Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 8,682
- 4,642
- Country
- New Zealand
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "unambiguously". The role of women in leadership is pretty clear.
Biblical Examples of Women in Ministry
Old Testament history includes accounts of strong female leadership in many roles. The following are striking examples: Miriam was a prophet to Israel during the Exodus, alongside her brothers Moses and Aaron (Exodus 15:20). Deborah, both a prophet and a judge, directed Barak to lead the army of Israel into successful combat against Israel’s oppressors (Judges 4 to 5). Huldah, also a prophet, authenticated the scroll of the Law found in the temple and helped spark religious reform in the days of Josiah (2 Kings 22:14–20; 2 Chronicles 34:22–28).
The New Testament also shows that women filled important ministry roles in the Early Church. Tabitha (Dorcas) initiated an effective benevolence ministry (Acts 9:36). Philip’s four unmarried daughters were recognized prophets (Acts 21:8,9). Paul singled out two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as “women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers” (Philippians 4:2,3). Priscilla was another of Paul’s exemplary “fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Romans 16:3,4). In Romans 16, Paul greets numerous ministry colleagues, a large number of them women. In these greetings, the word Paul uses to speak of the work (kopiao), or labor, of Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (Romans 16:6,12) is one he uses extensively for the labor of ministry (1 Corinthians 16:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; 1 Timothy 5:17).
Phoebe, a leader in the church at Cenchrea, was highly commended to the church at Rome by Paul (Romans 16:1,2). Unfortunately, translation biases have often obscured Phoebe’s position of leadership, calling her a “servant” (NIV, NASB, ESV). Yet Phoebe was diakonos of the church at Cenchrea. Paul regularly used this term for a minister or leader of a congregation and applied it specifically to Jesus Christ, Tychicus, Epaphras, Timothy, and to his own ministry. Depending on the context, diakonos is usually translated “deacon” or “minister.” Though some translators have chosen the word deaconess (e.g., RSV, because Phoebe was female), the Greek diakonos is a masculine noun. Therefore, it seems likely that diakonos was the designation for an official leadership position in the Early Church and the proper translation for Phoebe’s role is “deacon” (TNIV, NLT, NRSV) or “minister.”
Moreover, a number of translations reflect similar biases by referring to Phoebe as having been a “great help” (NIV) or “helper” (NASB) of many, including Paul himself (Romans 16:2). The Greek term here is prostatis, better translated by the NRSV as “benefactor” with its overtones of equality and leadership.
Junia was identified by Paul as an apostle (Romans 16:7). Beginning in the thirteenth century, a number of scholars and translators masculinized her name to Junias, apparently unwilling to admit that there was a female apostle. However, the name Junia is found more than 250 times in Rome alone, while the masculine form Junias is unknown in any Greco-Roman source. Paul clearly was a strong advocate of women in ministry.
These instances of women filling leadership roles in the Bible should be taken as a divinely approved pattern, not as exceptions to divine decrees. Even a limited number of women with scripturally commended leadership roles affirm that God does indeed call women to spiritual leadership.
Assemblies of God (USA) Official Web Site | The Role of Women in Ministry
Women priests might quell the pedophile problem........ Just a thought.
They would certainly reduce it, just from a pure statistical perspective. And they would be better advocates for the victims of rape and abuse. As it is now, when a girl is raped or abused by a male leader in church, she typically goes alone, to face a room full of men. She is immediately at a disadvantage, and her abusers at an advantage in that scenario. It ought not be.
Junia was not a presbyter. Junia was in a leadership position of some sort.So Junia was a presbyter. This is your claim?
I suspect women would be more loyal than men, women are maternal, men are inclined to be nocturnal...
In scripture, women have a special place, as though they are not automatically under judgement, where as men are.
This article focuses on female clergy as potential agents of change in the Church. I argue that the adoption of female clergy is one of the main factors that cause the Church to change its practices, policies and theological orientation.
Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change?
I just say that in my experience women more easily reject the teachings in the Bible. Women tend to think more about what other people think and feel, which is one reason why I think they more easily reject God. The teaching in the Bible can be offensive to some, and to not offend anyone, it is tempting to reject what was said and the truth, to not cause conflict, to please everyone.
I'm speaking purely with regard to what the dress symbolizes. There is a ministerial authority that must remain associated with the office and not the occupier of the office that ministerial dress will convey. A standing-in-moses seat sort of authority.I disagree. If the office overtakes the individual, then I think it becomes about status. But as long as the person matters in the relationships signified, it is less about status.
Yes, and it's far too easy to overstep from official authority to relational authority because of that necessary authority. Designating teachers, rather than trusting any willing to teach and observing their teaching, creates a class distinctionAnd yet any teacher will tell you that the authority of the role is important in the classroom. Sure, we can argue endlessly about tweaking the tasks and functions of particular offices, but that doesn't negate the fact that they are given for the good of the Church.
Sort of, but not in the sense that they are today. The offices rotated and each city congregation designated how their offices were filled as a congregation. This was especially enforced through the likelihood of martyrdom for anyone occupying an office in most places.I think it's very clear that we're working with distinguishable offices well before that point. There was a degree of diversity and flexibility, definitely, but we can't plausibly argue for an office-less first century church.
No, it's completely relevant because we can't compare modern worship with what happened in those house churches. You assume that someone presided and taught and all of that, but the data is rather thin. The pastoral letters are often challenged because they are argued to show a bit of ecclesiastical development that the data from the nascent church doesn't seem to hold up with.Which is irrelevant to the point I was making. Even in house churches, someone presided, someone taught, there were elders and so on.
Because the handling of communal resources was the primary duty of NT elders. Timothy's role, for instance, was primarily centered on the distributions to widows. He was not specially charged with defending the faith, that charge goes to all Christians.Then why did you raise the handling of communal resources?
It may be an incorrect inference, but it's a natural inference if there are holy rites reserved to a designated class. It implies that either through training or through natural dispositions there is something special about the one allowed to administer those rites.Some people might make that inference (of "extra holiness), but it is not directly implied and it is an incorrect inference. I am not extra-holy compared to the people in my congregation, in any way.
That's a terrible analogy because we're not "running" the church. Christ is responsible for the church, and Christ alone. Human structures of ordination are nothing more than a human institution which is exactly why they're so rife for abuse.The church is not merely an institution, but it has an unavoidable institutional aspect. And I would argue that a well-run church doe snot deny anyone the right to speak, but it does create order in appointing particular people to speak on its behalf.
Think about it; if you ran a business (by way of analogy, not to say that the church is a business), would you want any random employee deciding what tasks they shall undertake, and what they shall do (ostensibly on your behalf), at random, without seeking your input or agreement? Why should the church not want to make sure that those who hold particular roles in it agree to be accountable to the church in what they do and say?
I agree, but the changing roles has to be more than simply hypothetical or else it bleeds into a class distinction. A lot of the institutions are based on good impulses, such as desire to preserve the message, but such institutions are going to attract exactly the wrong sort and create political divisions within the body especially as the authority becomes more heavily vested. Of course none of this is black and white, there are good and necessary reasons for church authority but vesting such authority in individuals is a major hazard.Role distinction is not the same as class distinction. Not least because what role a person occupies can change, but generally class is fixed.
However, your supposition isn't Scriptural, so I think it's dangerous to marginalize people based on an opinion like this. I could point out many exceptions to your suggestion, and could also provide a list of women that co-labored with Paul and he didn't have these concerns about them.
I suspect women would be more loyal than men, women are maternal, men are inclined to be nocturnal.
Your objection does not deal with the operative phrase, which bars women from teaching or having authority over a man in the church. That means they cannot preach and cannot hold a position of leadership in the church (ie they may not be elders or decons). I might even agree with your statement that the greek word means quiet rather than silence. In fact, we know that women have sung psalms as part of congregational singing from day 1 of the church, so clearly silence doesn't mean silent at all times.Earlier in this thread I showed a challenge in the 1 Tim 2:12 translation. Could you please comment on that? Post #56.
Your objection does not deal with the operative phrase, which bars women from teaching or having authority over a man in the church. That means they cannot preach and cannot hold a position of leadership in the church (ie they may not be elders or decons). I might even agree with your statement that the greek word means quiet rather than silence. In fact, we know that women have sung psalms as part of congregational singing from day 1 of the church, so clearly silence doesn't mean silent at all times.
This is such a hard issue.
I dont think woman priests/ministers are a judgement on men.
However I also dont believe scripture allows for it, if someone can categorically explain Pauls statements on the matter, while remaining true to scripture, I will be gladly educated.
If scripture is eternal truth, and scripture cannot be broken, then while I find it harsh and hard, but prohibited. As modern Christians we dont like uncomfortable things like absolute truth, because its offensive and uncomfortable, we are slowly watering down the faith in so many ways, but on the point of absolute truth and abiding in it no matter how inconvenient, I take comfort from the scene where Jesus has just lost the bulk of his followers after a statement on communion which brings about the response "this is a hard teaching- who can accept it" and says to his 12, will you also go? and Peter says "where else will we go, no one else has the words of life".
Its not a salvation point, but if scripture is true and to be relied up, then it speaks for itself.
If its to be ignored as redundant, then the whole thing is best in the fireplace...and "we amongst all men are to be most pitied".
Well if He was writing under the INspiration of the Spirit then we should accept His writings as coming from God!
Thgough we have abolished slavery (at least superficially) there is no edict against it! You will not find one verse that shows God condemns slavery. Peter also told slaves to serve their masters well. If we jettison these as not being inspired, then we have a real problem when others wish to jettison things that we hold to be divinely inspired. We have lost most of the solid ground to defend one part of the Bible if we rejejct other parts of the bible.
Women priests might quell the pedophile problem........ Just a thought.
Before continuing I want to say, nothing of this should be taken to mean that I think women should not be appreciated, or that women are somehow less valuable. I think women seem to be generally different than men, but I don’t think it means they are then somehow less valuable. I think difference is not a problem and should not be a problem and all people don’t have to be the same to be appreciated and loved.
And now, about the differences. There is actually a study about this subject, which indicates that women cause the Church to change.
This article focuses on female clergy as potential agents of change in the Church. I argue that the adoption of female clergy is one of the main factors that cause the Church to change its practices, policies and theological orientation.
Female Clergy as Agents of Religious Change?
Maybe it could be said it is not bad, but, if the goal would be to conserve something, women don’t seem to do that, according to that study, and therefore it would be mistake to place them on position where the goal would be to preserve. And if one wants to change things, it would be beneficial to choose women, which I think is intentionally happening.
But, I think this is not necessary matter to be argued. It is in no way useful and you don’t have to agree with me in this. I just say that in my experience women more easily reject the teachings in the Bible. Women tend to think more about what other people think and feel, which is one reason why I think they more easily reject God. The teaching in the Bible can be offensive to some, and to not offend anyone, it is tempting to reject what was said and the truth, to not cause conflict, to please everyone.
I don’t mean with this that women are not as valuable, or good, or shouldn’t be appreciated. This means they are different and I think difference is not bad thing. Not all people are good at the same things, for example, I can’t run as fast as some others, it does not mean that then I am not good at all, or that my life would have no value. People don’t have to be good in everything to be valuable, loved, appreciated. I think big mistake in modern world is that truth can’t be accepted and that all must be considered equally good in everything, even though they are not. People are different and it is ridiculous that equality people don’t seem to be able to accept that. Essentially they themselves think not all people can be appreciated, if they are not the same as everyone else.
But, I would like to know, what scripture you mean?
I'm speaking purely with regard to what the dress symbolizes. There is a ministerial authority that must remain associated with the office and not the occupier of the office that ministerial dress will convey. A standing-in-moses seat sort of authority.
Designating teachers, rather than trusting any willing to teach and observing their teaching, creates a class distinction
The offices rotated and each city congregation designated how their offices were filled as a congregation.
Because the handling of communal resources was the primary duty of NT elders. Timothy's role, for instance, was primarily centered on the distributions to widows.
It may be an incorrect inference, but it's a natural inference if there are holy rites reserved to a designated class. It implies that either through training or through natural dispositions there is something special about the one allowed to administer those rites.
That's a terrible analogy because we're not "running" the church. Christ is responsible for the church, and Christ alone.
but vesting such authority in individuals is a major hazard.
When it comes to class distinctions, authority is the issue.This assumes that "authority" is the operative issue, and that's not always the case at all.
Teaching children requires secular checks and clearances, and given the pliability of the young it seems reasonable to rely on established teachers within the congregation, but that doesn't require ordination to a special function. If someone wants to come before the body and preach, though, there need be no barriers beyond the simple reproach of teaching incorrectly.I don't know how things are where you are, but where I am, this wouldn't even be legal under secular law. Here, anyone undertaking leadership roles must go through a screening, recruitment and training process; must have police and working with children checks, and must be duly authorised. I can't just let anyone willing teach. We've learned the hard way that that leaves us far to open to all sorts of abuses.
Fair enough.I'm not convinced by this claim, but think it's fairly marginal to our discussion.
No, its more a matter of recognizing the first official office of the church was the deacons established in Acts 6-7. Though making normative decisions based on the Jerusalem church alone is part of the issue, as it was rather unique in its structure among early churches.I think you're confusing elders with deacons, there. It was deacons who were to focus on distributions to widows, so that the elders could focus on prayer and teaching.
Perhaps, but if the practice itself is what is giving the false impression and there is no practical reason for the exclusivity it seems keeping the rites exclusive is the issue, rather than a failure to teach.Then the onus is on us to make our teaching clearer that this is not so.
Sure, and giving people operational decision making powers for oganizational purposes isn't really an issue. Secular administration duties don't bring about images of holiness in the way that exclusivity with sacred rites do. And the very idea that there is an order/class of ordained people who are allowed those sacred rites gives the air of special holiness for that group.But on a day-to-day level, humans on the ground have to make all kinds of decisions. The church needs to know that the people making key decisions are trustworthy and have agreed to operate within the church's limits and norms.
Again, this isn't a matter of organizational functions as secular administration as much as it is the idea of having ordained people who are in-tune with Christ enough to be his exclusive voice on holy matters gives the appearance of class distinction, at the very least.Unless you're willing to put every decision through a group decision-making process (which is highly impractical), it's probably necessary, though.
When it comes to class distinctions, authority is the issue.
Teaching children requires secular checks and clearances, and given the pliability of the young it seems reasonable to rely on established teachers within the congregation, but that doesn't require ordination to a special function. If someone wants to come before the body and preach, though, there need be no barriers beyond the simple reproach of teaching incorrectly.
Perhaps, but if the practice itself is what is giving the false impression and there is no practical reason for the exclusivity it seems keeping the rites exclusive is the issue, rather than a failure to teach.
Perhaps, but if the practice itself is what is Sure, and giving people operational decision making powers for oganizational purposes isn't really an issue. Secular administration duties don't bring about images of holiness in the way that exclusivity with sacred rites do. And the very idea that there is an order/class of ordained people who are allowed those sacred rites gives the air of special holiness for that group.
it is the idea of having ordained people who are in-tune with Christ enough to be his exclusive voice on holy matters
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?