There is a difference between teaching and preaching the gospel

[ToBeLoved]

It's not a matter of what I "like." But if all you want to do is basically criticise me personally, this isn't going anywhere.

I meant it in a general sense of those who do not follow the Bible.

 

[DavidFirth]

1 Corinthians 14:34
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.


Paul said women should be silent in church, not anywhere else.

 

[Paidiske]

I meant it in a general sense of those who do not follow the Bible.

Even in a general sense, if all you want to do is criticise others with whom you disagree about how to understand the Bible, this isn't going anywhere.

 

[Ovlov90]

This is a subject Ive tried to bring up so I could weigh both sides of the issue based on scripture and Hebrew temple practice and first cent. Christian thought. BUT~ everybody gets bent out of shape at the mention of it. Can someone answer questions with out feeling attacked.

 

[Ovlov90]

Ive always understood it to be based on the creation order in Genesis. Woman was the helpmeet. Then Gods relationship to His Bride. And thought Paul was baseing church hiearchy on temple order. The Levite priests were male. I also thought it ONLY pertained to the “high priest” or princepal expounder , teacher, pastor, leader of the congregation. All other positions were fair game.
Additionally ther was no seperation between secular and and temple/church. That is an invention of the enlightenment. Compartmentelization of life. Church/State/Personal did not exsist. All was one.

 

[Ovlov90]

Through the Old Test. women were called many times for service. Pagan women at that. But none for principal leadership positions. Adam, Saul, David, Nimrod etc.
The church I attend has a female pastor. Her husband, our original pastor, passed away. She had the degree so it seemed natural to have her fill the spot. But should she do so permantly? She did not usurp the role but filled it in a natural manner.

 

[Paidiske]

Ive always understood it to be based on the creation order in Genesis. Woman was the helpmeet.

This word, "helpmeet," isn't about hierarchy, though.

Realise that almost every time the underlying Hebrew word is used in Scripture, it is used of God, and of the help God provides to humankind. Clearly God being a "helpmeet" didn't put God hierarchically below the people God was helping.

No; man and woman were created for equal partnership, to do the work assigned to them by God, supporting and upholding one another; not one ruling and the other subordinate.

As to your last question, Ovlov, the process of searching for a new pastor is important and shouldn't (I believe) be short-circuited by handing the role to the nearest person with a degree. There are important questions about the mission and future of the congregation and who has the right gifts and skills and calling to lead that, which should be reflected on prayerfully.

 

[Ovlov90]

This word, "helpmeet," isn't about hierarchy, though.

Realise that almost every time the underlying Hebrew word is used in Scripture, it is used of God, and of the help God provides to humankind. Clearly God being a "helpmeet" didn't put God hierarchically below the people God was helping.

No; man and woman were created for equal partnership, to do the work assigned to them by God, supporting and upholding one another; not one ruling and the other subordinate.

As to your last question, Ovlov, the process of searching for a new pastor is important and shouldn't (I believe) be short-circuited by handing the role to the nearest person with a degree. There are important questions about the mission and future of the congregation and who has the right gifts and skills and calling to lead that, which should be reflected on prayerfully.

Thank you. And yes to process was emotional (picking a pastor). At the time I opted out of the process. She was well qualified. But I felt it was too soon. They had taken a dieing congregation and brought it back to life. In fact we are going to burn our mortgage next month. The only thing that bothers me about our church family is nobody has a desire to search out why we believe what we believe. Almost a disdain. It was really hammered home when we got to the end of Romans study and Paul warned anout folks quibbling over doctrine and causeing divisions.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's not a matter of what I "like." But if all you want to do is basically criticise me personally, this isn't going anywhere.

How is it criticising you personally to say you didn't get the answer you like?

This is about the thread and posts.

 

[Paidiske]

You said:

Its pretty clear, your just not getting the answer you would like.

I read this as an accusation that I was reading Scripture, not for what it says, but for what I'd "like" to hear. Is that not what you meant?

 

[ToBeLoved]

You said:



I read this as an accusation that I was reading Scripture, not for what it says, but for what I'd "like" to hear. Is that not what you meant?

I just do not see that there is anything to be interpreted. Paul was pretty clear, so IMHO it then comes down to if we follow the Bible or decide we do not want to.

That is my point.

God has His reasons for things. God does not tell us we will always understand it fully or like it, but we do choose to obey or not obey.

Maybe I shouldn't reply to anymore of your posts if you think it is a personal attack against you.

 

[Paidiske]

I just do not see that there is anything to be interpreted. Paul was pretty clear, so IMHO it then comes down to if we follow the Bible or decide we do not want to.

That is my point.

Many of us disagree. Paul wrote in some places that women shouldn't teach, but he let women take up leadership and teaching roles and praised them for doing so. In some places he seems to emphasise hierarchy, in other places he emphasises mutuality and equality.

It takes some work to make all of this coherent. You've done that work and decided that the "women shouldn't lead" stuff is definitive and the fact that Paul let women lead is ambiguous or accidental. Others have done that work and come to other conclusions. But we are all interpreting a complex set of writings with multiple strands.

 

[ToBeLoved]

This word, "helpmeet," isn't about hierarchy, though.

Realise that almost every time the underlying Hebrew word is used in Scripture, it is used of God, and of the help God provides to humankind. Clearly God being a "helpmeet" didn't put God hierarchically below the people God was helping.

No; man and woman were created for equal partnership, to do the work assigned to them by God, supporting and upholding one another; not one ruling and the other subordinate.

As to your last question, Ovlov, the process of searching for a new pastor is important and shouldn't (I believe) be short-circuited by handing the role to the nearest person with a degree. There are important questions about the mission and future of the congregation and who has the right gifts and skills and calling to lead that, which should be reflected on prayerfully.

1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

 

[Paidiske]

But what does "head" mean there? I take it - on the basis of the reading I've done - that it means something like "source of identity." It doesn't mean the woman is the man's doormat.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Many of us disagree. Paul wrote in some places that women shouldn't teach, but he let women take up leadership and teaching roles and praised them for doing so. In some places he seems to emphasise hierarchy, in other places he emphasises mutuality and equality.

It takes some work to make all of this coherent. You've done that work and decided that the "women shouldn't lead" stuff is definitive and the fact that Paul let women lead is ambiguous or accidental. Others have done that work and come to other conclusions. But we are all interpreting a complex set of writings with multiple strands.

I've read enough of your writings to know this is personal to you as you have a position of leadership and teaching in whatever church you are in.

But I'm not sure Paul writing is complex on this subject. Maybe other subjects his writings are complex, but this one is pretty simple.

 

[ToBeLoved]

But what does "head" mean there? I take it - on the basis of the reading I've done - that it means something like "source of identity." It doesn't mean the woman is the man's doormat.

In the Bible, Jesus writes telling us that there are many members of the body that work together in unity for that bodys purpose and Jesus is the head of the body.

 

[Paidiske]

In the Bible, Jesus writes telling us that there are many members of the body that work together in unity for that bodys purpose and Jesus is the head of the body.

Actually, that's Paul's writing also.

And it's a very good image of koinonia in action. But to my mind, it supports rather than undermines the idea that women might contribute in leadership positions.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Actually, that's Paul's writing also.

And it's a very good image of koinonia in action. But to my mind, it supports rather than undermines the idea that women might contribute in leadership positions.

It depends on the leadership position. Women are not to spiritually teach men.

Other women = yes. Children = yes.

So to me, if a woman feels that the only way she can lead is to have a position spiritually teaching and guiding men, then she is going against God.

There are plenty of ways to lead without being a pastor.

 

[Paidiske]

So to me, if a woman feels that the only way she can lead is to have a position spiritually teaching and guiding men, then she is going against God.

I don't think anyone is talking about the "only" way one can lead or use our gifts; of course it isn't. For centuries while women weren't admitted to church leadership we found other ways, for one thing.

The question is always: what is God calling me to be and do? And if that's being a pastor/minister/priest, the correct answer - for that woman and for the Church - is one of obedience. Not refusal.

So you see, depending on how you look at it, either position can be seen as going against God.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't think anyone is talking about the "only" way one can lead or use our gifts; of course it isn't. For centuries while women weren't admitted to church leadership we found other ways, for one thing.

The question is always: what is God calling me to be and do? And if that's being a pastor/minister/priest, the correct answer - for that woman and for the Church - is one of obedience. Not refusal.

So you see, depending on how you look at it, either position can be seen as going against God.

We agree, that we disagree.

God is perfect and doesn't call when it is contrary to His Word.