadd

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian
Sep 2, 2007
5,571
595
Wayne Township, PA, USA
✟8,652.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
DD, in case you aren't aware of it, these are public discussion boards. There are no "one on one" conversations here. I answered "for" Izzy because her post built on your reply to me. I reserve the right to butt into any portion of the discussion I so choose until and unless the forum rules are explicitly changed to preclude such normal discussion board activity.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Consider the following Scripture:

1Co 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
1Co 11:4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
1Co 11:5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
1Co 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
1Co 11:9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
1Co 11:10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
1Co 11:12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
(NASB)

So from a literal, fundamentalist position, women should have their heads covered. But what does verse 1 Co 11:10 mean? According to 1 Co 11:15, is it enough for a woman to have long hair, is that enough covering? Also, according to 1 Co 11:5, women are praying and prophesying, and nothing is said against that practice. It seems like some of these rules/practices border on legalism. Most of the rules against women in the early church were because of a lack of discipline. Are these rules still to be followed for the same reasons? Just some thoughts. I do not advocate any position short of strict adherence to Biblical teaching.

So the passage is saying we're doing all this jumping through hoops for angels and not God?
 
Upvote 0

NorrinRadd

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian
Sep 2, 2007
5,571
595
Wayne Township, PA, USA
✟8,652.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I wouldn't go as far as to say perfidious. But deceived or undereducated in what the Scriptures teach (not to mention God's nature, the nature of humanity and what He created us for, etc.) and perhaps rebellious, certainly. But not generally faithless.

Des, do you really mean this? I barely expect to see this sort of thing even from the "stereotypical" fundie. I'm surprised and saddened to see it from you.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
What we need to look at here is the fact that in verse 20 Jesus says she calls herself a prophetess. She is not recognized by God as nothing more than a harlot, trying to lead Gods servants away from Him.
20Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

if that is so: then why did God give her a space of time to repent ?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Des, do you really mean this? I barely expect to see this sort of thing even from the "stereotypical" fundie. I'm surprised and saddened to see it from you.

Calling someone faithless is a pretty broad sweeping generalization since we are saved by faith ..

being a fundie doesn't mean you don't think before you speak i would assume .

bless .
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
DD, in case you aren't aware of it, these are public discussion boards. There are no "one on one" conversations here. I answered "for" Izzy because her post built on your reply to me. I reserve the right to butt into any portion of the discussion I so choose until and unless the forum rules are explicitly changed to preclude such normal discussion board activity.

So, if I'm standing in a crowd of people, and I'm having a conversation with an indicidual, you say its perfectly acceptable for you to interceed and proceed to speak for another.

Aa hah...

Well here is one for you:

Harassment
Harassment of another member is strictly prohibited. Respect another member's request to cease contact. Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes, but is not limited to, gossiping or spreading rumors about another member or persistently attacking them in the open forums. Do not threaten another member or report another member out of spite.

Link to this rule.

NorrinRadd, unless I quote you, or address you specifically, I respectfully, nicely, and politely, would ask for you not to respond to my posts nor answer in the place of the person I am responding to.

Nuff said...

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

No Swansong

Formerly Jtbdad Christian on every board!
Apr 14, 2004
11,538
658
Ohio
✟28,633.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
In this case it is not an argument of silence . because God identifies her as "that woman" and continues on to demonstrate she is being assessed as any male in the same position would be assessed . was even given space to repent .

If her being a woman was an issue God would have said so . because He identified her as a woman .


Actually it is almost the definition of an argument from silence. Using your reasoning then the woman taken in adultery committed no other sin.
 
Upvote 0

TimRout

Biblicist
Feb 27, 2008
4,762
221
53
Ontario
✟13,717.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
women can do anything that a man can do, probably better lol
The question is not one of ability, but propriety. Do you believe the ordination of women is within the will of God? If so, on what biblical basis do you base your belief?
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Actually it is almost the definition of an argument from silence. Using your reasoning then the woman taken in adultery committed no other sin.

Well, no other sin worthy of stoning . ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FundamentalistJohn

Regular Member
Feb 23, 2008
644
56
✟8,589.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
i think the main issue i have with the 1 Timothy and Titus instructions is that there is no narrative in the bible illustrating that this pattern is followed .

There is however in the Early Church Fathers.
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
There is however in the Early Church Fathers.

yeah . but its not canonical . God's always used women in leadership roles . quite often when men wouldn't step up to the plate . all the language around the rules sounds like it is all to please men and to appease voyeuristic angels who are morbidly interested in watching us .

God who created both . has made both male and female new creations . and delights in watching us fulfil what is written of us in the same way Jesus fulfilled what was written of Him .
 
Upvote 0

FundamentalistJohn

Regular Member
Feb 23, 2008
644
56
✟8,589.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
yeah . but its not canonical . God's always used women in leadership roles . quite often when men wouldn't step up to the plate . all the language around the rules sounds like it is all to please men and to appease voyeuristic angels who are morbidly interested in watching us .

God who created both . has made both male and female new creations . and delights in watching us fulfil what is written of us in the same way Jesus fulfilled what was written of Him .

I wasn't trying to make an argument my friend I was simply pointing out that the words of the Scriptures you quoted are patterned in the early Church. I haven't really paid a lot of attention to the question. Certainly not nearly enough to construct an argument pro or con.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I wasn't trying to make an argument my friend I was simply pointing out that the words of the Scriptures you quoted are patterned in the early Church. I haven't really paid a lot of attention to the question. Certainly not nearly enough to construct an argument pro or con.

I guess .

apparently there are examples of women leaders in the early church also .

doesn't matter to me . it used to . but now i have bigger fish to fry .
 
Upvote 0