Should women be pastors?

[ParanoidAndroid]

More semantics..

If you understand the context of the verse you will see God is talking about the hardships of supporting ones family that Adam will have to go through(farming food, shelter, support). Man's consequence was that he would have to till and farm for his own food and go through hardships in order to support his family..Because Eve sinned first and tried to direct her husband to sin with her, he was put in authority over her due to Eve being more prone to being deceived and to deceive. The consequence of this was childbearing and the desire of her life being for the sake of her husband and keepers and guarders of their home. This happened due to God's justice.

Umm, is there a "Jaw dropping" emoticon I can use in a situation like this????? Did I correctly read that women are more prone to being deceived than men????

I wonder what research there is that backs up such a position. This is pure speculation, based on nothing but ones own opinion. In fact, if you look at some of the women throughout biblical history you might find them to be far more politically savvy than their male counterparts

Just a thought to consider, CiC

~ PA

 

[Strong in Him]

1 Cor. 11:8-12 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; [9] nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; [10] for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. [11]

Actually, are you saying that all a woman has to do to have authority is to cover her head?? So I could go into church, put on a headscarf or hat and suddenly I have authority? Surely not.

Any why "because of the angels" anyway? That bit of the verse has always puzzled me.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Umm, is there a "Jaw dropping" emoticon I can use in a situation like this?????

Alas, no jawdrop. We must settle for alternatives such as , , and

 

[NorrinRadd]

...
edit: Gah, I can't wait until I reach 50 posts. Every time I quote someone who has a link in their post, I have to go back and delete it or else the system won't let me make my post, lol

I feel your pain. I hated that inane limitation of the forum software when I was a newbie here.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Hi maid in His image,

Sorry it's taken a couple of days to get back to this response, I've only had limited time to respond.

After reading this response, I do see what you're saying in the sense of the Law being overshadowed now by Grace (through Faith in Christ). However, I'm not sure one can say the same thing for relationships. The husband/wife relationship outlined in Ephesians 5 is intended to mirror the Christ/Church relationship. Hence the husband as the head of the house and Christ as the head of the Church go hand-in-hand (the husband/wife relationship copies that of Christ/Church) .

In this sense, when looking at the church structure itself, the head of the Church is ultimately Christ, but the head (overseer) of each church should also have some bearing on this mirror. As I said in reference to 1 Timothy, Paul gives reasons as to why it should be a man, and this has to do with the order of creation (not in the sense of "what came first", but rather "the way God has designed it to be" - it is possibly my fault for not being so clear in this distinction). Thus, as per the order of creation, the overseer of a church should be a man (this does not disqualify women from teaching or preaching, as per the reasons I suggested before in my earlier post, of course). To compare a small cross-section:

~ Christ Head of the Global Church
~ Overseer Head of the Local Church
~ Husband Head of the House (wife).

By this short summary, the overseer should also be a man, to mirror the relationship of Christ to the Church and in turn, husband to the wife.

I hope that clarifies my position.

~ Regards, PA

It clarifies your position but not the full intent of what Paul was saying to the churches about coming to maturity in Christ.

Eph 4:12 Christ gave those gifts to prepare God's holy people for the work of serving, to make the body of Christ stronger.13 This work must continue until we are all joined together in the same faith and in the same knowledge of the Son of God. We must become like a mature person, growing until we become like Christ and have his perfection.

Co; 1:27 God decided to let his people know this rich and glorious secret which he has for all people. This secret is Christ himself, who is in you. He is our only hope for glory.28 So we continue to preach Christ to each person, using all wisdom to warn and to teach everyone, in order to bring each one into God's presence as a mature person in Christ.29 To do this, I work and struggle, using Christ's great strength that works so powerfully in me.


Rom 16:Greetings to Tryphena and Tryphosa, women who work very hard for the Lord. Greetings to my dear friend Persis, who also has worked very hard for the Lord.


Phil 4:3 And I ask you, my faithful friend, to help these women. They served with me in telling the Good News, together with Clement and others who worked with me, whose names are written in the book of life.

You are entitled to your opinion but I don't believe that to be what the Holy Spirit had in mind when He worked thru the 120 to bring the 3000 to faith on the first day.

 

[Macrina]

Hi Macrina,

Thanks for the detailed response. Don't worry about apologising for length, I'm famous for making long posts, lol. And thank you for your input, particularly about the Ephesus congregation having a Temple of Artemis (this was new knowledge to me). The teaching that Eve was created first reminds me of the Alphabet of ben Sira, a 10th Century AD work which parodied the Jewish beliefs, and included the existence of a woman before Eve (Lilith) who was condemned by God because she was too "independent" and so God created a new submissive woman for Adam to dominate.

Of course, the only evidence of this Lilith being in Eden is from said parody (The Hebrew term is used once in Isaiah as a night-bird of some kind, perhaps a screech owl, and in Jewish mythology, Lilith is a night demon, but clearly neither relate to Adam and Eve).

Anyhow, back to the comments (sorry for the aside, lol). Considering the Temple of Artemis, and the possible emergence of a pre-Adamic Eve, it makes sense that Paul would confirm in 1 Timothy that Adam was created first.

However, the argument I have presented is not solely the fact that Adam was created first. Rather it has to do with the order of creation (of which Adam being created first is only the first sign of this), and how this is mirrored in other aspects of life (hence my use of Ephesians 5 to discuss the role of the husband/wife and Christ/church).

I guess I didn't completely explain this in my previous post, and I think I've clarified it in recent posts to other members, but if you haven't had a chance to read them, my commentary should be pretty clear. By the order of creation, God set Christ as the Head of the Church, and according to Ephesians 5, this order of creation is mirrored in the role of the Husband being the head of the wife (but both the roles of christ and church are also mirrored here, so take that into consideration). So if Christ is the head of our global church, and on an individual level, the husband is the head of the wife, on a localised level, who would be the head overseer of a local church?

I would submit that logic dictates a man should also fill this role.

Your thoughts are appreciated, and I hope you can provide further input into this insight. Thanks for the dialogue, it's been great

~ Regards, PA

edit: Gah, I can't wait until I reach 50 posts. Every time I quote someone who has a link in their post, I have to go back and delete it or else the system won't let me make my post, lol

Hi PA,

I'm going to try to keep this post shorter than my last reply to you, but feel free to ask me for more details -- I can elaborate on any of these points.

First a note: The Ephesian temple was a pretty dominant feature, and the city was well-known for its devotion to Artemis. Their depictions of her graphically emphasize fertility and the "life source" ideas they had about her. It's not surprising that such teachings leaked into the Ephesian church, and ultimately formed a gnostic belief.

You mention Ephesians 5 and Paul's use of "head" to describe the wife's relationship to the husband. That argument seems very compelling... in English. However, will you try something for me? Will you imagine that the metaphorical meanings you have of the English word "head" were taken away, and that all you had was the primary anatomical definition of the noun? Then, I ask that you re-read the passage, setting aside as best you can the fact that in English we use head to mean "chief" or "leader."

The second part of my request to you is that you consider the following information about how Paul's language dealt with their word for head -- kephale. Greek writers up to Paul's time never used kephale to mean "authority" or "boss," as we often use "head" today. We have the notion of the brain as the command-center of the body, due to our understanding of the nervous system, but this was not the Greek understanding; they spoke of the heart as being the seat of thought and decisions. For them, the head, if used metaphorically, referred to a "source," as the head of a river is its source. If you read Ephesians 5:21ff with this metaphorical meaning in mind, I think you'll find that things take a different shape then when viewed through English lenses. As Christ (the kephale of the church) is the source of life and love for his Body (the church), so the husband (the kephale of the wife) is the source of life and love for his wife, with whom he is one flesh (body).

I'm tempted to go on and on about the linguistics of it, but in the interests of brevity, I'll just wait and see if you have specific questions for me. The bottom line is that given the linguistic and literary contexts, reading kephale as "leader" is a case of importing an English assumption onto a text, not of reading it as the Ephesians would have done.

Thanks for "listening."
~Mac

 

[Macrina]

Only partially, Macrina (hi again, btw) *waves*

While what you say is technically true, men still work the land for food (though today some of us are lucky enough have desk jobs), and women still have pain in childbirth. As such, we cannot just dismiss the punishments of the Fall on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice. ...

You're almost at your 50-post requirement, so you'll be able to go crazy with those links soon.


Anyway, what you say is why I qualified my statement by saying that we are being re-formed in God's new creation. We have glimpsed the new creation, and we have been changed, but the process is not yet complete. In my opinion, we can choose to live into this new creation through embracing its gifts, even if those gifts are not yet fully realized.


Because some men have given themselves as a source of social power for women, we now have a freedom that we've never before had. Not disregarding the efforts of women themselves, I want to point out that men who were already in power in society chose use that power in behalf of their sisters, to impart it to them so that they might have greater freedom to exercise their own gifts. Through men who have been our "source" in this way, many women are experiencing more of the new creation than was ever before possible.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Two things:

1) Assuming the common translation is correct, with "gar" translated as "for" in 1 Tim. 2:13, implying what follows is the "reason" for the commands, it is not just that Adam was created first, but also that Eve was "deceived." That could mean that all women are unsuited for teaching, because like Eve they are easily deceived; or it could mean that some particular women at Ephesus had been deceived and were spreading their deception, and Paul was using Eve as a negative example.

Given that the whole of 1 Tim. relentlessly struggles against the problem of false teachers in Ephesus; that being "easily deceived" would make women unsuitable for teaching *anyone*, not just men (contrary to Tit. 2:3-4); and would be inconsistent with the implication in 2 Tim. 1:5 that Timothy himself was taught the Scriptures by his mother and grandmother.

HI NorrinRadd,

I tend to think this is not about women being easily deceived. This would contradict the many parts of scripture where women played a key role in bringing about God's will (the actions of the prostitute Rahab are the most striking of the Old Testament, but by no means the only one).

I don't think the context here is focused on the "deception" of the woman, but rather the order of creation.

2) At least one New Testament scholar (Linda Belleville) has suggested that "gar" does not always precede a "reason," but can also be used to introduce an "explanation," such as a refutation of false teaching. In this case, she suggests that the allusion to the Creation Order is a direct refutation to a known belief of the Artemis cult: That women have priority, and that woman was created first, as acted out symbolically in the Lord of the Streets celebration. (And we know from both Acts and extra-Biblical accounts that there was an active Artemis cult in the Ephesus region.)

I know this is not a direct refutation, but the problem with the comment "at least one New Testament scholar" suggests that it is a minority view. While in and of itself that does not make the view deficient, it does imply that most scholars disagree.

Also the fact that said scholar is a woman is also not helpful to the cause considering the findings directly affect her personally (though to be fair, to dismiss these views simply because she is a woman is a form of "ad hominem" response, and should not in and of themselves be used to dismiss her findings).

The problem is that those "marital relations" verses are part of a larger context known a table of "house codes." There are four in the NT of which I am aware, and all of them include in the same context commands for Xian slaves to obey Xian masters. And as one can make the "headship" argument in regard to Christ and the Church / husbands and wives, one can also defend slavery on the principle that all believers are servants of Christ, therefore it is appropriate that some believers model this by being slaves of other believers. There is no solid reason for saying one part of the house codes -- slavery -- is obsolete, but the rest are not.

Sorry Norrin, you chose the wrong Christian to present this argument to, lol. There's another thread around these boards somewhere about the legitimacy of slavery, you'll find a complete post by me on this subject, but to summarise my comments there, IF (and that "if" is a very big pointer) slavery was brought back, and IF (again that "if" holds big issues) that slavery adhered to both ancient Roman and ancient Christian forms, then I do not have a theological problem with it. It's only when slavery is abused, particularly by harsh task-masters, that slavery is actually abhorred.

Regardless, it is inconceivable that such a concept would ever be brought back into general considerations and therefore any argument about this is entirely hypothetical and intellectual, rather than based in any real possibility of events happening.

That said, the purpose for my commentary on the husband/wife response was not so much to do with the fact that man was head of the house, but more to do with the headship of Christ in relation to the Church (I doubt you would disagree with that).

That's kind of a slim basis.

As you can see, I provided a couple possibilities.


I changed from the "leadership is male" position. It's very hard to get me to change, and once I do, virtually impossible to turn me back.


Friendly challenge: I know it's impossible to totally rid oneself of preconceptions. Still, as much as possible, push out of your head your notions from 1 Tim. 2 and Eph. 5 that women can't be overseers. Then look at Col. 4:15 and see what you find the most "natural" interpretation to be in regard to Nympha's role. Look back at the OT, at Jdg. 4:4-5 and
2 Ki. 22:12-15 / 2 Chr. 34:21-23, and see whether or not it seems as though Deborah and Huldah are exercising "oversight" over the people of God, and/or speaking "authoritatively" from God.

Thanks for the friendly challenge. It's rather late at night here, so I can only provide cursory glances. ON Colossians 4:15, I would need to further look at the role of Nympha beyond that single verse. On Judges 4, it appears that Deborah has been given the role as a Judge of Israel, which is not in contradiction of being given the role of the overseer of Christ's Church. Likewise 2 Kings/2 Chronicles (both accounts of the same event) - they do not directly suggest that the role of overseer can belong to women as well. They may contradict the more often-mentioned claim that simply "teaching" is forbidden to women, but that is not a claim I hold as true (if you search through the rest of my posts in this thread).

As noted, this is only a most cursory glance at the passages, and I have not in any way looked deeply, so a deeper look may gain something, but at the time of night it is in Australia, I don't really have the mental capacity to produce a complete Bible study on the topic.

I'll look deeper into them at another time (I have a tendency to forget what I say at this time of night, so if I happen to ignore this promise to study it over the next few days, please PM me and I'll make sure to address it in an appropriate time).

Best wishes, Norrin

~ PA

 

[tulipbee]

. . .are you saying that all a woman has to do to have authority is to cover her head? . . .

This reminds me of what I was thinking yesterday. May I pop another question here about head covers?
My question is:
If we no longer require head coverings and dresses or full body covering in mainline churches, How does allowing women to pastor relate to the rest of the Biblical requirements of worship. I mean, why do we fuss about women being pastors and not fuss about the requirements of head coverings and dress codes and other things I may not know about?
Also, What are the other Biblical requirements we no longer practice in most churches?

 

[Macrina]

I know this is not a direct refutation, but the problem with the comment "at least one New Testament scholar" suggests that it is a minority view. While in and of itself that does not make the view deficient, it does imply that most scholars disagree.

Also the fact that said scholar is a woman is also not helpful to the cause considering the findings directly affect her personally (though to be fair, to dismiss these views simply because she is a woman is a form of "ad hominem" response, and should not in and of themselves be used to dismiss her findings).

I'm not familiar with Belleville's scholarship, but I am very familiar with the grammatical point NR makes -- to the point where I am surprised that there is any doubt about that usage of the Greek word gar. In my Greek classes, I learned that it often precedes an explanation, not a "reason." This is why "for" is generally the English translation preferred over "because" -- the latter limits the sense to "reason," but the former allows room for the "explanation" sense which is common in Greek.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

You will find out that it is because of the Fall and that woman was created for man; "and Adam not being deceived, but the woman being deceived and transgressed". Eve tried to direct her husband to partake in sin with her, hence she was put under her husband due to her concupiscence

So Adam was blameless??????

From what I read of the Genesis account, the man tried to blame the woman, the woman tried to blame the serpent, but God had none of these excuses and CURSED THEM ALL.

A Christian friend of mine on another Forum I attend once suggested an interesting point here - what would have happened if, instead of trying to place the blame on others (Adam placing it on Eve, Eve placing it on the Serpent), what if they admitted their sins, and prostrated themselves before God seeking repentance.

True, it is only an hypothetical, since that didn't happen. However, it's worth considering, particularly in light of your comments here, which seem to diminish the culpability of Adam and focus on the culpability of Eve. Why does the culpability always seem to fall on the role of Eve, when it was Adam who was equally responsible (he listened to Eve, after all).

This isn't exactly related to the question of this thread, but it truly begs an answer in light of such a one-eyed response about the culpability of Eve in the Fall of humanity.

~ Regards, PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

I made a very long post earlier in this thread, and I doubt many people will read all the way through it, so here is a boiled-down version of the point I find most important:


In Ephesus (where Timothy was), there was a false belief that woman was the originator of man and therefore had some special power. So when Paul gives the oft-cited instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12-13, he is basically telling pagan-influenced, proto-gnostic women that they are not permitted to claim any originating authority over man, and that they weren't the ones who came first -- man was. At least, that's the way it seems to me, given how well it fits the context and how it fits in with the rest of scripture.

Lol, that was the response to me. I also have a tendency to make long responses, especially when making my very first post in a thread. I try to cover all the bases so that any comments I make aren't taken in an incorrect manner.

Needless to say, I read your post. I believe I referenced it, and found the point very interesting (I had never heard the commentary before about the Temple of Artemis, and the doctrine that Eve was created first).

Once again, thanks for sharing, in any case.

~ PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Umm, is there a "Jaw dropping" emoticon I can use in a situation like this

Alas, no jawdrop. We must settle for alternatives such as , , and

Ah well, they state my case just as well as any other emoticon could. Thanks,

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

It clarifies your position but not the full intent of what Paul was saying to the churches about coming to maturity in Christ.

Eph 4:12 Christ gave those gifts to prepare God's holy people for the work of serving, to make the body of Christ stronger.13 This work must continue until we are all joined together in the same faith and in the same knowledge of the Son of God. We must become like a mature person, growing until we become like Christ and have his perfection.

Co; 1:27 God decided to let his people know this rich and glorious secret which he has for all people. This secret is Christ himself, who is in you. He is our only hope for glory.28 So we continue to preach Christ to each person, using all wisdom to warn and to teach everyone, in order to bring each one into God's presence as a mature person in Christ.29 To do this, I work and struggle, using Christ's great strength that works so powerfully in me.


Rom 16:Greetings to Tryphena and Tryphosa, women who work very hard for the Lord. Greetings to my dear friend Persis, who also has worked very hard for the Lord.


Phil 4:3 And I ask you, my faithful friend, to help these women. They served with me in telling the Good News, together with Clement and others who worked with me, whose names are written in the book of life.

You are entitled to your opinion but I don't believe that to be what the Holy Spirit had in mind when He worked thru the 120 to bring the 3000 to faith on the first day.

Fair enough, I guess we are at an impasse in terms of scripture then. Since we both have doctrinal ideas that conflict (and presumably we both feel textual support) there are two resolutions to this:

1- we can continue arguing until one of us either gives up or starts insulting the other (not my preference), or

2- decide on the merits of this doctrine as an issue of salvation.

I tend to take the second view (at least as a starting point). Is our difference in view here an issue that will lead to the soul of the other going down the path of destruction? Or, despite our differences, are we both still Bible-believing Christians who accept the death of Christ as sufficient for all sins?

I'm sure others will disagree (and I can see their disagreements already, and how they will respond - it's happened too many times to see otherwise), but I don't think it a matter of salvation. Thus while we have our differences in this respect, I still greet you (and those like you) as brothers and sisters in Christ). I would never attend a church with a female pastor, but that is entirely a personal choice based on interpretation of scripture.

I think this is the best way to go, at least for now. While we may not agree, we can continue to share biblical views on this. At some stage in the future, the Holy Spirit may enlighten me (or alternatively, enlighten you) to the Truth of what the Truth is. But in the interim, we can only do with what God has given us with our human minds (and though some Christians like to take the moral high ground, not a single person on earth has the entire sole truth of every single part of scripture laid out to them).

Thanks for the discussion, it has been most enlightening (I have even learned a thing or two that I am still trying to digest). Best wishes,

~ Regards, Paranoid Android

 

[AlAyeti]

So Adam was blameless??????

From what I read of the Genesis account, the man tried to blame the woman, the woman tried to blame the serpent, but God had none of these excuses and CURSED THEM ALL.

Eve was honest about what happened. Adam blamed God for the woman and blamed her. The spirit of a good mother demonstrates the sweetness in Eve. The behavior of men even today shows the disease of Adam is running through our blood still.

A Christian friend of mine on another Forum I attend once suggested an interesting point here - what would have happened if, instead of trying to place the blame on others (Adam placing it on Eve, Eve placing it on the Serpent), what if they admitted their sins, and prostrated themselves before God seeking repentance.

Unfortunately, reality shows us that once exposed to the delicious taste of sin, the person is never quite the same. It is why even non-Christian parents put their children in Christian schools.

True, it is only an hypothetical, since that didn't happen. However, it's worth considering, particularly in light of your comments here, which seem to diminish the culpability of Adam and focus on the culpability of Eve. Why does the culpability always seem to fall on the role of Eve, when it was Adam who was equally responsible (he listened to Eve, after all).

It's just bad theology to put any blame on Eve. She was forthcoming to God about her sin. Adam was not.

This isn't exactly related to the question of this thread, but it truly begs an answer in light of such a one-eyed response about the culpability of Eve in the Fall of humanity.

~ Regards, PA

Who taught Cain anger was acceptable? I'll bet it was NOT Eve.

Sin always has consequences.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Hi PA,

I'm going to try to keep this post shorter than my last reply to you, but feel free to ask me for more details -- I can elaborate on any of these points.

First a note: The Ephesian temple was a pretty dominant feature, and the city was well-known for its devotion to Artemis. Their depictions of her graphically emphasize fertility and the "life source" ideas they had about her. It's not surprising that such teachings leaked into the Ephesian church, and ultimately formed a gnostic belief.

You mention Ephesians 5 and Paul's use of "head" to describe the wife's relationship to the husband. That argument seems very compelling... in English. However, will you try something for me? Will you imagine that the metaphorical meanings you have of the English word "head" were taken away, and that all you had was the primary anatomical definition of the noun? Then, I ask that you re-read the passage, setting aside as best you can the fact that in English we use head to mean "chief" or "leader."

The second part of my request to you is that you consider the following information about how Paul's language dealt with their word for head -- kephale. Greek writers up to Paul's time never used kephale to mean "authority" or "boss," as we often use "head" today. We have the notion of the brain as the command-center of the body, due to our understanding of the nervous system, but this was not the Greek understanding; they spoke of the heart as being the seat of thought and decisions. For them, the head, if used metaphorically, referred to a "source," as the head of a river is its source. If you read Ephesians 5:21ff with this metaphorical meaning in mind, I think you'll find that things take a different shape then when viewed through English lenses. As Christ (the kephale of the church) is the source of life and love for his Body (the church), so the husband (the kephale of the wife) is the source of life and love for his wife, with whom he is one flesh (body).

I'm tempted to go on and on about the linguistics of it, but in the interests of brevity, I'll just wait and see if you have specific questions for me. The bottom line is that given the linguistic and literary contexts, reading kephale as "leader" is a case of importing an English assumption onto a text, not of reading it as the Ephesians would have done.

Thanks for "listening."
~Mac

Hey Mac,

Thanks for the comments,

Believe it or not, I totally agree with this. I am well-versed in the symbolism of the head and heart in English compared to those of Jewish audiences. The heart was where the decisions were made (not the brain).

However, and I hope this doesn't spoil the goodwill here - it still remains that Ephesians 5 suggests the views of "submission of women". However (and hopefully to bring back that spirit of goodwill), that submission is not a "ruling over" in the sense of Genesis 3:16, which has been partially restored. As such, we are still left with the same imagery of Christ being the head of the Church (or if you will, the Church submitting to the Will of Christ, or even Christ being the source of the Love of the Church), and thus the same Husband/wife imagery still exists in Ephesians - though as above, not in the abusive sense of Genesis 3:16, but a more Christ-like restoration of life.

Thus in the same way the local overseer of a church still needs a role - and I cannot biblically find support for women to take this role. Christ/Church, Husband/Wife, Overseer/Local congregation - in my biblical opinion, the standards are the same.

As an aside to this in terms of husbands "ruling" over wives and wives "submitting", I would like to quote a favourite theologian of mine - the late D.B Knox - "Sin has debased headship into dominance, and submission into servility. But for the Christian, this should not be so" (Doctrine of God, volume 1). It's not directly related to the topic, but since we are referencing Ephesians quite a lot I really wanted to discuss it just to put a voice out there. There is a very public view that by "submitting" the woman is putting themselves as somehow "less than" the man, and by being the "head", the man is somehow "domineering" the woman. Biblically speaking, none of these is correct, and I hope my previous comments in this thread have addressed the clarity of what this position means.

Thanks for your comments, and I wish you all the best

~ Regards, PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

You're almost at your 50-post requirement, so you'll be able to go crazy with those links soon.

Actually, just hit that mark 3 posts ago, yee-haw (not American, but I'll use that American Wild-West phrase anyway, lol).

Anyway, what you say is why I qualified my statement by saying that we are being re-formed in God's new creation. We have glimpsed the new creation, and we have been changed, but the process is not yet complete. In my opinion, we can choose to live into this new creation through embracing its gifts, even if those gifts are not yet fully realized.


Because some men have given themselves as a source of social power for women, we now have a freedom that we've never before had. Not disregarding the efforts of women themselves, I want to point out that men who were already in power in society chose use that power in behalf of their sisters, to impart it to them so that they might have greater freedom to exercise their own gifts. Through men who have been our "source" in this way, many women are experiencing more of the new creation than was ever before possible.

I can't say I disagree with anything specific you reference here. All the best,

~ PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Sin always has consequences.

My apologies for distilling your comments down to a single point, but while the rest was interesting and worthy of further consideration, like the question I asked, they can all be summed up by this one single sentence.

How truthful is this comment

~ Regards, PA

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Hey, just as an added aside, over the past few pages of this thread, as I read back on what I have posted to both those who agree and disagree with female pastors, I find myself arguing with both sides, even though I hold belief in one view over the other..

I don't know why this is, but why do I hold one particular belief on this, and yet find myself arguing against both sides of the debate? And more so that I find disturbing (to my own theological views) why is it those I agree with (in theory, at least) that I find my comments most vehemently opposed?

On a very personal note, I have never found myself in such a position before. It's rather strange, truth be told.

~ Regards, PA

 

[CreedIsChrist]

So Adam was blameless??????

From what I read of the Genesis account, the man tried to blame the woman, the woman tried to blame the serpent, but God had none of these excuses and CURSED THEM ALL.

A Christian friend of mine on another Forum I attend once suggested an interesting point here - what would have happened if, instead of trying to place the blame on others (Adam placing it on Eve, Eve placing it on the Serpent), what if they admitted their sins, and prostrated themselves before God seeking repentance.

True, it is only an hypothetical, since that didn't happen. However, it's worth considering, particularly in light of your comments here, which seem to diminish the culpability of Adam and focus on the culpability of Eve. Why does the culpability always seem to fall on the role of Eve, when it was Adam who was equally responsible (he listened to Eve, after all).

This isn't exactly related to the question of this thread, but it truly begs an answer in light of such a one-eyed response about the culpability of Eve in the Fall of humanity.

~ Regards, PA

I never said Adam was blameless, I said he was less culpable due to him commiting one form of disobediance. While Eve commited 2 forms of sin, that of disobedience and that of deceit.

Both were responsible, but a greater weight is on Eve's shoulders. There is a reason why Satan went for Eve and not Adam. He knew she was the weaker vessel