Women Can't Preach

[FundamentalistJohn]

Reconsidering

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Reconsidering

 

[Albion]

You did a great job of not answering my question.

I answered it before.

If we are open minded in our research we early on realize that there is almost nothing or very little on the pro-WO side, while there's a large number of facts from history and scripture that support the anti-WO side. You can't just dismiss these because you've found one or two weak arguments on the WO side. You say you've studied this, so I assume you know all the evidence and facts that I am referring to.

 

[christianmomof3]

People can use Bible verses to justify just about any point of view.
The Bible says there is no male and no female in Christ Jesus.
Some Chasidic Jews have women shave their heads and wear wigs, wear long dresses, have a partition separating men from women in the synagogue and have separate sidewalks for men and women to walk on.
Some Muslims make women wear Burkas.
Some Mormons allow men to have multiple wives, but women to have only one husband.
Some Christians only allow men to be a pastor or Pope.
They all stem from the same point of view that diminishes women and makes them second class citizens.
Where do you draw the line?
Most people would think that making women wear Burkas or walk on a separate sidewalk is wrong.
How is that any different from not allowing women to speak or teach in the church?
In my opinion, not allowing women to do the same thing as men in churches is just the same as making them sit behind a partition or walk on a separate sidewalk. It is derogatory.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You are correct that the Bishops and Elders (Priests) are not alone in offering sacrifice. It is a common misunderstanding and misconception that the idea of a ministerial priesthood precludes the idea of the priesthood of all believers. Both are true. In fact you virtually can't have the priesthood of all believers, without the ministerial priesthood

The issue is clergy being a distinctive sacerdotal class titled priests.

You also rightly identify that the function of priesthood is offering sacrifice. While Christian ministers in the New Testament are generally not addressed as "priests" in the Greek (as you point out) Paul does describe his ministry as an apostle as a priestly service(using the Greek).

Rather than "generally not," the Holy Spirit NEVER distinctively refers to them as hiereus, but are only included as part of the priesthood of all believers.

The sacrifice that we all offer up to God is ourselves. As Paul said, we offer ourselves up as living sacrifices. This includes of course sacrifices of praise, etc. But primarily it is the offering of our body and our life to God.

You are only confirming what i referenced.

The thing is that this offering we make of ourselves can only be done together with and through the offering of Jesus Christ. It is only through his sacrifice, that we become an acceptable sacrifice ourselves.

That is a gracious given.

The primary way in which we do this is through the Lord's Supper/Communion. Here again most protestants deny that the Communion is a sacrifice, because they wrongly think that this would be a "re-sacrificing" of Christ or a "recrucifixion" of Christ.

Rome making this a means of expiating sin is part of it.

There is and only ever will be ONE sacrifice of Christ which was completed once for all time on Calvary. HOWEVER, Paul makes it crystal clear in 1st Corinthians that every time we partake of the cup and the bread we are participating in the shed blood and the broken body of Jesus Christ. In other words, we are participating in the one sacrifice.

Christians are not physically consuming the literal body/blood of Christ, but are fellowshipping with Christ in the Lord's supper, as the worshipers signify oneness with the object they dedicate the meal to. Thus pagans felloewship with demons in their feasts, but are not eating demon flesh/blood.

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? " (1 Corinthians 10:16-18)

"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. " (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)

The teaching here is that of the oneness of the corporate body of Christ in fellowshiping with Him and each other (whom He purchased with His sinless shed blood) in their feast of charity, just as pagans fellowship with demons by partaking of their feasts.

And in 1Cor. 11 this theme continues, in which the apostle states they are actually not coming together eat the Lords supper, for rather than showing they are one bread, and one body by truly eating the Lord's supper as one body, consistent with what the Lord's unselfish death manifests, there was divisions among them, as some were filling their faces in the feast of charity while others were hungry, thus shaming them that have not . (11:17-22)

Thus Paul reminds them of the Lord's words, including that, "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [declare] the Lord's death till he come. " (vs. 23- 26)

But as they were hypocritically proclaiming His death, not discerning the Lord's body in their selfish failure to effectually recognize others as part of the body, but shaming others, thus they were chastened, and thus Paul tell them not to come really hungry (peinao&#772 so they do not indulge to the neglect of others, but to wait for others to arrive and partake as a sharing community. (vs. 27-34)

This is what "not discerning the Lord's body" refers to, the nature of the corporate body and how it is to show the Lord;s death, not the nature of what they were eating, which is not the focus.

The study notes to the official RC Bible, (NAB) recognizes this aspect (though it holds the LS to be a sacrifice):

[11:28] Examine himself: the Greek word is similar to that for “approved” in 1 Cor 11:19, which means “having been tested and found true.” The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all...(1 Cor 11:18–25).

The next chapter (1Cor. 12) continues this theme of unity in corporate care, by which the body of Christ is manifest and "incarnated" in a sense, not in a transsubstantiated wafer of bread.

However, the sacrificial aspect is not that of Christ offering bread and wine in heaven and believers physically consuming Him here, but of believers taking part in the Lord's supper in remembrance of Christ death, after examining whether we have shown sacrificial care for each other as members of Christ's body, and which that communal meal is to example.

The rest of your analogy

It is through this participation that we are able to offer ourselves up as living sacrifices.

Daily.

This is further illuminated by understanding the principles that Paul is referencing from Judaism.

Which corresponds to the what i described in quoting Paul. Corporate oneness with that which the feast is in remembrance of, which is invalid if done in a manner contrary to the unselfish death the communal meal that is sppsd to show. How much this needs to be preached and practiced (by me first), and which would have a manifest effect, in contrast to the typical reception of a wafer of bread and sip of wine under the premise that this is literal flesh and blood and necessary for eternal life.

The Israelites understood this to mean that EVERY man, in EVERY generation was required to regard himself as though he personally came up out of Egypt, because of his participation in the Passover. By partaking in the Passover meal, every Israelite participated in the original Passover.

This was all meant to foreshadow its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ and in the bread and wine of communion.

Though at least one notable RC argues the Last Supper was not a Passover meal.

The reason I said that the priesthood of all believers was dependent upon the ministerial priesthood is because our self offering is done through the offering of Jesus Christ. The primary means of participation in that is through the bread and wine of communion, which are offered up by the ministerial priesthood.

This is your error. The idea of a separate sacerdotal class of clergy titled priests did not come from the Holy Spirit calling them that, but was a result of the idea that priests turn bread and wine into literal flesh/blood. But this is not more literal than that the Canaanites were "bread" for Israel, (Num. 14:9) or that the water obtained by David's mighty men was their blood. (1 Chronicles 11:19)



And which use allegory is often seen in Scripture,esp. in John, and is how kosher disciples would understand the Lord's words at the LS, rather than silently submitting to drinking blood, and so that Christ was both in their stomach and sitting before them before He was even glorified.



But which is another thread i suppose.

 

[Albion]

People can use Bible verses to justify just about any point of view.
The Bible says there is no male and no female in Christ Jesus.
Some Chasidic Jews have women shave their heads and wear wigs, wear long dresses, have a partition separating men from women in the synagogue and have separate sidewalks for men and women to walk on.
Some Muslims make women wear Burkas.
Some Mormons allow men to have multiple wives, but women to have only one husband.
Some Christians only allow men to be a pastor or Pope.
They all stem from the same point of view that diminishes women and makes them second class citizens.
Where do you draw the line?
Most people would think that making women wear Burkas or walk on a separate sidewalk is wrong.
How is that any different from not allowing women to speak or teach in the church?

Here's how. The Bible states qualifications. Therefore, all the doings of other religions and even scripture verses that do not address the subject are irrelevant in the face of the Bible's revelation.

In my opinion,

Exactly.

But our opinions are not what governs this matter.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I saw this post and while i have not followed the personal debate i would like to respond to some other things it states.

I'm not allowed to say anything against paul who also advocated for slavery several times, but I will anyway.

Which is not surprising, as you example a rebellion against objective exegesis, not simply a forum rule.

Show me where Jesus, who is God, says this and how about Anna the prophetess, or Peter's/Simon's wifes mother, or Joanna or Susanna, or Mary Magdaline, or all the others who ministered (meaning teach, which is a power position) others... large crowds of people...

Joanna or Susanna are apocryphal (which you make most of the NT to be), while Anna the prophetess, or Peter's mother in law did not occupy the authoritative office of a teacher of doctrine to large crowds of people. Anna, like the women at the well simply shared that Christ was the Messiah. And which patriarchal churches typically encourage, versus having the authority of a teacher, which involves far more than sharing the gospel message. And in the early church required far more anointing and ability than reiterating the work of others, as this was limited as regards the mystery of Christ and the church.

Maybe then, I'd actually listen to you. BTW, a lot of people who are for Yeshua, which I think is a Jewish term/messanic, do not accept paul in the slightest... which isn't surprising, since pauls' messages were used to massacre jews everywhere in history.

Then they are judaizers, and must reject Luke and Peter as well, as they affirmed Paul, and this class tried to kill him. The Lord stated He had much more to share with the apostles, and like unto Moses, the Lord abundantly manifested He was with them, including Paul. (Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)

Also, I suppose the "let people work or starve" should be followed as well when Jesus clearly gave food to the sick who couldn't work? Give me a break...

Again, your protest shows a disregard for context. Paul affirms "we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do," (Gal. 2:9) but condemns indolence, as did the Lord, of those who could provide service but would not provide for others, which make more poor.

 

[katautumn]

People can use Bible verses to justify just about any point of view.

Except that the Bible is clear on the pastoral qualifications and they exclude women.

The Bible says there is no male and no female in Christ Jesus.

That means in terms of who can be saved, not the roles women are to fill in life. God created clear gender distinctions.

Some Chasidic Jews have women shave their heads and wear wigs, wear long dresses, have a partition separating men from women in the synagogue and have separate sidewalks for men and women to walk on.

I'm not Jewish, so their rules don't apply to me.

Some Muslims make women wear Burkas.

And their views are based on the Koran, not our Bible, so that doesn't apply to me.

Some Mormons allow men to have multiple wives, but women to have only one husband.

We're not Mormons. Their polygamy rules are based on the Book of Mormon, not the Holy Bible.

Some Christians only allow men to be a pastor or Pope.

Well, the role of Pope isn't even biblical, but pastor is and it's only open to men who meet certain qualifications.

They all stem from the same point of view that diminishes women and makes them second class citizens.

So you're calling God a sexist?

Where do you draw the line?

We draw the line with the Scriptures.

Most people would think that making women wear Burkas or walk on a separate sidewalk is wrong.

Yes, because we don't follow the Koran, but it isn't wrong for Muslims obviously.

How is that any different from not allowing women to speak or teach in the church?

Nobody has said that women cannot speak or teach. We're talking about women being pastors and being in authority over men, spiritually speaking.

In my opinion, not allowing women to do the same thing as men in churches is just the same as making them sit behind a partition or walk on a separate sidewalk. It is derogatory.

Then take it up with God, because He ordained the gender roles.

 

[VolRaider]

I agree with that. The UMC does not make women (or men) liberal. But, it does attract them to ordination because it is very hard for a conservative to be ordained in the UMC these days. Most of the conservative pastors I know now who preach from the bible and speak of revival (versus those who preach from MSNBC and speak of reform) are nearing retirement.

You need to take a trip to my church in East Tennessee - a UMC church. Our associate pastor preaches straight out of the Bible. The former associate - a female - never delved into leftist issues. She stuck with Scripture.
The last lefty to man the pulpit in my church was a female, and she ran many members out. They grew again once she left. In my church, you BETTER be a conservative, or the money train is going to get derailed!

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Except that the Bible is clear on the pastoral qualifications and they exclude women.

In my opinion, not allowing women to do the same thing as men in churches is just the same as making them sit behind a partition or walk on a separate sidewalk. It is derogatory.

Then take it up with God, because He ordained the gender roles.

The protest must exaggerate the distinctions, and the equality argument should also demand men be able to have babies. The real protest is against submission and hierarchical class positions among those who are spiritually equal. Homosexual apologists also invoke Gal. 3:28, ignoring the gender distinctions of this life which restricts marriage as being btwn opposite genders, which both Moses and the Lord specified. (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6)

Yet if positional distinctions which require submission are seen as demeaning, then this is not Christian, as its head is in submission to His Father, and the creation to God, and the women to the first gender of creation.

 

[Albion]

In my opinion, not allowing women to do the same thing as men in churches is just the same as making them sit behind a partition or walk on a separate sidewalk. It is derogatory.

That's the way the advocates of women's ordination usually approach the problem--what it is that they want, or what makes them feel accepted, valued, or equal is all that matters. The thing is, this isn't a job application we're talking about! It's a vocation and operates according to God's will. No other standard matters. You might as well say that you don't want bread in Holy Communion or water to be used in baptism because it makes you feel degraded or demeaned or something else like that. Well, that isn't what decides it.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Reconsidering

 

[Albion]

So again, must men be married and have children to be Deacons or Bishops?

Women's ordination, John. The topic is women's ordination.

 

[Albion]

Yes women can preach and they DO

Not a problem. There is a place for lay preachers and teachers in many schools, etc. This has been mentioned many times here whenever the issue of women's ordination is mistaken for a prohibition against women being allowed any leadership role at all.

 

[christianmomof3]

Here's how. The Bible states qualifications. Therefore, all the doings of other religions and even scripture verses that do not address the subject are irrelevant in the face of the Bible's revelation.

So again, must men be married and have children to be Deacons or Bishops?

This question makes perfect sense. If you quote the Bible as the authority on the qualification for deacons or bishops, then the Bible clearly states that those people must be married men.

Except that the Bible is clear on the pastoral qualifications and they exclude women.

That means in terms of who can be saved, not the roles women are to fill in life. God created clear gender distinctions.

We draw the line with the Scriptures.

Nobody has said that women cannot speak or teach. We're talking about women being pastors and being in authority over men, spiritually speaking.

Then take it up with God, because He ordained the gender roles.

Actually, the pastoral books of the Bible - 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul, but rather, were written about 150 years after his death - most likely by men who did not want women to have as large a part in the church as they apparently had at the time.

Women's ordination, John. The topic is women's ordination.

The title of the thread is "women can't preach", not women can't be ordained. Ordination is not in the Bible anyway. However, there is still a fine discriminatory line there.

 

[Albion]

Actually, the pastoral books of the Bible - 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul, but rather, were written about 150 years after his death - most likely by men who did not want women to have as large a part in the church as they apparently had at the time.

Very well, but if the Bible is not authoritative on this Christian Forums thread, what do we have to discuss? Those books are part of the Bible, and that's that.

The title of the thread is "women can't preach", not women can't be ordained.

True, but from the beginning the issue appears to have been preaching in the sense that people call ministers of the Gospel "preachers."

If someone comes along and says that women are not to speak of the Gospel, we'd then have a different discussion.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Reconsidering

 

[Albion]

Except that the specific passages you claim exclude women from ordination also would exclude married men and childless men. Unless of course the passage is meant to be understood differently. A Thorough understanding of those portions of Scripture is vital to your argument that women may not be Deacons or Elders.

YES. "A thorough understanding."

That's been my point from the start, although my distinguished opponents have insisted upon picking apart a few words here or there because they have almost no evidence on their side to the effect that women are to be pastors, etc. My point is that there is a pile of evidence supporting the all-male clergy and almost nothing other than "God loves everyone" on your side.

So take all the evidence and you get a preponderance of the evidence, just like we approach any historical or legal question.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Reconsidering

 

[Albion]

I'm using the Scripture you referred to. So what is the answer, must a man have children and be married to be a Deacon or a Bishop according to the Scripture you provided?

What we are told is that he is not to have multiple wives. That's generally been adhered to in the history of Christianity.

Now, you please tell us how this verse is supposed to authorize WOMEN clergy? Oh, it doesn't? That's the problem with your argument; it's all a conclusion reached on the basis of an ABSENCE of evidence. You might just as logically be arguing for the ordination of five-year olds.