Roles

[ke1985]

Is a woman' main role to be a mother?
Is a man's main role to be a leader?

It would seem that men are entailed leadership positions in the church while the women are given roles as childbearing.

Are women simply limited to making an impact by having children (on a general scale)?

"Men are entrusted with leading the church. Women are entrusted with bearing children and providing them with a Godly and secure home life so they may become Godly adults making an impact on our society. "

http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp\

Do you agree?

 

[PT Calvinist]

It would seem that men are entailed leadership positions in the church while the women are given roles as childbearing.

It would seem that way...

Woman in the New Testament

 

[ke1985]

It does seem that way...

Woman in the New Testament

I just find issue that the expected or idealized main role of a woman is determined by an extension of her, while for the man it is entirely part of him...being a leader.

 

[freeport]

Is a woman' main role to be a mother?
Is a man's main role to be a leader?

It would seem that men are entailed leadership positions in the church while the women are given roles as childbearing.

Are women simply limited to making an impact by having children (on a general scale)?

"Men are entrusted with leading the church. Women are entrusted with bearing children and providing them with a Godly and secure home life so they may become Godly adults making an impact on our society. "

<snip>

Do you agree?

No, not at all in that... first of all, mothers are critical in homes. Fathers have their roles, mothers have their roles. That is the home. My wife manages my house. She is the main nurturer of our children.

Do fathers have no roles in a house? Does the mother and father not each have their own, important place?

As for church, yes, we can draw lines from that from the family to the church, but what this person has done is basically put the woman out entirely. That is absurd.

Jesus had many women supporters, for instance.

Women have many critical roles in the church. Nurturing is very important in the church as it is in the home.

Ultimately, such matters are up to women as well as to men: and to all people, that they find their own best roles.

Not everyone does everything, but what they do do they have to find their own best place as God has intended for them.

 

[mystery4]

Well apart from the fact men can't physically have children, No.

God calls men and women according to the culture they live in, their personality, faith level, the circumstances surrounding them and their response to his call.

Men tend to focus more on being useful and doing things whereas women are more likely to focus on relationships. But even so everyone is different, and God calls people to do whatever he knows he can best qualify them for to bring glory to his name and uplift the people around them to know him better specifically for that particular time and place.

 

[PaladinValer]

I reject the so-called "old norm."

The only difference that should exist between men and women is their individual biology and bio-chemistry. That's all there is.

 

[MamaZ]

I just find issue that the expected or idealized main role of a woman is determined by an extension of her, while for the man it is entirely part of him...being a leader.

Children are more than the extension of a woman. It takes a man to create a child.

 

[Albion]

I just find issue that the expected or idealized main role of a woman is determined by an extension of her, while for the man it is entirely part of him...being a leader.

I appreciate your thinking, but for me it's simply a matter of what the Bible ordains and the Church has maintained. Most of the world's Christians belong to churches which don't ordain women, and there's a theological reason for that.

On the other hand, I am not supportive--nor are most churches--of relegating women to childbearing and rearing, period. There are many leadership posts occupied by women in most of the churches which do not believe in women's ordination, so I wonder if you are reacting against some very fundamentalistic mindset that is on the extreme end of this issue.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Is a woman' main role to be a mother?
Is a man's main role to be a leader?

It would seem that men are entailed leadership positions in the church while the women are given roles as childbearing.

Where does this "seem" to be taught?

Are women simply limited to making an impact by having children (on a general scale)?

"Men are entrusted with leading the church. Women are entrusted with bearing children and providing them with a Godly and secure home life so they may become Godly adults making an impact on our society. "

http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp\

Do you agree?

Of course not. Scripture is more explicit in citing the child-rearing responsibilities of the father than the mother.

And Acts 2 and Gal. 3:28 at the very least strongly suggest that in this New Covenant age of the Spirit, male and female are equal in ministry opportunities.

 

[Rhamiel]

I reject the so-called "old norm."

The only difference that should exist between men and women is their individual biology and bio-chemistry. That's all there is.

well you have to stop calling yourself an "orthodox catholic in the english style" because that is not a very orthodox idea, if I am not mistaken, the first woman was made a priestess in the Anglican church in 1944, hardly an orthodox practice

 

[Rhamiel]

men and women are equal in human dignity but have differant roles in the Church, the home is offten called the "domestic church" because it is where the children first learn about the faith, women have other jobs besides being mothers, look at how many woman are in the work force of the consecrated religious life

 

[Uphill Battle]

The problem with both sides of the argument, is that it usually amounts to fairly supportable ideology, and horrendous practice.

 

[Albion]

well you have to stop calling yourself an "orthodox catholic in the english style" because that is not a very orthodox idea, if I am not mistaken, the first woman was made a priestess in the Anglican church in 1944, hardly an orthodox practice

Please don't throw stones at the whole of Anglicanism because of the ideas expressed by one poster. Your "beef" is with his own ideas.

BTW, I haven't heard of this ordination of a woman in 1944, so you have my interest raised. Got anything more specific about that to pass along, or is this something only rumored...like Pope Joan?

 

[Jer29]

Men and women are created equal concerning matters of salvation, worth, and giftedness. The Bible then separates the genders into certain roles they may meet in marriage and church. There is nothing in the Bible that permits a woman to lead the household if her husband is present. There is also nothing in the Bible that permits a woman to teach, preach, or usurp the roles of men in the church. There are MANY useful roles a woman can and should fulfill in the church. If they would spend their time accomplishing THOSE duties, they would have no time to wrest control of areas clearly designated for male occupation.

 

[Rhamiel]

Please don't throw stones at the whole of Anglicanism because of the ideas expressed by one poster. Your "beef" is with his own ideas.

BTW, I haven't heard of this ordination of a woman in 1944, so you have my interest raised. Got anything more specific about that to pass along, or is this something only rumored...like Pope Joan?

well his entire denomination likes to present itself as apostolic but it goes agianst the traditions of the apostles, and I do not think it is a rumor, the Anglican Church has female priests, i am fairly sure the first one was ordained in 1944

 

[MamaZ]

Men and women are created equal concerning matters of salvation, worth, and giftedness. The Bible then separates the genders into certain roles they may meet in marriage and church. There is nothing in the Bible that permits a woman to lead the household if her husband is present. There is also nothing in the Bible that permits a woman to teach, preach, or usurp the roles of men in the church. There are MANY useful roles a woman can and should fulfill in the church. If they would spend their time accomplishing THOSE duties, they would have no time to wrest control of areas clearly designated for male occupation.

 

[Albion]

well his entire denomination likes to present itself as apostolic but it goes agianst the traditions of the apostles,

I'd agree personally in the case of The Episcopal Church in the USA and several other national churches, but that's not usually what is meant by use of the word "denomination." If you are speaking of Anglicanism generally, you are not correct. As for what's Apostolic, the definition is not cut and dried. Anglicanism's history and episcopacy go back to the Apostles, and that is the usual understanding of the word (as for example on CF's Apostolic forum).

So, if we are to be subjective about it, you might be interested to know that many Anglicans consider your church not to be Apostolic, for the same reason you cited here, i.e. departing from the traditions of the Apostles. Arguably, the later invention of a Papacy did just that.

and I do not think it is a rumor, the Anglican Church has female priests, i am fairly sure the first one was ordained in 1944

If it had happened, it would certainly have been featured as a precedent when the ordination of women was being hotly debated in the Episcopal Church during the late part of the 20th century--long after this date of 1944. So...I don't believe it's true.

And although PV's particular church is controversial, I would ask you not to speak of all Anglican churches as though we are either 1) monolithic in the Roman Cathoic way, or 2) all just the same as one of them--the Episcopal Church that is "on the outs" with most of the Anglican Churches of the world.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Men and women are created equal concerning matters of salvation, worth, and giftedness.

Where do you get the idea that life is firmly compartmentalized, such that "salvation, worth, and giftedness" do not overlap with each other, and with all other aspects of life?

The Bible then separates the genders into certain roles they may meet in marriage and church. There is nothing in the Bible that permits a woman to lead the household if her husband is present.

1) That perception, and in fact the whole notion that there is to be "a" leader in the home, depends on whether one has an interpretive framework that gives Paul's situational instructions to particular churches priority over the Creation accounts in Genesis.

2) The repeated use of the word, "permits" in this context suggests and unfortunate underlying worldview.

There is also nothing in the Bible that permits a woman to teach, preach, or usurp the roles of men in the church.

This -- all of it, but particularly the first two elements -- is blatantly incorrect.

There are MANY useful roles a woman can and should fulfill in the church. If they would spend their time accomplishing THOSE duties, they would have no time to wrest control of areas clearly designated for male occupation.

Assuming such designations are actually Scriptural.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Jer, I hope you don't mind if I take the liberty of addressing here some of your related material from another thread which we were both dragging off-topic.

From this post:

Egalitarianism comes about through Feminist Liberation Theology, or otherwise known as Christian Feminism or Evangelical Feminism.

That's a common claim, albeit presented in somewhat varying guises. (More commonly it takes a form such as, "Egalitarians are trying to conform Scripture to modern PC culture.") But the truth is, some of us -- maybe even most of us -- arrived at our egalitarian interpretation by looking at Scripture, not by starting with some theological preference and trying to make Scripture fit it.

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood does an excellent job of exposing this heresy, beginning with a writing called The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Feminism. I would post the link but I understand I must have 50 posts here before I can post any links. You may find it very easily with a Google search.

It is here. But in the interest of being "fair and balanced," I also present Christians for Biblical Equality and God's Word to Women.

As to "heresy," that's a very loaded term. But since you've hastened to draw it from its holster, I'll remind you that the "eternal subordination of the Son" position is also considered "heresy" in some quarters.

Here are some quotes:

"An evangelical feminist is one who has a high view of Scripture and believes the Bible teaches the full equality of men and women without role distinctions between the two. Their principles for interpreting Scripture, however, differ markedly from those of the advocates of role distinctions for men and women. A comparison of evangelical feminists' principles with the grammatical-historical method of interpretation clarifies what and how great they deviate...

Ok, first of all, whoever wrote that needs a good proof-reader. Good grief, putting something that awkwardly worded online is silly.

More importantly, the statement is untrue. Egalitarians most certainly DO rely strongly on the grammatical-historical method. Hierarchicalists just don't like the conclusions.

But there is another problem: The "method" itself, unlike Scripture, is not inspired. So even if we did NOT follow that method, that in itself is not a violation of some inspired authority.

from traditional views of a woman's role in church and at home. The disputed principles include the issues of ad hoc documents, interpretive centers, the analogy of faith, slavery as a model for the role of women, culturally biased interpretation, cultural relativity, and patriarchal and sexist texts. An examination of these issues shows how far evangelical feminist hermeneutics falls short of grammatical historical interpretation."

Again, since (for Protestants, at least) "tradition" and the g-h method are not inspired or authoritative, "fall(s) short" is a mischaracterization.

And again, we DO make use of the g-h method, though not exclusively. Many of those "disputed principles" in fact arise out of the application of that method.

and this .......

"Feminism is a broad term that includes several groups. "Secular feminists" are those who do not accept the Bible as authoritative. "Religious feminists" are "individuals who do not identify with Christianity, but whose beliefs nevertheless include a religious worldview."3 "Christian feminists" work from the standpoint of a commitment to the Christian faith but accept the authority of Scripture in only a limited way. A final classification of feminists includes those identified as "evangelical feminists." An evangelical feminist has a high view of Scripture and is "one who believes that the Bible teaches the full equality of men and women without role distinctions based on gender."

and this ......

"Evangelical feminists must take a hard look at their hermeneutics in view of evident weaknesses in the system, many of which contradict the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. Since these defects are present, the position of evangelical feminism on the role of men and women in the church and home rests on less than a solid biblical foundation. "

And again, the author needs to reacquaint himself with the g-h method, and to adjust his phraseology to make clear that the method itself is one of several useful tools, but is not an inspired authority on par with Scripture itself.

 

[Jer29]

Nice try in trying to denigrate and mischaracterize the qualifications and research of those holding to the Complementarian stance. Won't work with me ..... I've been around the block with too many Egals and I am familiar with the tactics of false accusation and mischaracterization. The two pro-Egal organizations you linked to are notorious for commentary based on faulty research and conclusions.