Women Preachers...The truth!

[Paidiske]

Here's the thing.

The Biblical situation with regard to women teaching/leading/exercising authority/being ordained is ambiguous. It is open to being interpreted in more than one way.

There are, to my mind, two key reasons to interpret it in a way which allows for more openness in women's roles:

- We know that Christ came in order that we might have abundant life, life to the full. This is incompatible with expecting women to live always in subjugation, without opportunities to be who they were created and gifted to be, to the full. It displays a weak pneumatology and a view of women as inferior. It denigrates women and undermines their full worth and dignity in the creation - and new creation - of God.

- Women consistently experience God's vocation to them to take up those roles which are disputed. In order to accept that God does not want women to teach/lead/exercise authority/be ordained, we would have to argue that every experience of vocation is false, a delusion. No doubt some are; (some men also falsely discern vocation); but the claim that every woman who's ever said "God called me to this" is wrong, strikes me as highly patronising, belittling and demeaning of the faith, the wisdom, and the spirituality of those women and the churches who have faithfully engaged in discernment processes with us.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

 

[Heavenhome]

The Bible remains the most important book in Christianity and to me.

But in order to truly understand it, you also need to understand the culture which it existed.

Culture can help us understand some things but when you make that your criteria first for reading the Bible then you are in a heap of trouble because it was all written long ago and in a different culture.
Thing is the Bible itself says that the Word of the Lord stands forever, Jesus made reference to this also
If we weigh everything up with the culture it was written in: well where are you?

This would make it only readable for those with resources to help them and I don't believe it is the case.
What we need to understand the Bible is guidance by the Holy Spirit (who never teaches contrary to Scripture), and faith to believe it.

Even getting tied up with Paul's writings, Peters writings etc is contrary to how we should view things, yes physically they wrote it but it was ALL of it GOD BREATHED and so we do it injustice to say for instance " oh that was just Paul's view on women and how they were treated then etc" ummm no it was God.

I don't know how it is so hard to understand that women and men are different, they have different roles, have different abilities but to God they are valued EQUALLY.
I am happy with that as a Christian woman.

For me, the Bible is not only the most important book, it is the only book for me, and any other books I read are measured against what God says in the Bible, reading it prayerfully and trusting in Him alone.

Thanks for letting me have my say

 

[Tom 1]

We have women leaders, disciples, and preachers in the Bible. Financially succesful and independent ones too! Add Proverbs 31 to that - an example of a person with great leadership qualities!

So why did Apostle Paul said otherwise, is he contradicting scriptures?? Of course NOT! Misinterpreted? YES!

REmember that Paul also taught to take heed of the laws of the ruling authorities which at that time were the Romans, the Saducees, and the Pharisees - All extremely Patriarchal.......

Sooooo...... When Paul taught that women should not preach, should not lead, submit to husbands, on whose authority he's referring to????

Hint:
The Romans, The Sadducees, and the Pharisees.....Are they your authority??? They still are if you follow their patriarchal ways!

Whatever that animal in a cage is, the poor thing is clearly terrified.

 

[timewerx]

Here's the thing.

The Biblical situation with regard to women teaching/leading/exercising authority/being ordained is ambiguous. It is open to being interpreted in more than one way.

There are, to my mind, two key reasons to interpret it in a way which allows for more openness in women's roles:

- We know that Christ came in order that we might have abundant life, life to the full. This is incompatible with expecting women to live always in subjugation, without opportunities to be who they were created and gifted to be, to the full. It displays a weak pneumatology and a view of women as inferior. It denigrates women and undermines their full worth and dignity in the creation - and new creation - of God.

- Women consistently experience God's vocation to them to take up those roles which are disputed. In order to accept that God does not want women to teach/lead/exercise authority/be ordained, we would have to argue that every experience of vocation is false, a delusion. No doubt some are; (some men also falsely discern vocation); but the claim that every woman who's ever said "God called me to this" is wrong, strikes me as highly patronising, belittling and demeaning of the faith, the wisdom, and the spirituality of those women and the churches who have faithfully engaged in discernment processes with us.

Hear hear!

Not many Christians are familiar that Paul tried to maintain a good standing with the local community which are predominantly patriarchal at the time.

In order to preserve their testimony and the early Christian movement (and prevent "outsiders" from hating our religion), sometimes you have to "go with the flow" - to act with shrewdness.

Since patriarchy is the dominant rule of the time, it's probably a good idea to go with the flow to avoid attracting unwanted attention and unnecessary persecution.

In that God might approve (allow it according to His Will) even if the practice contradicts the original arrangement of creation.

But now, tables have turned which gives us the opportunity to return to the ideal situation - equal leadership opportunities for both man and woman.

This isn't because of the present culture but this is what God really ordained from the very beginning, since He created Eve.

 

[timewerx]

" oh that was just Paul's view on women and how they were treated then etc"

I'm not disagreeing with Paul's teachings.

I do understand the circumstances why he gave such teaching. It is eventually God's Will.

But only for the time being to preserve the movement and their testimony - a higher purpose.

If anyone thinks I'm only making this up, Paul is indeed aware of the higher purpose of things, the underlying importance that is not obvious to many that may cause them to sin (this is why we should be careful in practicing our beliefs in front of others). He mentioned this in his epistles.

Paul leaves a sufficient amount of disclaimer not to treat his teachings plainly / literally.

He is right it has been God's Will even if it contradicts other teachings in the Bible if seen plainly - this is why not all of Paul's teachings must treated plainly. Many of Paul's teachings require much deeper understanding.

Our religion is in huge trouble for being unaware of this.

If you ask if we should still study Paul's teachings.

My answer would be YES -- only if you know how to handle it.

Don't get the wrong idea that I don't like Paul. I do like him and his epistles. Quite intelligently written!


.

 

[Servant of Yeshua]

(Sarcasm alert)
Yep, Jesus freed us from the Romans.
(Alert over)
Jesus freed us from service to sin. (John 8:32-34)
If you still sin, you are NOT free.

We are free from damnation in Hell. I would say that is pretty amazing to know that Jesus has paid your debt and that you will be reconciled to God and not perish. But, on Earth, Yes you are correct in that we may sin less, but we are not sinless on Earth.

 

[Servant of Yeshua]

I know...I tell myself to stay away from these threads all the time, but then I somehow get sucked right back in...usually because I see some other woman falling for this false headship doctrine and thus setting herself up for abuse and second-class status.

?? Sadly the woman that is abused and in a second class status did not even marry a follower of Christ. That is the problem. You cannot marry a faker or non Christian and then expect that God's model will work.
It is much better to stay single than to be joined with an unbeliever. They marry unbelievers which the bible clearly warns not to do. The bible also warns against fornication which kills many marriages before they even begin unless both repent fully. People always think that they know better than God. That is the root of problems. Jesus made himself the servant of all. It makes no earthly sense to submit, yet God has said that a man must cherish and love his wife just like Christ loves the church. It is a beautiful thing. But very few bother to follow God's design. Pride and self importance seems to rule for most.

 

[bekkilyn]

?? Sadly the woman that is abused and in a second class status did not even marry a follower of Christ. That is the problem. You cannot marry a faker or non Christian and then expect that God's model will work.
It is much better to stay single than to be joined with an unbeliever. They marry unbelievers which the bible clearly warns not to do. The bible also warns against fornication which kills many marriages before they even begin unless both repent fully. People always think that they know better than God. That is the root of problems. Jesus made himself the servant of all. It makes no earthly sense to submit, yet God has said that a man must cherish and love his wife just like Christ loves the church. It is a beautiful thing. But very few bother to follow God's design. Pride and self importance seems to rule for most.

Yes, Jesus became a servant to all, so a man who loves his wife as Christ loves the church also becomes her servant and puts her needs first, the very definition of submission. Of course, she is required to do the same for her husband. It is mutual submission between husband and wife and mutual submission between *all* believers in the body of Christ. (Ephesians 5:21) This false headship doctrine where the man rules over his wife is utter nonsense and a misuse of scripture that sows a field ripe for abuse and families in which both spouses claim to be Christians are not immune to domestic abuse, and women are often told by their pastors/priests that "the bible" requires them to submit to the abuse. God's model is not of authority and "ruling over" but of cooperation, sharing, and mutual respect and love for each other. It's not about gender at all. It applies to *everyone*.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

Taking Paul's teachings at face value - this is the biggest mistake of many Christians since the the beginning of the religion.

Literal interpretation of Paul's teachings will lead to contradictions with other teachings/examples in the Bible. This cannot be. It's definitely a wrong way to understand Paul's teachings.

Therefore, Paul's teachings cannot be interpreted literally/plainly. All his teachings must be taken into context, not just a few of his teachings at a time.

Paul's disclaimer:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Pop quiz:

To those living under Patriarchy, Paul would?

[another mind is blown!]

However, if you are giving him authority to lead, then you are automatically giving her inferior status as a subordinate to his leadership. It's not simply two different roles here; it is assigning him to be her superior. There is no implication in the Genesis account that they are to have two different roles. They are to share the same roles together. God did not come up with a whole different set of roles once Eve was created.

Personally, I don't even read this part of the creation account as having anything to do with roles, but more as God creating us all, animals and humans alike, for relationships...for community. We are social creatures and it is not good for us to live our lives alone, and this would be true regardless of whether we marry or remain single. For example, Paul remained single all of his life, but he still didn't go about his ministry alone but helped others, his brothers and sisters in Christ, as they helped him.

perhaps the idea of roles is something you might consider. Is Jesus God? is he equal to the Father. Jesus said the Father is greater than Himself. Jesus is given all authority and dominion and has subjected Himself to the Father. Even in the trinity we roles within the Godhead that is all equal but there is an order in it. We live in a time when this view of women being equal but are defining equality as you see it that is without roles. If we look at the world around us it is in chaos and the family unit is disfunctional.
The LORD sees every soul as equal and the roles of men and women are defined differently. You see the men went to war the women did not. You want equality we need to have %50 female army. The biological and psychological differences in the sexes are engineered by the LORD. If you look at bees every bee understands the role they have. The man should not be in charge because he is a male but if you look at the qualifications of a elder they have their lives together and their families. The pastor has a lot to deal with and many a pastors wife will have greater reward than the pastor for how they held it together and served the congregations and supported their husbands.
This departure from scripture based on new social mores will eventually lead you to allegorize much of the Bible to fit the new values. If there is a contradiction perhaps its the new values that are out of line with the scriptures rather than than the other way around.

 

[Sparagmos]

Gender equal countries....prosperous ... low crime ... and they don't care about money? Really? Where? Have you been listening to Bernie Sanders? I'll agree that greed has got a hold on most of the planet, It has about destroyed the US.

Scandinavia.

 

[bekkilyn]

....

Except that's not Paul's message. That's backwards. Paul was using the first century marriage structure of his day to help explain to new (previously pagan) Christian converts about Christ. We try to make everything about us, but it's not about us. It's about Christ.

That contemporary view (concocted by Wayne Grudem and his ilk) of the Trinity where the Son and the Spirit are perpetually subject to the Father is also false doctrine, and was designed (by humans) to give support to the false headship doctrine. The Trinity is a relationship, not a hierarchy.

 

[bekkilyn]

Complementarianism and the Trinity: Is Wayne Grudem a dangerous heretic?

 

[bmjackson]

"34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

Paul is quoting the law here - the oral law, the Talmud in answer to what has been said in a letter to him. There are no punctuation marks in the Greek which has misled the church. What? he questions! Are you serious? This is because the place of women under Romans and Jews was in direct opposition to how the Christian women were being treated. Paul would not contradict himelf in other passages where the speaking and praying of women in the assemblies was accepted. The way that Christian men were treating their women put them all in great danger of persecution. This is why there is so much in Pauls letters about the issue.

 

[timewerx]

Paul is quoting the law here - the oral law, the Talmud in answer to what has been said in a letter to him. There are no punctuation marks in the Greek which has misled the church. What? he questions! Are you serious? This is because the place of women under Romans and Jews was in direct opposition to how the Christian women were being treated. Paul would not contradict himelf in other passages where the speaking and praying of women in the assemblies was accepted. The way that Christian men were treating their women put them all in great danger of persecution. This is why there is so much in Pauls letters about the issue.

Nice, yes.

This is why I mentioned the Pharisees in my OP. The Talmud originated with the Pharisees (that eventually became the modern Orthodox Judaism).

The subject requires a detailed understanding of the circumstances surrounding the matter and the underlying principles of Paul's teachings - 1 Corinthians 8

Many proponents of Patriarchal structure made up their minds in just 15 minutes. Cannot be bothered to make more exhaustive research about the matter. The truth deserves much more than 15 minutes (Proverbs 14:15)

Many of Paul's teachings simply cannot be taken plainly/literally or they will contradict other teachings in the Bible, even other teachings of Paul himself!

Can an ordained preacher of the Lord contradict himself?? Definitely not! Therefore, we must not treat all of Paul's teachings literally. Many of these have underlying principles that is sometimes, entirely diffferent than what is actually being said.

Paul is not your average disciple. His Roman citizenship, a member of the Pharisee sect suggests that Paul might be wealthy (or used to be wealthy before becoming a Christian), had influence, and possibly highly educated and highly intelligent - this would explain the distinctly different writing style against other writings in the New Testament. Definitely deserves a different treatment than the others.

 

[bmjackson]

@timewerx

Have you read God's Word to Women by Dr Bushell?

It deals with many of the things being discussed here, including why it was Adam who was thrown out of Eden and not Eve.

 

[bekkilyn]

Nice, yes.

This is why I mentioned the Pharisees in my OP. The Talmud originated with the Pharisees (that eventually became the modern Orthodox Judaism).

The subject requires a detailed understanding of the circumstances surrounding the matter and the underlying principles of Paul's teachings - 1 Corinthians 8

Many proponents of Patriarchal structure made up their minds in just 15 minutes. Cannot be bothered to make more exhaustive research about the matter. The truth deserves much more than 15 minutes (Proverbs 14:15)

Many of Paul's teachings simply cannot be taken plainly/literally or they will contradict other teachings in the Bible, even other teachings of Paul himself!

Can an ordained preacher of the Lord contradict himself?? Definitely not! Therefore, we must not treat all of Paul's teachings literally. Many of these have underlying principles that is sometimes, entirely diffferent than what is actually being said.

Paul is not your average disciple. His Roman citizenship, a member of the Pharisee sect suggests that Paul might be wealthy (or used to be wealthy before becoming a Christian), had influence, and possibly highly educated and highly intelligent - this would explain the distinctly different writing style against other writings in the New Testament. Definitely deserves a different treatment than the others.

I used to believe all of that complimentarian nonsense back when I was in my 20's and it very nearly turned me away from Christianity in general because I didn't believe there was any real place for women as full human beings within it. It wasn't until undergoing a deeper study of Paul (that took place over the course of years) when I came to realize that his message *wasn't* about bigotry and exclusion at all, and that he was actually very egalitarian, that *both* men and women have the *same* commission!

But when people just cherry-pick for the purpose of using scripture to justify beating people down with it, they miss the entire message of the gospel.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We refer to God as "He" but not really a man.

Description of God in the Bible has both male and female qualities

ick...... speaking in the flesh , "worldly"....

Yahuweh refers to HIMSELF AS HE. HIS WORD - HE IS HE. HE IS FATHER.

People who are already corrupted listen to someone else instead of HIS Word.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

@timewerx

Have you read God's Word to Women by Dr Bushell?

It deals with many of the things being discussed here, including why it was Adam who was thrown out of Eden and not Eve.

As just posted:
.....

listen to someone else instead of HIS Word.

It is LIFE (HIS WORD IS), to STAY IN HIS WORD, and to not depart from His Word.

 

[Phil W]

Here's the thing.

The Biblical situation with regard to women teaching/leading/exercising authority/being ordained is ambiguous. It is open to being interpreted in more than one way.

It would be but we have the word of God to guide us.
It states that women are not to usurp authority over a man BECAUSE woman sinned first.

There are, to my mind, two key reasons to interpret it in a way which allows for more openness in women's roles:

If this is your motive for balking at "what is written", I have no interest.

- We know that Christ came in order that we might have abundant life, life to the full. This is incompatible with expecting women to live always in subjugation, without opportunities to be who they were created and gifted to be, to the full. It displays a weak pneumatology and a view of women as inferior. It denigrates women and undermines their full worth and dignity in the creation - and new creation - of God.
- Women consistently experience God's vocation to them to take up those roles which are disputed. In order to accept that God does not want women to teach/lead/exercise authority/be ordained, we would have to argue that every experience of vocation is false, a delusion. No doubt some are; (some men also falsely discern vocation); but the claim that every woman who's ever said "God called me to this" is wrong, strikes me as highly patronising, belittling and demeaning of the faith, the wisdom, and the spirituality of those women and the churches who have faithfully engaged in discernment processes with us.

We are all in "subjugation"...to God.
Is that "Subjector" the next target for those who rasp at Leadership?