Womens roles in the church

[LoveofTruth]

Jesus is to be Lord and that is what I am looking into right now is what does it mean for Jesus to be the Lord of our life?

Here are some thoughts

1 Corinthians 15:24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.25. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.27. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

Ephesians 1:23. Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”

John 15:4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.5. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.6. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.7. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.8. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.9. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.11. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.12. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.”

 

[bekkilyn]

Are you a man or a woman?

In the Spirit we are in Christ and parts of the body of Christ. In the flesh however there is a distinction and different roles and functions. A man for example does not bear physical children or carry them in his physical body.

we read many verses about husbands roles and wives in the scripture and the New Testanebt as well. These would be of no consequence if there were no men or women in the physical realm.
Paul says things like this related to different roles in the world.


Ephesians 5:22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;”

My bible includes Ephesians 5:21 as well as Galatians 3:28. My bible also includes John 13:34. It seems these verses are conveniently missing in the bibles of those who believe that some types of people are created superior to other types of people. My God is not so cruel and petty as to have created slave races based on biology.

 

[thecolorsblend]

My bible includes Ephesians 5:21 as well as Galatians 3:28. My bible also includes John 13:34. It seems these verses are conveniently missing in the bibles of those who believe that some types of people are created superior to other types of people. My God is not so cruel and petty as to have created slave races based on biology.

If those are the verses you cite in support of "female ordination", I certainly hope you're not pursuing that vocation.

 

[Paidiske]

bekkilyn is an ordained Methodist minister. I would hope that despite the various disagreements we might have, we might be able to respect the contributions we each make to our respective churches.

And I would add, understanding the role of women in the church requires an integrated hermeneutic which doesn't cherry pick proof texts, so while those verses might be insufficient to answer the questions of women's ordination, they are certainly part of the bigger picture in which the full ministry of women is affirmed and celebrated.

 

[justbyfaith]

deleted.

 

[LoveofTruth]

We

My bible includes Ephesians 5:21 as well as Galatians 3:28. My bible also includes John 13:34. It seems these verses are conveniently missing in the bibles of those who believe that some types of people are created superior to other types of people. My God is not so cruel and petty as to have created slave races based on biology.

We don’t need to say some are superior to others. But each one has specific roles and functions. Just as in the body not all have the same gifts and functions.
But as we read in the family, the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church and the wife is subject to him in EVERYTHING. I know some don’t like such scriptures and might try to change the meaning of them. But I find it safest to simply believe them and walk in the light of the word.

“ Ephesians 5:22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

 

[Archivist]

We

We don’t need to say some are superior to others. But each one has specific roles and functions. Just as in the body not all have the same gifts and functions.
But as we read in the family, the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church and the wife is subject to him in EVERYTHING. I know some don’t like such scriptures and might try to change the meaning of them. But I find it safest to simply believe them and walk in the light of the word.

“ Ephesians 5:22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation of scripture. However, I also walk in the light of the word, and I do not not believe that the husband is the head of the wife, nor do I believe that she is subject to him in everything. I do believe that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Again, you are entitled to your interpretation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation of scripture. However, I also walk in the light of the word, and I do not not believe that the husband is the head of the wife, nor do I believe that she is subject to him in everything. I do believe that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Again, you are entitled to your interpretation.

We live in a strangely egalitarian culture in which it is firmly believed that everyone everywhere is absolutely equal to everyone everywhere in every aspect of life. It will probably not be long before we see quadraplegic firefighters or brain surgeons with a mental IQ of less than 60. Just because somebody happens to be doing something much better than I can do it and for which I do not have any qualifications does not mean that somehow they are superior to me and are gloating of my inability.

Oddly enough, I lack the proper plumbing to give birth to children. Much as I might envy women for that role I do not feel myself somehow inferior to them and most mothers I have known do not cast aspersions on men because of their inability.

 

[Albion]

My God is not so cruel and petty as to have created slave races based on biology.

How easily we move from women's leadership roles in the church to slave races and talk as though it's all the same.

 

[Paidiske]

Just because somebody happens to be doing something much better than I can do it and for which I do not have any qualifications does not mean that somehow they are superior to me and are gloating of my inability.

And yet, most people who argue against women in particular roles don't argue that we can't do it (well enough, or as well as men), or that we lack the appropriate qualifications and training.

How easily we move from women's leadership roles in the church to slave races and talk as though it's all the same.

Well, Albion, if you categorically exclude women from particular roles because they are women, it certainly seems to be only a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference.

"Oh, we only subjugate you in this particular way, so it's not at all the same!" Doesn't really cut it as an excuse.

 

[bbbbbbb]

And yet, most people who argue against women in particular roles don't argue that we can't do it (well enough, or as well as men), or that we lack the appropriate qualifications and training.

I don't what world you live in, but in my world the reality is that "appropriate qualifications and training" rarely matter much. For example, one can argue that the personnel at Macy's are far better qualified and trained than those at WalMart. However, that hardly stops folks from preferring WalMart over Macy's by a huge margin.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't what world you live in, but in my world the reality is that "appropriate qualifications and training" rarely matter much. For example, one can argue that the personnel at Macy's are far better qualified and trained than those at WalMart. However, that hardly stops folks from preferring WalMart over Macy's by a huge margin.

That's true; and many people choose to go to churches which require little in the way of training for their ministers. But that wasn't my point; my point was that whatever qualification or training one set as the necessary standard, it's not as if women can't or don't meet that standard. Many of us do.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's true; and many people choose to go to churches which require little in the way of training for their ministers. But that wasn't my point; my point was that whatever qualification or training one set as the necessary standard, it's not as if women can't or don't meet that standard. Many of us do.

The problem, of course, is that there is no one set of government standards, except in countries such as China where religion is a government department. Historically, the Bible was understood to be the infallible rule of faith and practice, but that is no longer the case. For those of us who hold the traditional view the standard has been established and implemented for centuries. For those, such as yourself, who choose to use other criteria for qualifications for clergy, a Pandora's box is opened in which anyone for any reason (usually of a personal nature such as God told me to become a clergyperson) can insist on their fitness for ordained, salaried ministry.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think the government should be setting the standards for ministry. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and all that...

Your post oversimplifies history, of course. We have always needed to interpret and apply Scripture to our own contexts.

That said, I would not say that I use "other" criteria for clergy. And no, I do not hold that anyone for any reason can insist on their fitness for ministry. Discerning fitness for ministry is always a cooperative matter between the candidate, the community, and the Holy Spirit, and even in my own tradition, far more people are told "no," than are ever told "yes."

However, I do not believe that sex is an appropriate reason for automatic disqualification in that process.

 

[Archivist]

We live in a strangely egalitarian culture in which it is firmly believed that everyone everywhere is absolutely equal to everyone everywhere in every aspect of life. It will probably not be long before we see quadraplegic firefighters or brain surgeons with a mental IQ of less than 60.

Any evidence to support this? There could be quadriplegic firemen but they are in the firehouse overseeing equipment or dispatches, not going into burning buildings.

Just because somebody happens to be doing something much better than I can do it and for which I do not have any qualifications does not mean that somehow they are superior to me and are gloating of my inability.

I’m scratching my head wondering what this has to do with my earlier post. I don’t recall saying that anyone was superior to anyone else or that anyone was gloating over anyone else’s inability to do anything.

Oddly enough, I lack the proper plumbing to give birth to children. Much as I might envy women for that role I do not feel myself somehow inferior to them and most mothers I have known do not cast aspersions on men because of their inability.

I don’t recall saying that anyone was casting aspersions on men for their inability to have children. Would you like to show me exactly where I said that?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Any evidence to support this? There could be quadriplegic firemen but they are in the firehouse overseeing equipment or dispatches, not going into burning buildings.

I’m scratching my head wondering what this has to do with my earlier post. I don’t recall saying that anyone was superior to anyone else or that anyone was gloating over anyone else’s inability to do anything.

I don’t recall saying that anyone was casting aspersions on men for their inability to have children. Would you like to show me exactly where I said that?

You responded to Love of Truth (who was responding to bekkilyn and not yourself), who posted, "We don’t need to say some are superior to others. But each one has specific roles and functions. Just as in the body not all have the same gifts and functions." and rebutted his assertion that in the church each has a spiritual gift and roles are not the same for each individual." He then quoted Ephesians 5:22-24.

Your response included a forthright rejection of Ephesians 5:22-24.

My post was within the context of the discussion between Love of Truth and bekkilyn and I apologize for any implication that you think those of us who do believe Ephesians 5:22-24 somehow believe that men are superior to women.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't think the government should be setting the standards for ministry. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and all that...

Your post oversimplifies history, of course. We have always needed to interpret and apply Scripture to our own contexts.

That said, I would not say that I use "other" criteria for clergy. And no, I do not hold that anyone for any reason can insist on their fitness for ministry. Discerning fitness for ministry is always a cooperative matter between the candidate, the community, and the Holy Spirit, and even in my own tradition, far more people are told "no," than are ever told "yes."

However, I do not believe that sex is an appropriate reason for automatic disqualification in that process.

It is always difficult to not oversimplify history, especially church history. However, the fact remains that none of the orthodox Christian church denominations did not ordain females as priests until the twentieth century unless you wish to include sects such as the Shakers and Quakers.

Unfortunately, your own denomination has a lengthy history as a government department which monopolized (to the point of attempting to eradicate Dissent in one form or another) religion in the British Empire. It has a lengthy history of establishing standards and qualifications for its clergy. The fact that dissension within your denomination has led to its current situation vis a vis ordination standards simply means that there has been a major theological shift that will manifest itself in many different ways over time. Some of these ways may be positive and others may prove to be problematic. Time will tell.

 

[Paidiske]

It is always difficult to not oversimplify history, especially church history. However, the fact remains that none of the orthodox Christian church denominations did not ordain females as priests until the twentieth century unless you wish to include sects such as the Shakers and Quakers.

There is good evidence that women served in all roles alongside men in the earliest church, and that this was later suppressed.

Unfortunately, your own denomination has a lengthy history as a government department which monopolized (to the point of attempting to eradicate Dissent in one form or another) religion in the British Empire. It has a lengthy history of establishing standards and qualifications for its clergy. The fact that dissension within your denomination has led to its current situation vis a vis ordination standards simply means that there has been a major theological shift that will manifest itself in many different ways over time. Some of these ways may be positive and others may prove to be problematic. Time will tell.

My denomination is not perfect, and Establishment certainly has its problems. (I, however, do not serve in an Established church, being in Australia). However, since I believe no church is perfect (each being made up of imperfect human beings) that is neither here nor there for me; the issue is one of my own faithfulness and obedience to God within the imperfections of human community.

We do not know what the fruits of all our labours will be; we can only hold ourselves to radical obedience, which is why I am ordained.

 

[Archivist]

You responded to Love of Truth (who was responding to bekkilyn and not yourself), who posted, "We don’t need to say some are superior to others. But each one has specific roles and functions. Just as in the body not all have the same gifts and functions." and rebutted his assertion that in the church each has a spiritual gift and roles are not the same for each individual." He then quoted Ephesians 5:22-24.

Your response included a forthright rejection of Ephesians 5:22-24.

My post was within the context of the discussion between Love of Truth and bekkilyn and I apologize for any implication that you think those of us who do believe Ephesians 5:22-24 somehow believe that men are superior to women.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[concretecamper]

Emotionally, physically, and psychologically women are better equipped than men to do many things better. The reverse is also true. To ignore this fact has more to do with self image than equality.