PDA

View Full Version : Women elders in the church


Pages : [1] 2

Mark
04-13-2009, 06:24 PM
What does everyone think about women being elders or pastors in the church?

Llamafighter
04-13-2009, 06:26 PM
What does everyone think about women being elders or pastors in the church?
I belonged ot First United Church of Christ and they allowed both. One of my favorite ministers I've had in my life was female.
Now Presbyterian and the Interim and associate pastors are woman.
I don't have a problem with it at all.
What are your thoughts?

Crisco
04-13-2009, 06:28 PM
What does everyone think about women being elders or pastors in the church?

Good to see you post again Mark.

I feel personally that women have often been excluded from religious activity not based on biblical standard but more on male shovanism(sp).

I think that the most qualified, educated and passionate person should be the one to lead the congregation.

I believe there is a verse in the bible that states that women should concede to men in area's of faith but in if there isn't a sufficient male example to follow there shouldn't be a reason a woman couldn't minister.

NateR
04-13-2009, 06:48 PM
I grew up Baptist and women were definitely not allowed to be pastors, deacons (the Baptist word for elder) or hold any sort of leadership position in the church. The only exceptions would be when it involved child care, Sunday School or the choir (even though the church music leader was always a man).

When going to the Presbyterian church here in Hillsboro, I was kind of shocked to learn that women were allowed to be elders. I'm still not sure how I feel about that. They even had a female guest pastor one Sunday, but I just couldn't bring myself to go and listen to her preach that day, it just didn't seem right at all.

Now, there are a few female Bible teachers that I really like. Kay Arthur being one; but I've only listened to her on TV and she teaches in a classroom style environment, not in a church auditorium. I like her because she has very biblically sound teachings and she spends a lot of time on prophecy. However, she never tells women that they should seek leadership in the church. She teaches that women are given a role in the church and they should be happy in that role. Just like a marriage will fall apart if the husband and wife are in a constant power struggle and the wife refuses to submit to the man's authority, the church will also fall apart if the women seek to usurp the men that GOD has placed in charge.

Preach
04-13-2009, 06:55 PM
What does everyone think about women being elders or pastors in the church?


I believe that as long as the woman is rooted in God's word and preaches God's word there is nothing wrong. The misconception that happens is that people don't come with open minds on this subject. When you look at God's word you will see that God used women in several instances. And of all the people in Christ days that he could have appeared to. Peter, John, Lazarus, the disciples anyone one of these. Who was the first person he appeared to? It was Mary a woman in whom he had cast out 7 demons. I used to be closed minded on this subjest but when my sister became an evangelist a few years ago my perspective changed drastically. She is now in full time ministry. She has traveled to several states and has ministered to numerous people.

The one thing I am not sure how I feel about is the role of Pastor or Elder? I worry about peoples openess to go to a woman for counselling. But as a whole I will say that God does use women just as much as he uses men.

How do you see this Mark?

rearnakedchoke
04-13-2009, 07:17 PM
i grew up catholic and when i was young, all the alter boys were boys (hence the name) but as time went on, girls started being them in some churches ... some people didn't like it, women are now ministers of communion etc ... everything except priests ... i know there are reasons, but to me, as long as they are doing GOd's deeds, doesn't matter if they are women or men, we are all equal ..

Chris F
04-13-2009, 07:26 PM
The bible actually list female deaconesses and female leaders of the church. So to ignore it would be unbiblical. Many people use the excuse that Paul told women to be silent in Church but they ignore the historical background and context of that verse. The Corinthian church had a specific problem. We forget the letter were written to Churches with problems that needs guidance. We cannot make a dogma on one verse so out of context.

They also make the excuse husband of one wife. Well by that logic we must exclude all single people as well.

NateR
04-13-2009, 07:34 PM
They also make the excuse husband of one wife. Well by that logic we must exclude all single people as well.

In the Baptist churches I grew up in, single or divorced men weren't allowed to be deacons or pastors.

Miss Foxy
04-13-2009, 07:35 PM
I personally don't favor it. I am also the same girl that does not think a woman should ever be President of the USA. I cannot fully explain why I think this way I just do. :huh:

rearnakedchoke
04-13-2009, 07:52 PM
I personally don't favor it. I am also the same girl that does not think a woman should ever be President of the USA. I cannot fully explain why I think this way I just do. :huh:

well, hopefully your daughter can prove you wrong when she becomes the POTUS .......

Miss Foxy
04-13-2009, 07:55 PM
well, hopefully your daughter can prove you wrong when she becomes the POTUS .......
She wants to be a US MARINE.. hahah!!:laugh:

rearnakedchoke
04-13-2009, 07:58 PM
She wants to be a US MARINE.. hahah!!:laugh:
WHAT? Women are allowed in the marines? they can barely take care of themselves let alone protect a country ... :Whistle:

Crisco
04-13-2009, 07:59 PM
I personally don't favor it. I am also the same girl that does not think a woman should ever be President of the USA. I cannot fully explain why I think this way I just do. :huh:

lol that's cuz you are a woman and know that every month for about 3-4 days we'll have nuclear was with a woman President.

NateR
04-13-2009, 08:13 PM
The bible actually list female deaconesses and female leaders of the church. So to ignore it would be unbiblical.


Are you sure those were deaconesses or leaders? They might have just been very prominent members or hostesses, since the church services took place in houses back in those days:

1 Corinthians 16:19b (emphasis added)
Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.

Primadawn
04-13-2009, 08:31 PM
I grew up Baptist and still am...have always been taught and believe that women should not be pastors or deacons.

And yes the verse about being the husband of one wife is used and we don't have single/divorced pastors or deacons either.

I do believe women can teach and mentor other women and children. I do not believe they should be in a leadership position over men in the church.

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 10:46 PM
What does everyone think about women being elders or pastors in the church?

Let me tell you about Canon Lucy Winkett, Precentor of Saint Paul's Cathedral.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7269/snn06clergy280525050a.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snn06clergy280525050a.jpg)



Type her name into Google...and she will pop up! She be infamous in these parts. Professional Singer, Lucy became a Priest shortly after her Husband-to-be was killed in a climbing accident. :cry: NOONE Sings like Lucy Winkett. I have NEVER, EVER heard such a voice singing the Office of Evensong. When I was invited down for my day of interviews for the position, I was required to attend Evensong. I wasnt to meet her until After, so I had no idea who she was when I heard her Sing. Sadly, when she became a Canon, she didnt sing the office, unless on special occasions when a Minor Canon was laid out, and she filled in. We ALL lived for such experiences.

having worked in Saint Paul's Cathedral I can tell you a few things about Women in Ministry. The Founder of The Saint Paul's Cathedral Lay Community is Rev Lucy Winkett, Canon Precentor. She was the first woman to work in Saint Paul's as a Priest, and she arrived the year they filmed "A year in the Life of Saint Paul's" one out of four episodes were Dedicated to Women in Ministry.

The Video shows Canon Winkett (She wasnt a Canon at the time, but a Minor Canon) Celebrating her First Eucharist. As usual the Procession would come in, and the Eucharist would Start. Half way through the Service, the Priests, one by one, would get up (whilst she was celebrating) and walk out of the Building. The first time she did it, the whole of Chapter (Four Male Priests) plus the Dean, Plus the College of Minor Canons (A further two Male Priests) left the Building.

The Servers refused to receive Communion from her. They had her in tears at the end of the service. This became a weekly occasion on a Sunday Morning, and during the week when she Celebrated noone would bother to show up!

One by one, those Priests who had life Tenure began to wane...some retired, some actually died. By the Time I arrived, nearly a decade after women were first Ordained Priest, and Five years after what I've outlined above...the only person who had a problem with Women in Ministry, was the Director of the Lay Community at that time, Canon Martin Warner. Whilst he wouldnt be so rude as to walk out, he wouldnt receive, nor would he distribute if she had consecrated...he sat alone on the dais, looking like a prick, if you excuse my language.

There are things Women can bring to the priesthood that men cant. There is a sense of emotional understanding, which makes for an excelent pastral care, which by their very nature, Women can offer better then Men. Women tend to be better when it comes to music also. It was no Accident that Whilst a Minor Canon, Lucy was "Chaplain" and when a member of Chapter she was "Precentor" A Precentor is incharge specifically of the music and spiritual expression of the worship that goes on.

By the time I left...there was Lucy on Chapter, and two of the Three Minor Canons were FEMALE aswell. One of the Lay Canons was also Female. This meant out of EIGHT Chapter Members TWO were Women, and out of THREE Minor Canons, TWO were Women...that would have been unthinkable to some of the Priests less then 10 years before hand.



I think there are enough examples in both Testaments to prove Women can be Ministers.

Look at the first Judge of Israel who is able to be a Military Leader, a Political Leader AND a Spiritual Leader combined. It was the first time a single leader had fulfilled all three roles. If GOD sees fit to make the first Model Judge of Israel a Woman...then who are we to complain.

When thinking about Prophets, there is Esther...and in the New Testament Saint Paul mentions several Women he writes to with leadership positions in the Church.

Ask yourself WHO Jesus appeared to FIRST post-ressrection...was it not a Woman :ninja:

However...the majority of Christondom doesnt support Women in Ministry. The Church of England only adopted Women in Ministry for as long as the UFC has been around. It doesnt allow Women Bishops. The Roman Catholics wont allow Women. Period.

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 10:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEJ6HhjjvLU

TYPICAL Winkett. She is ever-so-slightly millitant on such matters...but its to be expected...she is a pioneer in the field of Women in Ministry in the Church of England...

IF Women ever become Bishops in England...guess who would be the first choice :w00t:

I think Nathan Rosario will hate her hahahahahahahaa But I Love her...When I was Falsley accused in the Cathedral, she was the only member of Chapter who ACTIVELY supported me. Two remained neutral, One pretended there was nothing wrong to deny the issue...and the other was my arch nemesis. Canon Martin Warner LOL

NateR
04-13-2009, 11:00 PM
Let me tell you about Canon Lucy Winkett, Precentor of Saint Paul's Cathedral.

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/7269/snn06clergy280525050a.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snn06clergy280525050a.jpg)



Type her name into Google...and she will pop up! She be infamous in these parts. Professional Singer, Lucy became a Priest shortly after her Husband-to-be was killed in a climbing accident. :cry: NOONE Sings like Lucy Winkett. I have NEVER, EVER heard such a voice singing the Office of Evensong. When I was invited down for my day of interviews for the position, I was required to attend Evensong. I wasnt to meet her until After, so I had no idea who she was when I heard her Sing. Sadly, when she became a Canon, she didnt sing the office, unless on special occasions when a Minor Canon was laid out, and she filled in. We ALL lived for such experiences.

having worked in Saint Paul's Cathedral I can tell you a few things about Women in Ministry. The Founder of The Saint Paul's Cathedral Lay Community is Rev Lucy Winkett, Canon Precentor. She was the first woman to work in Saint Paul's as a Priest, and she arrived the year they filmed "A year in the Life of Saint Paul's" one out of four episodes were Dedicated to Women in Ministry.

The Video shows Canon Winkett (She wasnt a Canon at the time, but a Minor Canon) Celebrating her First Eucharist. As usual the Procession would come in, and the Eucharist would Start. Half way through the Service, the Priests, one by one, would get up (whilst she was celebrating) and walk out of the Building. The first time she did it, the whole of Chapter (Four Male Priests) plus the Dean, Plus the College of Minor Canons (A further two Male Priests) left the Building.

The Servers refused to receive Communion from her. They had her in tears at the end of the service. This became a weekly occasion on a Sunday Morning, and during the week when she Celebrated noone would bother to show up!

One by one, those Priests who had life Tenure began to wane...some retired, some actually died. By the Time I arrived, nearly a decade after women were first Ordained Priest, and Five years after what I've outlined above...the only person who had a problem with Women in Ministry, was the Director of the Lay Community at that time, Canon Martin Warner. Whilst he wouldnt be so rude as to walk out, he wouldnt receive, nor would he distribute if she had consecrated...he sat alone on the dais, looking like a prick, if you excuse my language.

There are things Women can bring to the priesthood that men cant. There is a sense of emotional understanding, which makes for an excelent pastral care, which by their very nature, Women can offer better then Men. Women tend to be better when it comes to music also. It was no Accident that Whilst a Minor Canon, Lucy was "Chaplain" and when a member of Chapter she was "Precentor" A Precentor is incharge specifically of the music and spiritual expression of the worship that goes on.

By the time I left...there was Lucy on Chapter, and two of the Three Minor Canons were FEMALE aswell. One of the Lay Canons was also Female. This meant out of EIGHT Chapter Members TWO were Women, and out of THREE Minor Canons, TWO were Women...that would have been unthinkable to some of the Priests less then 10 years before hand.



I think there are enough examples in both Testaments to prove Women can be Ministers.

Look at the first Judge of Israel who is able to be a Military Leader, a Political Leader AND a Spiritual Leader combined. It was the first time a single leader had fulfilled all three roles. If GOD sees fit to make the first Model Judge of Israel a Woman...then who are we to complain.

When thinking about Prophets, there is Esther...and in the New Testament Saint Paul mentions several Women he writes to with leadership positions in the Church.

Ask yourself WHO Jesus appeared to FIRST post-ressrection...was it not a Woman :ninja:

However...the majority of Christondom doesnt support Women in Ministry. The Church of England only adopted Women in Ministry for as long as the UFC has been around. It doesnt allow Women Bishops. The Roman Catholics wont allow Women. Period.

This hardly proves anything, Dave. I'm more interested in what the Bible says, not in how some Catholic lady sings.

Chris F
04-13-2009, 11:07 PM
In the Baptist churches I grew up in, single or divorced men weren't allowed to be deacons or pastors.

Exactly your church, not the bible. We must be careful making church dogmas and traditions doctrines of the church. my personal opinion is the Baptist have it right. God plan of authority is for a man to lead. But my personal thoughts carry no weight.

Chris F
04-13-2009, 11:09 PM
Are you sure those were deaconesses or leaders? They might have just been very prominent members or hostesses, since the church services took place in houses back in those days:

1 Corinthians 16:19b (emphasis added)
Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.

Junia was listed as a deaconess. The Alexandrian manuscripts later changed the gender on it but the oldest manuscripts we got shows this is a female.

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:13 PM
This hardly proves anything, Dave. I'm more interested in what the Bible says, not in how some Catholic lady sings.
She's Anglican

and isnt the Jewish Judge, the Jewish Prophet, and the Jewish leaders of the Early Church enough for you :huh::huh:

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:14 PM
Exactly your church, not the bible. We must be careful making church dogmas and traditions doctrines of the church. my personal opinion is the Baptist have it right. God plan of authority is for a man to lead. But my personal thoughts carry no weight.
INDEED. Plenty of people just follow the Roman Catholics lead on matters of Tradition.

Next people like Nathan will be saying you have to do something other then just have faith and believe for Salvation.... :Whistle: :laugh:

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:15 PM
Junia was listed as a deaconess. The Alexandrian manuscripts later changed the gender on it but the oldest manuscripts we got shows this is a female.
:huh: So....we have proof that Nathan is wrong about Women Priests :huh:

The Bible shows Women Priests...then what is the problem :)

Mark
04-13-2009, 11:17 PM
The bible actually list female deaconesses and female leaders of the church. So to ignore it would be unbiblical.

I'm not going to argue with anyone in the Christianity section, but the bible actually says:

An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. -Titus 1:6-9

I just wanted to see what everybody thought, this stemmed from a conversation we had last Wednesday night in our bible study.

I would like to know exactly where it lists women as deaconesses or leaders in the church. If you could give me specific verses where those names are listed. Thanks. Mark

Mark
04-13-2009, 11:21 PM
They even had a female guest pastor one Sunday, but I just couldn't bring myself to go and listen to her preach that day, it just didn't seem right at all.

Nate has a hard enough time bringing himself to church when there is a male pastor. Mark

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:25 PM
I would like to know exactly where it lists women as deaconesses or leaders in the church. If you could give me specific verses where those names are listed. Thanks. Mark

1 Corinthians 16.19 :)

I dont know if thats the only verse or if there are more :ninja:

Titus...which you quote, is a brief about the Hierachy of the Church. The point is not whether they are male or female, the point is how the church should be governed. Its Pontifical (With Deacons, Priests, Bishops...or whatever names you have for a heirachical church)

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:25 PM
Nate has a hard enough time bringing himself to church when there is a male pastor. Mark
:laugh: I BET HE DOES :laugh:

NateR
04-13-2009, 11:32 PM
Junia was listed as a deaconess. The Alexandrian manuscripts later changed the gender on it but the oldest manuscripts we got shows this is a female.

Actually, there is some question as to whether this is a man or a woman, and the word "deaconess" or "elder" is not used. Paul just referred to this person as his "fellow countrymen."

NateR
04-13-2009, 11:35 PM
:huh: So....we have proof that Nathan is wrong about Women Priests :huh:

The Bible shows Women Priests...then what is the problem :)

Dave, you're just miffed because I wouldn't let you attack American in the polar bear thread. :laugh:

Maybe you should actually READ the Bible before you jump to conclusions and make yourself sound stupid. :tongue0011:

Anyways, it's not proof of anything because the world "deaconess" is not used and we're not even sure if Junia/Junias is a man or a woman.

Plus a deacon is most definitely NOT the same as a priest.

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:36 PM
Actually, there is some question as to whether this is a man or a woman, and the word "deaconess" or "elder" is not used. Paul just referred to this person as his "fellow countrymen."
:huh: then she was a flying Bishop! thats what Saint Paul became.

He had Jursidiction over a whole group of areas filled with Churches...if he says she is the same as him...she must be a Bishop...

btw...Greetings arent said, or sent from Plebs Nathan...If you were writing TO someone by name, then they HAD to be of importance. If Such and Such sends their greetings...they will probably be leaders of the place...they represent the place.

Paul wouldnt write to Plebs...he'd write to seniors within the Churches...probably the people he left in-charge...possibly people like Titus...who probably had responsibility for more then one person, and actually acted on behalf of Paul in selecting ministers...THATS why he details what qualities a minister should have

That makes Titus a Suffigen Bishop :laugh:

NateR
04-13-2009, 11:39 PM
1 Corinthians 16.19 :)

Actually, that verse simply states that the church meetings take place in their house. ALL church assemblies took place in houses and women were traditionally the keepers of those houses, thus Aquila and Priscilla were most likely hostesses, not deacons, pastors, or priests. There is a difference.

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:40 PM
Dave, you're just miffed because I wouldn't let you attack American in the polar bear thread. :laugh:

Maybe you should actually READ the Bible before you jump to conclusions and make yourself sound stupid. :tongue0011:

Anyways, it's not proof of anything because the world "deaconess" is not used and we're not even sure if Junia/Junias is a man or a woman.

Plus a deacon is most definitely NOT the same as a priest.
Well in the Church of England...a Deacon is half way to a Priest. They can do everything EXCEPT Celebrate Communion.

All Priests are ordained once as a Deacon and then a year later a second time as a Priest, unless they chose to remain a Deacon....but an Arch Deacon, is actually above a Priest...now THATS confusing aint it.

As I understand it goes Deacon-Priest- Prebendary Canon-Area Dean-Arch Deacon- Minor Canon - Canon - Cathedral Dean -Suffrigen Bishop-Bishop-Arch Bishop

The Roman Catholic Church has an extra position of Cardinal above Archbishop, and then Pope on top :laugh: like the cherry on a cake :happydancing:

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:42 PM
Actually, that verse simply states that the church meetings take place in their house. ALL church assemblies took place in houses and women were traditionally the keepers of those houses, thus Aquila and Priscilla were most likely hostesses, not deacons, pastors, or priests. There is a difference.
Nathan...who owns a Church?

If the churches were taking place within a House...then the House probably belonged to the Womans Husband...and He was probably the Minister...Are you saying you think that Aquila and Priscilla were Wives of the Minister??

If so...why is it greetings to/from, the wives of the minister and not the Ministers themselves unles....:ninja: they ARE the minister :frantics:

Preach
04-13-2009, 11:44 PM
Nate has a hard enough time bringing himself to church when there is a male pastor. Mark


BURN

NateR
04-13-2009, 11:44 PM
:huh: then she was a flying Bishop! thats what Saint Paul became.

He had Jursidiction over a whole group of areas filled with Churches...if he says she is the same as him...she must be a Bishop...

btw...Greetings arent said, or sent from Plebs Nathan...If you were writing TO someone by name, then they HAD to be of importance. If Such and Such sends their greetings...they will probably be leaders of the place...they represent the place.

Paul wouldnt write to Plebs...he'd write to seniors within the Churches...probably the people he left in-charge...possibly people like Titus...who probably had responsibility for more then one person, and actually acted on behalf of Paul in selecting ministers...THATS why he details what qualities a minister should have

That makes Titus a Suffigen Bishop :laugh:

Wrong. You're reading into this what you want to read, not what was actually written.

Also, you're talking about Paul like he was some pompous ass who would never speak to anyone who was "beneath him." He wasn't a European, Dave, he didn't consider himself better than anybody.

Again, the early church was NOTHING like the bloated bureaucracy of your European churches. It was made up of small congregations that would meet in people's homes and everyone was considered an equal.

Chris F
04-13-2009, 11:45 PM
I'm not going to argue with anyone in the Christianity section, but the bible actually says:

An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. -Titus 1:6-9

I just wanted to see what everybody thought, this stemmed from a conversation we had last Wednesday night in our bible study.

I would like to know exactly where it lists women as deaconesses or leaders in the church. If you could give me specific verses where those names are listed. Thanks. Mark

In Romans 16:1-2 Phobe is called in Greek a diakonos which is where we get our word deacon or minister from. Also Junia is called an Apostle by Paul in Romans 16:7 Some modern translators as I have stated have changed it in recent times to a masculine name but the original does not.

NateR
04-13-2009, 11:47 PM
Nathan...who owns a Church?

If the churches were taking place within a House...then the House probably belonged to the Womans Husband...and He was probably the Minister...Are you saying you think that Aquila and Priscilla were Wives of the Minister??

If so...why is it greetings to/from, the wives of the minister and not the Ministers themselves unles....:ninja: they ARE the minister :frantics:

OR, since we've moved from truth to rampant speculation, maybe they were elderly widows and were just providing their homes for the church services.

You're inventing facts and putting words into Paul's mouth in order to try to "prove" that there were women priests, however, you seem to forget that Paul is the only Apostle who spoke against female leadership in the Church.

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:52 PM
Wrong. You're reading into this what you want to read, not what was actually written.

Also, you're talking about Paul like he was some pompous ass who would never speak to anyone who was "beneath him." He wasn't a European, Dave, he didn't consider himself better than anybody.

Again, the early church was NOTHING like the bloated bureaucracy of your European churches. It was made up of small congregations that would meet in people's homes and everyone was considered an equal.
Paul is not being Pompous. He is designing a leadership frame MUCH NEEDED as the Church expanded. You need someone to look after these groups of small churches Nathan.

What do you think the "European" is based on??? Its based on what Saint Paul outlines. That is a systematic way to govern a church with a hierachy.

isnt that how they run things in the Military?? Could you have lots of little platoons running around without being coordinated??? Its EXACTLY the same...as soon as the church started to grow it NEEDED a Structure.

Paul went back through his missionary journeys to supervise. He DEFINATLEY saw himself as above others on the leadership scale...He chose the people to rule beneith him

Besides...every church is rulled be councils...even your presbyterian church...there is a lot you dont seem to know about that. Dont you remember when I visited your church one of the first things I asked you was what a certain Symbol was which was included on the Rearadross...and you didnt know...and your pastor told me it was the Symbol for the denomination? Just because you may choose not to get involved...dont think for a second that your church is self governing and a law unto itself. There will be some kinda Hierachy...you may use different words rather then Bishops...but you will have a minister...and he will have someone above him...I can find out who it is and proove it to you if you wish

even the Free Churches have a general assembly...you cant coordinate a large number of people based all over the world without it...Saint Paul just happened to be a stupendous planner...and he got a system going....thats used world wide :cool:

Preach
04-13-2009, 11:53 PM
Exodus 15:20
20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
21 And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea

Judges 4:4
4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.


Acts 9:36
36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.
37 And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber.

Acts 21:8
8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.
9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Philippians 4:2
2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.
3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Tyburn
04-13-2009, 11:58 PM
OR, since we've moved from truth to rampant speculation, maybe they were elderly widows and were just providing their homes for the church services.

You're inventing facts and putting words into Paul's mouth in order to try to "prove" that there were women priests, however, you seem to forget that Paul is the only Apostle who spoke against female leadership in the Church.
You assume they are unimportant nobodies...then tell me why he mentions them in an official letter????

BY NAME...they HAD to be important. were they Priests? who knows...possibly, possibly not...I think you dont want it to be proven, because you have no regard for taking Orders from a Woman.

Tell me Nathan...how can a Male Priest be at all "pastoral" The stereotypical male leader is NOT Pastoral...perhaps the Early Church used the men for teaching, and the women for pastoral ministry...perhaps Women were forbidden to teach...but they had a pastoral ministry that you would deny them.

Being a leader is all about masculinity...so dont go telling me that any Male leader can be "pastoral"...and any Effeminates you may know DONT COUNT, coz they aint allowed either. The Church is FULL of effeminate Male Priests who are as good as women...but we must exclude them because...they shouldnt really be leading...not strictly speaking :laugh:

NateR
04-13-2009, 11:58 PM
In Romans 16:1-2 Phobe is called in Greek a diakonos which is where we get our word deacon or minister from. Also Junia is called an Apostle by Paul in Romans 16:7 Some modern translators as I have stated have changed it in recent times to a masculine name but the original does not.

Many English versions translate that as "servant" which is the actual meaning of the word. So, a "hostess" is an equally valid interpretation.

This is all really just splitting hairs to try to come up with one example that sets a precedent for female leadership in the church. But, why would Paul contradict himself so thoroughly?
1 Corinthians 14: 34-35
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 12:00 AM
Philippians 4:2
2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.
3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
:laugh: cant wait to see how Nathan tries to exclude that

Women who "laboured" with Paul "in the Gospel" ???? Women Missionaries who spread the news??? preaching??? Teaching????? Working in the Church????

Heaven forbid :unsure: :laugh:

NateR
04-14-2009, 12:01 AM
You assume they are unimportant nobodies...then tell me why he mentions them in an official letter????

BY NAME...they HAD to be important. were they Priests? who knows...possibly, possibly not...I think you dont want it to be proven, because you have no regard for taking Orders from a Woman.

Tell me Nathan...how can a Male Priest be at all "pastoral" The stereotypical male leader is NOT Pastoral...perhaps the Early Church used the men for teaching, and the women for pastoral ministry...perhaps Women were forbidden to teach...but they had a pastoral ministry that you would deny them.

Being a leader is all about masculinity...so dont go telling me that any Male leader can be "pastoral"...and any Effeminates you may know DONT COUNT, coz they aint allowed either. The Church is FULL of effeminate Male Priests who are as good as women...but we must exclude them because...they shouldnt really be leading...not strictly speaking :laugh:

Isn't the word pastoral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral) a reference to shepherds? Weren't shepherds traditionally men?

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 12:04 AM
Isn't the word pastoral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral) a reference to shepherds? Weren't shepherds traditionally men?
Do sheep need Emotional Care??? :laugh:

:huh:

Its an analogy, People arent really Sheep Nathan...infact caring for a Sheep...a Man can do...CARING for another Human being...is primarily what Women are good at.

Sheep dont need loving...they just need leadership. Humans need love aswell as leadership....men really aint much good at anything but the latter...unless they are effeminate...but we must forget those who are... :unsure:

NateR
04-14-2009, 12:05 AM
:laugh: cant wait to see how Nathan tries to exclude that

Women who "laboured" with Paul "in the Gospel" ???? Women Missionaries who spread the news??? preaching??? Teaching????? Working in the Church????

Heaven forbid :unsure: :laugh:

You're going to have to send me a picture of this straw man you've built, because I don't think it looks like me at all. :tongue0011:

Anyways, I NEVER ONCE claimed that women don't have a role in the church. It's slanderous to even imply that. If you could get out of this rigid, small-minded box that you've put the church into, then perhaps you could understand what I'm saying.

All, I'm saying is that women should not be in a position of leadership in the Church.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 12:08 AM
You're going to have to send me a picture of this straw man you've built, because I don't think it looks like me at all. :tongue0011:

Anyways, I NEVER ONCE claimed that women don't have a role in the church. It's slanderous to even imply that. If you could get out of this rigid, small-minded box that you've put the church into, then perhaps you could understand what I'm saying.

All, I'm saying is that women should not be in a position of leadership in the Church.
So what role DO they have in the Church then Nathan?

Sitting and Listening to Men all day doesnt count....role implies they DO something...prey tell :huh:

Chris F
04-14-2009, 12:09 AM
Many English versions translate that as "servant" which is the actual meaning of the word. So, a "hostess" is an equally valid interpretation.

This is all really just splitting hairs to try to come up with one example that sets a precedent for female leadership in the church. But, why would Paul contradict himself so thoroughly?

That is the typical come back and by the same logic then male deacon are just host.

Also the verse you said was a contradiction is way out of context. That was addressed to a specific circumstance going on in the Corinthian Church this is why proper hermeneutics require us to use the entirety of scripture. We have many examples of female leadership in the bible as a whole. Paul cannot contradict the rest of scripture. I encourage deeper study in this subject in the history and culture of this verse. You need to take off your dogma beliefs and look at it from the bible only.

Remember I agree men should lead but the bible does not support our opinions.

VCURamFan
04-14-2009, 12:12 AM
Do sheep need Emotional Care??? :laugh:

:huh:

Its an analogy, People arent really Sheep Nathan...infact caring for a Sheep...a Man can do...CARING for another Human being...is primarily what Women are good at.

Sheep dont need loving...they just need leadership. Humans need love aswell as leadership....men really aint much good at anything but the latter...unless they are effeminate...but we must forget those who are... :unsure:You're making up interpretations and being insulting now, Dave. It's my calling from God to become a Youth Pastor & one of my duties will be to be a Shepherd to the flock. For you to say that either 1) I can't do my job because I'm a guy, or 2) I have to be effeminate to succeed is simply foolishness and pisses me off. I quite often minister to my friends & family in a loving way and I have yet to be forced into acting like a woman to pull that off.

Christ is described as the Good Shepherd. He shows love in the parable of the 100 Sheep because he goes after the one that was astray. If he did not love the sheep & was simply one of your theoretical, emotionally-uninvolved men, he would have said "Screw it, I've still got 99 here." Instead, he went searching high & low, found the lamb, put it on his shoulders & carried it back. This is an example of a masculine man performing his shepherding & pastoral duties with love & care. We are command to act the same.

Stop taking your interpretations & presenting them as facts, it's childish. Sharing your opinions is fine, but realize that to be accepted as truth, it must be from Scripture, not from what you think Scripture says.

NateR
04-14-2009, 12:17 AM
That is the typical come back and by the same logic then male deacon are just host.

Also the verse you said was a contradiction is way out of context. That was addressed to a specific circumstance going on in the Corinthian Church this is why proper hermeneutics require us to use the entirety of scripture. We have many examples of female leadership in the bible as a whole. Paul cannot contradict the rest of scripture. I encourage deeper study in this subject in the history and culture of this verse. You need to take off your dogma beliefs and look at it from the bible only.

Remember I agree men should lead but the bible does not support our opinions.

I understand the context of the Corinthian verses. Women in that culture were traditionally very vocal and derisive to the men. Typical of the modern Feminist attitude. Paul was basically telling them to be respectful and not try to wrest control of the church from the men.

However, I think the examples you listed or female deacons are dubious, at best, but I am aware of female leaders in ancient Israel. GOD calls the men into leadership first, but when no man is willing to step up, then GOD has no problem with calling a woman. I believe that 100%. I just don't believe it was the case with the 1st century church.

But Dave is advancing some bizarre agenda and seems to be trying to claim that only women can be ministers.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 12:18 AM
You're making up interpretations and being insulting now, Dave. It's my calling from God to become a Youth Pastor & one of my duties will be to be a Shepherd to the flock. For you to say that either 1) I can't do my job because I'm a guy, or 2) I have to be effeminate to succeed is simply foolishness and pisses me off. I quite often minister to my friends & family in a loving way and I have yet to be forced into acting like a woman to pull that off.

Are you saying that Men can be better nurturers then Women?

Then why cant some Women by better Leaders then Men?

You think anyone of those Women wouldnt say it was their calling by GOD to be a priest :huh:

Again the parable you tell is an analogy. Did the Sheep feel Loved by the actions of the shepherd? Can Sheep understand Love, or be emotional. Does the shepherd in that parable supply EMOTIONAL support to the sheep.

Its an analogy. It works to an extent.

It is my opinion that some men can make great pastoral people, but it is also in my opinion that most women can do it better. It is my opinion that some women can make great leaders, but it is also my opinion that most men can do it better. Do you have a problem with that Ben?

NateR
04-14-2009, 12:19 AM
You're making up interpretations and being insulting now, Dave. It's my calling from God to become a Youth Pastor & one of my duties will be to be a Shepherd to the flock. For you to say that either 1) I can't do my job because I'm a guy, or 2) I have to be effeminate to succeed is simply foolishness and pisses me off. I quite often minister to my friends & family in a loving way and I have yet to be forced into acting like a woman to pull that off.

Christ is described as the Good Shepherd. He shows love in the parable of the 100 Sheep because he goes after the one that was astray. If he did not love the sheep & was simply one of your theoretical, emotionally-uninvolved men, he would have said "Screw it, I've still got 99 here." Instead, he went searching high & low, found the lamb, put it on his shoulders & carried it back. This is an example of a masculine man performing his shepherding & pastoral duties with love & care. We are command to act the same.

Stop taking your interpretations & presenting them as facts, it's childish. Sharing your opinions is fine, but realize that to be accepted as truth, it must be from Scripture, not from what you think Scripture says.

QFT.

And I'm glad that the truth is coming from someone else because I don't want Dave claiming that I'm picking on him. :rolleyes:

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 12:19 AM
But Dave is advancing some bizarre agenda and seems to be trying to claim that only women can be ministers.
:blink: please show me the quote where I say anything like that :mellow:

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 12:20 AM
QFT.

And I'm glad that the truth is coming from someone else because I don't want Dave claiming that I'm picking on him. :rolleyes:
Stop picking on me :angry:

:laugh: :laugh:

NateR
04-14-2009, 12:22 AM
Are you saying that Men can be better nurturers then Women?

Then why cant some Women by better Leaders then Men?

You think anyone of those Women wouldnt say it was their calling by GOD to be a priest :huh:

Again the parable you tell is an analogy. Did the Sheep feel Loved by the actions of the shepherd? Can Sheep understand Love, or be emotional. Does the shepherd in that parable supply EMOTIONAL support to the sheep.

Its an analogy. It works to an extent.

It is my opinion that some men can make great pastoral people, but it is also in my opinion that most women can do it better. It is my opinion that some women can make great leaders, but it is also my opinion that most men can do it better. Do you have a problem with that Ben?

Dave, your understanding of all of this is clearly limited. You are working from false, one-dimensional stereotypes of the sexes, not from the truth.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 12:27 AM
Dave, your understanding of all of this is clearly limited. You are working from false, one-dimensional stereotypes of the sexes, not from the truth.
Stereotypes? YOU are the one claiming Women cant be leaders

and you still havent told me what role they DO have in the church :huh:

Chris F
04-14-2009, 12:29 AM
I understand the context of the Corinthian verses. Women in that culture were traditionally very vocal and derisive to the men. Typical of the modern Feminist attitude. Paul was basically telling them to be respectful and not try to wrest control of the church from the men.

However, I think the examples you listed or female deacons are dubious, at best, but I am aware of female leaders in ancient Israel. GOD calls the men into leadership first, but when no man is willing to step up, then GOD has no problem with calling a woman. I believe that 100%. I just don't believe it was the case with the 1st century church.

But Dave is advancing some bizarre agenda and seems to be trying to claim that only women can be ministers.

There are not my examples but bible proof. You must twist it to fit your interpretation but as context as well as the literary aspects say it says women were leaders. Hermeneutics is not open for opinions. It requires we let scripture interpret scripture not church traditions or man made dogmas. I agree man must lead, but when they do not God will use a women. He is the same yesterday today and forever. Is he not?

NateR
04-14-2009, 12:32 AM
This entire thread reminds me of a discussion about women in the military that I once participated in.

So, I guess my answer to this question should be the same as the military question:

It depends on the circumstances... and which woman we are talking about.

:laugh:

There are some women I wouldn't mind following into battle (although they are extremely rare and I think I've only met one in my entire life), and there are others who I would shoot in the back if I had to put my life in their hands on the battlefield. It's the same with the church. If the men are too corrupted or weak or non-existent (in the areas where Christianity is heavily persecuted), then I would have no problem with a woman leading a congregation. As long as she is teaching the truth, then there is nothing wrong with it.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 12:34 AM
I agree man must lead, but when they do not God will use a women. He is the same yesterday today and forever. Is he not?
:ninja: that makes more sense to me then you know.

To be honnest...some of the male priests in Saint Paul's were...i need of replacement shall we say.

I think you might be right, that Women only seem to rise when there isnt a descent man...thats how it happened with the Judges

Certainly...by the end of my time at the Cathedral, I had totally written off one of the male Priests...as far as I was concerned...he wasnt fit for duty (niether was I to be honnest...but I didnt realize that until I looked back on it) Meanwhile...whilst we were busy attacking each other...the women quietly held the course

...wow...makes you feel a little bit ashamed actually :unsure-1:

VCURamFan
04-14-2009, 12:35 AM
1) Are you saying that Men can be better nurturers then Women?

2) Then why cant some Women by better Leaders then Men?

3) Again the parable you tell is an analogy. Did the Sheep feel Loved by the actions of the shepherd? Can Sheep understand Love, or be emotional. Does the shepherd in that parable supply EMOTIONAL support to the sheep.

Its an analogy. It works to an extent.

4) It is my opinion that some men can make great pastoral people, but it is also in my opinion that most women can do it better. It is my opinion that some women can make great leaders, but it is also my opinion that most men can do it better. Do you have a problem with that Ben?1) Where did I ever make that agrument, Dave? Go back, read my post & quote me WORD FOR WORD where I said that. Not where the words I wrote could be interpretted that way, but where I actually said that.

2) I would really apprciate if you would stop misrepresenting me. You 're doing the same thing to me that you're trying to do to the Bible: you've already made your opinion, so now you go searching for phrases you can pull out of context and twist so that they seem to support what you want to believe.

3) This is what really gets me upset: you're willing to contradict your own argument just for the sake of "winning". Understand this: "pastor" and all other forms of this word stem shepherding. This is from wikipedia:
The usage of pastor comes from its use in the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible). In the Hebrew Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible) (or Old Testament) the Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language) word רעה (raʿah) is used. The word is used 173 times and can describe the feeding of sheep as in Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis) 29:7 or the spiritual feeding of human beings as in Jeremiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jeremiah) 3:15, "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding" (KJV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV)).So as far back as Genesis, the word for pastor has been connected with shepherding. Therefore, any analogy which applies to how a shepherd watches over his flock (of sheep) is meant to describe how a pastor watches over his flock (of Christians). This is a biblical analogy that is used over & over in the NT, not a one-time reference that can be set by itself & twisted however you want it.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if the sheep feels the love or not, just like it doesn't matter if someone in the pews feels the love of Christ or not: it doesn't change the shepjerd/pastor's duty to minister to that person & love them. No matter how you shake it, Dave, this is exactly what that parable is spekaing to: how Church leaders (i.e. pastors) are supposed to lead their churchs, whether it be Physically, Spiritually, or even (yes, Dave, I'm sorry to say, but it's true:) Emotionally.

4) I don't mind your opinoin at all. In fact, I 'm really happy to see that you've finally admitted that this is what it boils down to: you have an opinion.

That being said, you're unnecessarilly divided the ole of Pastor into two seperate offices: that of pastor (i.e. emotional leader) & that of leader (i.e. spiritual/physical leader). This is an unbiblical distinction to make, since all three duties are to be carried out by one person.

As an aside: I'm not saying that churches should only have one pastor. I'm just saying that each pastor is responsible for all three areas.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 12:36 AM
There are some women I wouldn't mind following into battle (although they are extremely rare and I think I've only met one in my entire life), and there are others who I would shoot in the back if I had to put my life in their hands on the battlefield. It's the same with the church. If the men are too corrupted or weak or non-existent (in the areas where Christianity is heavily persecuted), then I would have no problem with a woman leading a congregation. As long as she is teaching the truth, then there is nothing wrong with it.
:huh: you've changed you mind. I thought no women could ever be priests in your opinion.

Some Women are made to lead...like Maggie Thatcher...and Condi Rice...love them or hate them...but you cant deny that they could lead aswell as any man :laugh:

Chris F
04-14-2009, 12:37 AM
This entire thread reminds me of a discussion about women in the military that I once participated in.

So, I guess my answer to this question should be the same as the military question:

It depends on the circumstances... and which woman we are talking about.

:laugh:

There are some women I wouldn't mind following into battle (although they are extremely rare and I think I've only met one in my entire life), and there are others who I would shoot in the back if I had to put my life in their hands on the battlefield. It's the same with the church. If the men are too corrupted or weak or non-existent (in the areas where Christianity is heavily persecuted), then I would have no problem with a woman leading a congregation. As long as she is teaching the truth, then there is nothing wrong with it.

So what you are saying is you prefer a man to lead but will follow a women if that was the last resort? So are you conceding that this is a personal opinion and not in the bible? Because that is all I am saying. My personal opinion is man was designed to lead and part of eves curse was to be under a man so they have no real place in leadership. But as the bible shows God has used many women to lead. SO we can't argue with the bible

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 12:50 AM
1)Secondly, it doesn't matter if the sheep feels the love or not, just like it doesn't matter if someone in the pews feels the love of Christ or not: it doesn't change the shepjerd/pastor's duty to minister to that person & love them. No matter how you shake it, Dave, this is exactly what that parable is spekaing to: how Church leaders (i.e. pastors) are supposed to lead their churchs, whether it be Physically, Spiritually, or even (yes, Dave, I'm sorry to say, but it's true:) Emotionally.

2)
That being said, you're unnecessarilly divided the ole of Pastor into two seperate offices: that of pastor (i.e. emotional leader) & that of leader (i.e. spiritual/physical leader). This is an unbiblical distinction to make, since all three duties are to be carried out by one person.

As an aside: I'm not saying that churches should only have one pastor. I'm just saying that each pastor is responsible for all three areas.

1) What use is it to love someone, if its not in a way they understand or comprehend?

I'm sorry but thats NOT good enough. GOD reaches people WHERE THEY ARE, most men do not. Tough love aside...which at least has a purpose, and discipline aside, which at least has a purpose

Sheep cant understand the love of the shepherd, it is beyond their capability. But the people you minister to are NOT sheep, they are people, and its not enough to love them, if they cant see or feel it. they wont respond and they will be damaged and they wont find repair until someone gives them the love in the way they need it, in the form they accept it.

So it goes WAY beyond the simple following of a Duty. and thats as far as the argument with sheep can go...but with Human Beings it goes a lot further...it is not enough to know its your duty to love those you have care for...you must also show it to them in a way they understand so you can empower them...otherwise...they actually wont register that you love them.

2) Thats fine for you to say. Due to the fact you are Male, noone is gonna turn round and say that you are wrong. But those different parts of being a priest hold the fundementals of both genders. If you claim only a man can be a pastor, then only he must fill all the roles...what is left for the woman??

She cant lead, coz thats male, she cant nurture...because you claim thats now male also...as the role therefore can only be male...what is left for her.

I ask this because...effeminates are bundled into the same boats as women. At least women are made with the mind of being in the boat. at least they arent considered as men who didnt quite make the cut.

So...in essence...what is worse then being a woman? In essence...being an effeminate I suppose...its like a man whose failed at what he's supposed to be. Its fine if you CAN lead, and you CAN be masculine...but what if you actually cant do much more then a woman...but you are still in the form of a man.

Fancy the humiliation of being told you arent fit to lead, or fit to be in a leadership position. Go sit down and shut up with the rest of the women, because your not one of us :cry:

Now you know how I feel.

NateR
04-14-2009, 12:53 AM
So what you are saying is you prefer a man to lead but will follow a women if that was the last resort? So are you conceding that this is a personal opinion and not in the bible? Because that is all I am saying. My personal opinion is man was designed to lead and part of eves curse was to be under a man so they have no real place in leadership. But as the bible shows God has used many women to lead. SO we can't argue with the bible

Well, I wouldn't say that an underground church in China that is lead by a woman is sinning. And I wouldn't condemn one in America that is teaching sound biblical doctrine. However, I don't think I could be a part of a church led by a woman and just passively accept that. I would probably feel convicted by GOD towards leadership in that church.

Again, I've listened to female teachers and, in many ways, I actually prefer some Bible studies aimed towards women. Mainly because the Bible studies aimed towards men, that I have encountered, are usually dumbed down to cater to male stereotypes and filled with sports references.

Anyways, I think we've agreed all along.

Chris F
04-14-2009, 12:57 AM
Well, I wouldn't say that an underground church in China that is lead by a woman is sinning. And I wouldn't condemn one in America that is teaching sound biblical doctrine. However, I don't think I could be a part of a church led by a woman and just passively accept that. I would probably feel convicted by GOD towards leadership in that church.

Again, I've listened to female teachers and, in many ways, I actually prefer some Bible studies aimed towards women. Mainly because the Bible studies aimed towards men, that I have encountered, are usually dumbed down to cater to male stereotypes and filled with sports references.

Anyways, I think we've agreed all along.

I think so! :wink:

Elijah
04-14-2009, 02:12 AM
I am new to the forums and after reading through the entire 7 pages of thread, I was reminded of these verses:

2 Timothy 2:23-24 - Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, becuase you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

As well as Ephesians 5:4 - Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Miss Foxy
04-14-2009, 02:18 AM
Do sheep need Emotional Care??? :laugh:

:huh:

Its an analogy, People arent really Sheep Nathan...infact caring for a Sheep...a Man can do...CARING for another Human being...is primarily what Women are good at.

Sheep dont need loving...they just need leadership. Humans need love aswell as leadership....men really aint much good at anything but the latter...unless they are effeminate...but we must forget those who are... :unsure:
Honestly I think men can be just as comforting as women. I prefer to seek guidance from important men in my life. I think men look at things with less dramatics. Just my opinion...

Miss Foxy
04-14-2009, 02:23 AM
Stereotypes? YOU are the one claiming Women cant be leaders

and you still havent told me what role they DO have in the church :huh:
I believe Mark asked us what do we each believe. It doesnt make Nathan, myself, Primadawn bad people. I believe we were the ones that were more against women as leaders in the church. I don't think, because we aren't agreeing with everyone that a great debate needs to be cast against Nathan honestly he's a smart man. However I don't believe he says things to hurt anyone he is just being truthful with his feelings. As I am.

VCURamFan
04-14-2009, 03:04 AM
I am new to the forums and after reading through the entire 7 pages of thread, I was reminded of these verses:

2 Timothy 2:23-24 - Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, becuase you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

As well as Ephesians 5:4 - Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.Thanks for the reminded, Elijah. You should stick around & just re-post this every coupla threads, we're gonna need it!:laugh:

I'm gonna call it quits in here. There's nothing to be gained from this.

Mark
04-14-2009, 10:12 AM
1 Timothy How people should act and what kind of leaders a church should have.
1 TI 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man.
3:2 The husband of but on wife.
3:4 He must manage his family well.
3:6 He...
3:7 He...
3:8 Men worthy of respect.
3:12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife.
Titus How to be a good leader of the church.
1.6 The husband of but one wife.
1:7 he...
1:8 he...
1:9 He...
If you want to comment on this you should read all the scripture in your bible.
The definition of a elder in my bible.
The older men of a town or nation....

Dave dont take this the wrong way, but I dont care about the catholic church in Hillsboro much less in England. So you dont have to comment on this. Mark

Llamafighter
04-14-2009, 12:36 PM
1 Timothy How people should act and what kind of leaders a church should have.
1 TI 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man.
3:2 The husband of but on wife.
3:4 He must manage his family well.
3:6 He...
3:7 He...
3:8 Men worthy of respect.
3:12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife.
Titus How to be a good leader of the church.
1.6 The husband of but one wife.
1:7 he...
1:8 he...
1:9 He...
If you want to comment on this you should read all the scripture in your bible.
The definition of a elder in my bible.
The older men of a town or nation....

Dave dont take this the wrong way, but I dont care about the catholic church in Hillsboro much less in England. So you dont have to comment on this. Mark
I'm glad we're starting a Bible study on here because I'm constantly reminded of how long it's been since I've REALLY read my Bible.
Thanks for posting Mark, it's interesting to hear everyone's thoughts on these subjects.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 01:04 PM
:rolleyes: Mark...I am NOT Catholic :laugh:

I am Anglican...the Church that broke away from Rome under King Henry 8th during the Reformation.

For the record...Roman Catholics would aggree with you. No Women. Period.

As for having to comment...I cant control myself :laugh: :laugh:

Dave dont take this the wrong way, but I dont care about the catholic church in Hillsboro much less in England. So you dont have to comment on this. Mark

Boomer
04-14-2009, 01:06 PM
Well I'll offer my two cents. This is an important modern day question, especially in the light of the social climate that proclaims all things are equal. Most people are surprised by my stance on this, since most would consider my theology a bit on the liberal side, but I have to say that I do not believe that women should be Pastors and Elders in the church. It has nothing to do with any chauvinistic tenancies. If I thought women in those roles was Biblical I would have no issue with it.

My understanding of this comes for the study of the authority structure God established within the church. It's important to note, that my context for this is related to the church and church alone. I do not believe this translates over into the political or economic spheres of society, which I believe confuse many people when trying to use Biblical examples of women leaders to justify this point. I also don't believe that this translates over into other offices of the church such as teachers, evangelist or prophets. Again confusing many people in the debate when they use Biblical characters in this defense of being “Pastors.” I full support women in ministry and believe God calls women into ministry .. but I do hold that the office of a pastor or elder is an office for a man by God's design.

Looking at creation Genesis tells us in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve. He put Adam in the garden and gave him the authority to name all the animals. Afterwards, God made Eve as a helper to Adam. This is important in this debate because the Apostle Paul refers to this in his letter to Timothy. 1 Timothy 2:12-14 – says, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” Paul was highlighting to Timothy the structure of authority God established in relating to God all the way back to creation. God, Adam, Eve. After the fall of man and Jesus stepping in the gap and the church being established as the body relating to God through Jesus, the authority structure is God, Jesus, Man, Women. The second and third chapters of Timothy and in Titus instruct men and women with no mention of women ever being in a spiritual authoritative position over a man. Men are singled out in Timothy and Titus as Pastors / Elders because of the created order of God, and not based on period social customs which many use as an excuse for eradicating the masculine focus in those passages.

God is a God of order and balance. He has established order within the family (Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-21 ) and the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 11:8-9). Even within the Trinity there is an order, a hierarchy. The Father sent the Son (John 6:38) and both the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me," (John 6:38). It is clear that God is a God of order and structure.
In creation, God made Adam first and then Eve to be his helper. This is the order of creation. It is this order that Paul mentions in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 when speaking of authority in relation to the church.

That's my logic based off what I understand to be true in weighing the balance of what is culturally driven instruction in the Bible vs what transcends time and culture to be God's created order. When studying this I didn't come at it with a social agenda of what I wanted the Bible to say. I'm pretty open to changing my way of thinking to match what the Bibles says and not changing what the Bible says to match my way of thinking. I've tackled many things I've been taught growing up in the church and changed my stance based on Biblical understanding. This just happens to be one of my “unpopular” conclusions.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 01:21 PM
I also don't believe that this translates over into other offices of the church such as teachers, evangelist or prophets. Again confusing many people in the debate when they use Biblical characters in this defense of being “Pastors.” I full support women in ministry and believe God calls women into ministry .. but I do hold that the office of a pastor or elder is an office for a man by God's design.
.
But arent Priests Evangelists? :huh:

Do you actually have a title in your Church called "Evangelist" We dont in Anglicanism.

I mean some churches call their Leaders Evangelists, rather the pastors...this means sometimes Evangelists and Pastors are the same thing. Surely if Pastors are to be men, so to must be Evangelists...and like everyone else, you havent told us WHAT ministry Women can perform :huh:

I thought they couldnt be Teachers either. That would mean they taught people, possibly younger males.

Boomer
04-14-2009, 01:34 PM
But arent Priests Evangelists? :huh:

Do you actually have a title in your Church called "Evangelist" We dont in Anglicanism.

I mean some churches call their Leaders Evangelists, rather the pastors...this means sometimes Evangelists and Pastors are the same thing. Surely if Pastors are to be men, so to must be Evangelists...and like everyone else, you havent told us WHAT ministry Women can perform :huh:

I thought they couldnt be Teachers either. That would mean they taught people, possibly younger males.

People carry dual offices within the church structure ... so yes some churches are headed by pastors that also have a mantel of evangelist ... some pastors are also great teachers and so on. An evangelist has a mantel of winning people to Christ, reaching out to the lost.

Teaching to understand God's word doesn't equate to the authority structure God established. Woman can have just as much revelation and insight into the nature and understanding of God as a man. Why shouldn't she share that and help others see and learn.

rearnakedchoke
04-14-2009, 02:06 PM
In this day and age, it is fine for women to lead in the church. As long as they are teaching the bible, there is nothing wrong with it .. if you are uncomfortable listening to a lady preacher, that is fine, no one is saying you can't go somewhere else, but don't deny a lady who wants to lead a church

Neezar
04-14-2009, 03:02 PM
The bible actually list female deaconesses and female leaders of the church. So to ignore it would be unbiblical. Many people use the excuse that Paul told women to be silent in Church but they ignore the historical background and context of that verse. The Corinthian church had a specific problem. We forget the letter were written to Churches with problems that needs guidance. We cannot make a dogma on one verse so out of context.

They also make the excuse husband of one wife. Well by that logic we must exclude all single people as well.

No one forgets that the letter was written to a church with problems. Apparantly Paul felt that women out of their place in the church was a problem. :laugh:

Just because the letter wasn't written to us doesn't mean that we shouldn't learn the lessons from it.

Neezar
04-14-2009, 03:05 PM
TYPICAL Winkett. She is ever-so-slightly millitant on such matters...but its to be expected...she is a pioneer in the field of Women in Ministry in the Church of England...



Why is it to be expected that she would be militant? Are you saying that because she is a pioneer (i.e) a leader into Women in Ministry that she is a little......dare I say, manly?! :huh:



:laugh:

Neezar
04-14-2009, 03:11 PM
Women have a huge place in the church. They are needed and imperative to the good health of a church. But one should never lead it! A man should never go to a woman as a leader. If the man needs love & warmth then let him go to his wife or mother. lol. If he needs spiritual guidance then let him go the the shepherd. (shepherd n. One who herds, guards, and tends sheep. One who cares for and guides a group of people, as a minister or teacher.)



How can a woman teach a man to be a man of God?


Should we really base our choices on a few exceptions to the rule or the general teachings of the bible?

Neezar
04-14-2009, 03:30 PM
1 Corinthians 16.19 :)

I dont know if thats the only verse or if there are more :ninja:

Titus...which you quote, is a brief about the Hierachy of the Church. The point is not whether they are male or female, the point is how the church should be governed. Its Pontifical (With Deacons, Priests, Bishops...or whatever names you have for a heirachical church)

Funny how it points out that it should be governed by men. :laugh:


Tell me Nathan...how can a Male Priest be at all "pastoral" The stereotypical male leader is NOT Pastoral...perhaps the Early Church used the men for teaching, and the women for pastoral ministry...perhaps Women were forbidden to teach...but they had a pastoral ministry that you would deny them.

Being a leader is all about masculinity...so dont go telling me that any Male leader can be "pastoral"...and any Effeminates you may know DONT COUNT, coz they aint allowed either. The Church is FULL of effeminate Male Priests who are as good as women...but we must exclude them because...they shouldnt really be leading...not strictly speaking :laugh:

Main Entry: 1pas·to·ral http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?pastor05.wav=pastoral')) Pronunciation: \ˈpas-t(ə-)rəl\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Latin pastoralis, from pastor herdsman Date: 15th century 1 a (1): of, relating to, or composed of shepherds or herdsmen (2): devoted to or based on livestock raising b: of or relating to the countryside : not urban <a pastoral setting> c: portraying or expressive of the life of shepherds or country people especially in an idealized and conventionalized manner <pastoral poetry> d: pleasingly peaceful and innocent : idyllic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idyllic)2 a: of or relating to spiritual care or guidance especially of a congregation b: of or relating to the pastor (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pastor) of a church
— pas·to·ral·ly http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?pastor06.wav=pastorally')) \-t(ə-)rə-lē\ adverb
— pas·to·ral·ness noun


Dave, what is your definition of 'pastoral'?



Do sheep need Emotional Care??? :laugh:

:huh:

Its an analogy, People arent really Sheep Nathan...infact caring for a Sheep...a Man can do...CARING for another Human being...is primarily what Women are good at.

Sheep dont need loving...they just need leadership. Humans need love aswell as leadership....men really aint much good at anything but the latter...unless they are effeminate...but we must forget those who are... :unsure:

Dave, no wonder you are gay! You apparently are still seeking love from a man that you never recieved. So, maybe you weren't born that way. You must be speaking from you own experience here because I couldn't disagree more!

Apparently God disagrees with you on who is best to lead the church.






p.s. Dave, you are doing it again. You know, the turning every thread into a gay thread. This isn't about gays. It is about women. So, back off! :angry:



:laugh:

Neezar
04-14-2009, 03:39 PM
Wow, I had a lot to say about this.

I think women are imperative to the church just like they are imperative to a family. But I don't think they should lead it. If there is a situation where a woman must pick up and lead then so be it. For instance, if a man leaves his family and the woman has to step up and lead then she can do so and still be pleasing to the Lord. But I still think it is His wishes and His preference for the family to be whole and led by a man, just as with the church.

Miss Foxy
04-14-2009, 03:40 PM
Wow, I had a lot to say about this.

I think women are imperative to the church just like they are imperative to a family. But I don't think they should lead it. If there is a situation where a woman must pick up and lead then so be it. For instance, if a man leaves his family and the woman has to step up and lead then she can do so and still be pleasing to the Lord. But I still think it is His wishes and His preference for the family to be whole and led by a man, just as with the church.
Couldnt agree more Neezar. Once again you broke it down in plain English. :)

rearnakedchoke
04-14-2009, 03:45 PM
Wow, I had a lot to say about this.

I think women are imperative to the church just like they are imperative to a family. But I don't think they should lead it. If there is a situation where a woman must pick up and lead then so be it. For instance, if a man leaves his family and the woman has to step up and lead then she can do so and still be pleasing to the Lord. But I still think it is His wishes and His preference for the family to be whole and led by a man, just as with the church.

well, if you go by what the bible says, then women should be "silent" in the church ... sure the bible says women can't lead the church, but that was in a different time, they were capable then, but they are for sure capable now ... if we go by what the bible says all the time, men who find out their wives weren't virgins would be having them stoned in the streets ....

Crisco
04-14-2009, 03:46 PM
well, if you go by what the bible says, then women should be "silent" in the church ... sure the bible says women can't lead the church, but that was in a different time, they were capable then, but they are for sure capable now ... if we go by what the bible says all the time, men who find out their wives weren't virgins would be having them stoned in the streets ....

Have to read it in context

rearnakedchoke
04-14-2009, 03:48 PM
Have to read it in context

And what about stoning women who aren't virgins when they are married, how do i read that in context?

Neezar
04-14-2009, 03:49 PM
well, if you go by what the bible says, then women should be "silent" in the church ... sure the bible says women can't lead the church, but that was in a different time, they were (did you mean 'weren't' here:huh: ) capable then, but they are for sure capable now ... if we go by what the bible says all the time, men who find out their wives weren't virgins would be having them stoned in the streets ....

First question: The stoning? Is that in the New Testament? :unsure:





Second question: Are you saying that the bible doesn't apply to us anymore? That we have somehow out grown it?

rearnakedchoke
04-14-2009, 03:52 PM
First question: The stoning? Is that in the New Testament? :unsure:





Second question: Are you saying that the bible doesn't apply to us anymore? That we have somehow out grown it?

No, i meant they "May" have been capable based on their studies of the bible (i am assuming men were given a greater opp to study the bible in these times)

and no, we have not outgrown the bible, but we if we are going to take one section as it is written (as men leading the church) then we must take all sections as written ..

Neezar
04-14-2009, 04:06 PM
No, i meant they "May" have been capable based on their studies of the bible (i am assuming men were given a greater opp to study the bible in these times)

and no, we have not outgrown the bible, but we if we are going to take one section as it is written (as men leading the church) then we must take all sections as written ..

You will have to be more specific? Are you still referring to the stoning? Where is that in the bible?

And some parts of the bible are clearly giving us guidelines and directing us while others are things told to teach a lesson but not meant literally. That is why we must study the bible and pray to God. You really must have a relationship with God and allow him to guide you on what is right and wrong on a personal level. That is quite different on interpreting his intentions for the order of things in the family and in the church. Don't you think?

Mark
04-14-2009, 04:11 PM
In this day and age, it is fine for women to lead in the church. As long as they are teaching the bible, there is nothing wrong with it .. if you are uncomfortable listening to a lady preacher, that is fine, no one is saying you can't go somewhere else, but don't deny a lady who wants to lead a church

Do you have a scriptural reference for this or is it just a personal opinion? I know I asked for opinions, but I wanted them to be based in scripture. Why do you think it is fine for a woman to lead in the church? Mark

Mark
04-14-2009, 04:12 PM
Wow, I had a lot to say about this.

I think women are imperative to the church just like they are imperative to a family. But I don't think they should lead it. If there is a situation where a woman must pick up and lead then so be it. For instance, if a man leaves his family and the woman has to step up and lead then she can do so and still be pleasing to the Lord. But I still think it is His wishes and His preference for the family to be whole and led by a man, just as with the church.

Nice to see you again, Neezar, I haven't talked to you in a while.

Neezar
04-14-2009, 04:15 PM
Nice to see you again, Neezar, I haven't talked to you in a while.

Good to see you around, too. :wub:


I just checked...My pm box is open and my phone is working. :cool:





:laugh:

CAVEMAN
04-14-2009, 04:15 PM
http://www.carm.org/christianity/miscellaneous-topics/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders

Bonnie
04-14-2009, 04:49 PM
This has been very enlightening. Good thread!

The bible study hasn't started yet and I'm already learning so much. :)

rearnakedchoke
04-14-2009, 04:56 PM
Do you have a scriptural reference for this or is it just a personal opinion? I know I asked for opinions, but I wanted them to be based in scripture. Why do you think it is fine for a woman to lead in the church? Mark

What I am saying, is that when the bible was written, it was common for the roles of women and men to be divided into certain roles. I think as time goes on, times change .. I am not saying that the bible becomes obsolete, but in the time the bible was written, it was accepted that men lead the church, men studied scripture formally and women did not ... now that is different, there are women that have studied scripture and know the teachings of the bible and Christ very well, well enough in fact that they can lead a church .. I can't point to a verse in scripture where it says women can lead a church. But I have pointed to other parts of scripture where we have adapted our beliefs because of the change in the time period (I used the example that says a man should have his wife stoned if he finds out his wife is not a virgin when they marry) ... and there are many more ... over time we have come to believe that this is not a right teaching (i hope we have) and if we can come to believe that, can we not come to believe that women are capable of leading a church? .. again, it is totally up to the individual to attend a church, but i wouldn't have a problem with attending a church lead by a women ....

Boomer
04-14-2009, 05:01 PM
You are mixing Old Testament covenant with God before Christ with New Testament covenant with God after Christ. Relating to God and orders of society change according to what Christ did ... we are now all under grace. that has nothing to do with the leadership offices in the Church that were outlined and made clear after Christ's death and resurrection.

What I am saying, is that when the bible was written, it was common for the roles of women and men to be divided into certain roles. I think as time goes on, times change .. I am not saying that the bible becomes obsolete, but in the time the bible was written, it was accepted that men lead the church, men studied scripture formally and women did not ... now that is different, there are women that have studied scripture and know the teachings of the bible and Christ very well, well enough in fact that they can lead a church .. I can't point to a verse in scripture where it says women can lead a church. But I have pointed to other parts of scripture where we have adapted our beliefs because of the change in the time period (I used the example that says a man should have his wife stoned if he finds out his wife is not a virgin when they marry) ... and there are many more ... over time we have come to believe that this is not a right teaching (i hope we have) and if we can come to believe that, can we not come to believe that women are capable of leading a church? .. again, it is totally up to the individual to attend a church, but i wouldn't have a problem with attending a church lead by a women ....

Crisco
04-14-2009, 05:07 PM
You are mixing Old Testament covenant with God before Christ with New Testament covenant with God after Christ. Relating to God and orders of society change according to what Christ did ... we are now all under grace. that has nothing to do with the leadership offices in the Church that were outlined and made clear after Christ's death and resurrection.

I miss you man... You have to come see me when you get back to the states.

Boomer
04-14-2009, 05:09 PM
I miss you man... You have to come see me when you get back to the states.

You know it my friend! We gots some fights to see!! :D

Crisco
04-14-2009, 05:12 PM
You know it my friend! We gots some fights to see!! :D

I still want to go out to the hitsquad and train for a bit. You should go with me!

Boomer
04-14-2009, 05:15 PM
I still want to go out to the hitsquad and train for a bit. You should go with me!

Deal ... Ill take pictures and bring you water. :laugh: Im rolling with these 21-25 year old out here in Afghan and they DESTROY me. I keep telling myself 34 isn't old, but the smell of Ben Gay and rubbing salt is telling a different story.

Neezar
04-14-2009, 05:17 PM
there are women that have studied scripture and know the teachings of the bible and Christ very well, well enough in fact that they can lead a church ..

Knowing the bible doesn't = being a good leader of the church. I have noticed that some atheist study the bible just for the sake of arguments and know it well.


.......and if we can come to believe that, can we not come to believe that women are capable of leading a church?

I don't think anyone is arguing that women are capable. Only that God seems to prefer men as leaders of the church (with few exceptions).


........but i wouldn't have a problem with attending a church lead by a women ....

You would be okay attending the church but would you feel comfortable going to that woman and seeking spiritual guidance?



How would you feel about a woman being the dominate one in your household?

Bonnie
04-14-2009, 05:31 PM
I believe the Bible is timeless. If you ever read Psalms and Proverbs, you can see this clearly. It can apply to the person of yesterday and the person of today. The Bible tells us of our beginning from Creation and forebodes of our end. It covers everything!

Unfortunately, man's many interpretations is where we seem to run afoul. But, God always knows what man's next move is and has already planned the "final" counter. wink:

You know how Matt is always saying for every move there is a counter, and for every counter, a counter. Can you imagine what God thinks of our "counters" to His Word? :laugh:

By God's grace...

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 05:39 PM
People carry dual offices within the church structure ... so yes some churches are headed by pastors that also have a mantel of evangelist ... some pastors are also great teachers and so on. An evangelist has a mantel of winning people to Christ, reaching out to the lost.

Teaching to understand God's word doesn't equate to the authority structure God established. Woman can have just as much revelation and insight into the nature and understanding of God as a man. Why shouldn't she share that and help others see and learn.
Because Teaching gives her power over who she is teaching. In the Church, this authority structure (if your correct) means Women shouldnt be above men.

Often a Teacher has more actual sway then the Pastor of the church anyway. More direct imput, one on one, in Sunday school, actively teaching the Children, rather then being a kinda distant leader of the Church.

My problem with this is that if you take that Structure to its logical conclusion, Women have no active ministry unless its strictly over other Women, and men who dont lead, do less.

I undertsand the heirachy of the Church which Paul outlines in Titus also...its a web of power. Power and enforcement flow down from him, to leaders of groups of churches, to leaders within churches, to ministries within the church. If you say Women cant be above men, they cant teach or preach to men...then you end up with the Roman Catholic System. A Pontifical Structure completely Male.

I think I like Pastor Chris and his idea better. That, yes, ordinarily Men should lead the Church. However, if there are no Males who GOD can use, he will rase up suitable women. Therefore...its probably alright to have a few Women in positions of power within the Church. :ninja:

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 05:45 PM
Why is it to be expected that she would be militant? Are you saying that because she is a pioneer (i.e) a leader into Women in Ministry that she is a little......dare I say, manly?! :huh:



:laugh:
:laugh: She had to fight the Church to be ordained. She had to not only be passionate about her Beliefs, but absolutely fearless in vocalising about it. Later Women just got ordained as Standard...but she was one of the people who started the training BEFORE they knew for certain the vote in the Church would go their way.

She's bound to therefore speak about it alot...Honnestly...its to be expected because she had to actively fight to get the church to acknowledge her. Its should come as no suprise that a lot of her surmons go on themes of Gender Equality, Lots of her themes include a mild brand of feminism. Lots of her ministry is aimed at empowering Women..

She is bound to be slightly like that because she was one of the first. Later Women Priests dont even think about the fact they are women :laugh:

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 05:50 PM
Dave, no wonder you are gay! You apparently are still seeking love from a man that you never recieved. So, maybe you weren't born that way. You must be speaking from you own experience here because I couldn't disagree more!

Yeah...I had no manly love...that must be it :blink: Its funny...but my Mother IS the dominant one in their thirty year marriage. :ninja:

Also I never had a brother, just two younger Sisters :mellow:

:laugh: :laugh:

NateR
04-14-2009, 05:53 PM
I think I like Pastor Chris and his idea better. That, yes, ordinarily Men should lead the Church. However, if there are no Males who GOD can use, he will rase up suitable women. Therefore...its probably alright to have a few Women in positions of power within the Church. :ninja:

It's not about power, it's about leadership. Two completely different concepts. Jesus taught us that the best leadership comes through servitude. How did Jesus lead? By ruling over the disciples with an iron fist and forcing them to cater to His every need? No, Jesus led by washing the disciples feet, putting the needs of others above His own, and ultimately sacrificing His life for His flock. Servitude and sacrifice are the only acceptable forms of church leadership.

Any person, man or woman, actively seeking to gain power in the church, should be permanently banned from all forms of church leadership.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 05:58 PM
It's not about power, it's about leadership. Two completely different concepts. Jesus taught us that the best leadership comes through servitude. How did Jesus lead? By ruling over the disciples with an iron fist and forcing them to cater to His every need? No, Jesus led by washing the disciples feet, putting the needs of others above His own, and ultimately sacrificing His life for His flock. Servitude and sacrifice are the only acceptable forms of church leadership.

Any person, man or woman, actively seeking to gain power in the church, should be permanently banned from all forms of church leadership.
GOOD POINT


Plenty of them do. On a daily basis. I've seen it with my own eyes...NO institution is as political a place to work for, then the Church....Except, perhaps the Government itself.

Plus...its sad to say that Leadership and Power tend to go together in the fallen world. If you dont have power, you cant lead. Isnt that more or less why the Jews missed Christ the first time?? They were looking for someone to lead, they were looking for someone with Power also.

VCURamFan
04-14-2009, 07:16 PM
1) Because Teaching gives her power over who she is teaching. In the Church, this authority structure (if your correct) means Women shouldnt be above men.

2) Often a Teacher has more actual sway then the Pastor of the church anyway. More direct imput, one on one, in Sunday school, actively teaching the Children, rather then being a kinda distant leader of the Church.

3) My problem with this is that if you take that Structure to its logical conclusion, Women have no active ministry unless its strictly over other Women, and men who dont lead, do less.

4) I undertsand the heirachy of the Church which Paul outlines in Titus also...its a web of power. Power and enforcement flow down from him, to leaders of groups of churches, to leaders within churches, to ministries within the church. If you say Women cant be above men, they cant teach or preach to men...then you end up with the Roman Catholic System. A Pontifical Structure completely Male.

5) I think I like Pastor Chris and his idea better. That, yes, ordinarily Men should lead the Church. However, if there are no Males who GOD can use, he will rase up suitable women. Therefore...its probably alright to have a few Women in positions of power within the Church. :ninja:Dave, I think that you're making a few faulty assumptions here, and I just want to point out where I think you're making a mis-step so either a) you recognize & correct it; or b) you explain yourself more fully (with scripture to back it up) so that I can recognize & correct my mistake. I'm saying this upfront so that if there's a point where my words might be interpretted as demaning or belittling or arrogant, please know that's not my intention & I'm just trying to discuss. Don't take offense at what I say because I'm not trying to offend.

1) Boomer really hasn't interpretted anything. He went straight to the Bible and relayed exactly what it said. At "worst" he has paraphrased it. This isn't a guess at what he thinks God's saying: it's the scripture. This is the authority structure laid down by God.

2) I'm not really certain what experience you've had with your pastors/preists growing up (head out of he gutter, Mike!:laugh:), but if they were "distant leaders", then I'd have to say that's either a fault of them, personally, or of the heirarchy that your demonination has created. Going back again to the shepherding example, a Pastor is meant to be in direct care of the flock. He's supposed to be rigth there in the trenches, caring for them, ministering to them, praying with/for them.

All of my pastors have always been extremely involved in our lives. They've come to my band concerts, they've been there in the hospitals when my family has celebrated births and mourned deaths. They've been at the weddings, the graduations, the parties. The teach Sunday School (Pastor Bullock is actually teaching a series on family worship right now, it's really convicting). If your pastors do not do this, then they are either failing their congregations or else they are being prevented from ministering by the way the church government allows them to interact.

What I'm trying to get at is this: a good pastor is not a great high leader set upon a pedestal who is to be admired but never disturbed. He is a sinful, broken just like the rest of us, but one who has been given gifts by the Lord to lead others closer to Christ.

3) This is not true. We have women on our Education Committee, on the Foreign Missions Committee, on the Building Maintanence Committee, the Pastoral Search Commity (when we were looking for a new pastor) and in a host of other ministry capacities. While each of these committees is officially chaired by either an elder or a deacon (male), these women are still serving the church from a position of leadership.

In fact, you gave a great example of women leading Sunday School. I've had numerous women Sunday School teachers throughout the years as I've grown up. Also, even though we regularly have elders teaching the adult class, we've also had women teach us. One specific example I can recall was when Mrs. Wade taught a four-week class abuot Bio-Ethics and Stem-cell research (her area of expertise in the "secular" world).

I think the fundamental flaw in your thinking is this: just because they are not in charge does not mean that can't minister to the Church. There's ton of ways that anyone can serve without being an elder , deacon or pastor. For example, my mother is a counselor and she will regularly minister to church members by talking with them and helping them through whatever they're struggling with. To believe that you have to be a pastor in order to serve is a perversion of scripture.

4) I disagree. My church has followed the biblical blueprint for church government & we don't have heirarchal system like the Catholics or the Anglicans. It's very much like a Republic: the elders & deacons are elected by the congregation. They sit on the Session/Deaconate (respectively) & make decisions on behlaf of the church. Whenever a matter of importance arises (church discipline, budget, mission trips, etc.), they bring this matter before the church as a whole and we vote, as a church, on whether or not to pursue action. Once the church votes & a decision is made, the Session/deaconate acts upon the chruch's wishes. As you can see, a woman has just as much power here as any man. Her vote is jus as weighty in electing elders or deacons, approving a budget or agreeing to send out a mission team.

5) Again, this comes back to the problem of how you process your opinions & beliefs: you decide you like Pastor Chris's idea, then you attempt to find scripture to support his idea. What you should be doing is taking scripture at face value and determining what it says first, then taking individual's beliefs & weighing them against scripture. To pick & choose what doctrines are attractive to you & which aren't without basing it on the Bible ishow heresies are started.

Also, you're taking an extreme example & treating it like the norm. In the case of a woman leading the family, it's a situation where the adult male is gone. He left the home & she is the only remaining adult. At that point in time, it is up to her to step up & lead. To then try to translate that to a church in which a man chooses to not step up, but rather let a woman take over is comparing apples to oranges. If a man refuses to step into a leadership role when he is needed, that is sinful. This does not, however, give a woman the justification to sin as well. Like they say, two wrongs don't make a right. She should be imploring the men of her church to live up to what Christ requires of them, not allowing them to continue in sin.

One of the most ironic things that I've read in this thread (from you & others as well, Dave), is the idea that "as long as she's teaching the Bible" it's OK to have a wman pastor. What makes me laugh is the fact that the Bible clearly states that being a pastor is the role of a man. If this woman was truly teaching the entire Bible, she would never be in the pulpit in the first place. It's like saying "I don't mind if an immigrant is Predident, jsut so long as he upholds the Constitution.":laugh:

Crisco
04-14-2009, 07:32 PM
and what is the verse where the bible "clearly states" this?

VCURamFan
04-14-2009, 07:45 PM
and what is the verse where the bible "clearly states" this?I'm referencing 1 Timothy & Titus. Matter of fact, I think Mark already quoted them already, hang on a sec...

Crisco
04-14-2009, 07:51 PM
I'm referencing 1 Timothy & Titus. Matter of fact, I think Mark already quoted them already, hang on a sec...

Yea scope it out I'd like to read more into it.

VCURamFan
04-14-2009, 07:58 PM
OK, well, he quoted bits & pieces. Here's what he posted:

1 Timothy How people should act and what kind of leaders a church should have.
1 TI 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over man.
3:2 The husband of but on wife.
3:4 He must manage his family well.
3:6 He...
3:7 He...
3:8 Men worthy of respect.
3:12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife.

Titus How to be a good leader of the church.
1.6 The husband of but one wife.
1:7 he...
1:8 he...
1:9 He... Here's the entire passages referenced:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer [1] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+3#f1) must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, [2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+3#f2) sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. 8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, [3] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+3#f3) not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must [4] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+3#f4) be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Here's the footnotes:
[1] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+3#b1) 3:2 Or bishop; Greek episkopos; a similar term occurs in verse 1
[2] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+3#b2) 3:2 Or a man of one woman; also verse 12
[3] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+3#b3) 3:8 Or devious in speech
[4] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Timothy+3#b4) 3:11 Or Wives, likewise, must, or Women, likewise, must
And finally, Titus:
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, [3] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=titus#f3) and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7 For an overseer, [4] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=titus#f4) as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound [5] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=titus#f5) doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
And footnotes:
[3] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=titus#b3) 1:6 Or a man of one woman
[4] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=titus#b4) 1:7 Or bishop; Greek episkopos
[5] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=titus#b5) 1:9 Or healthy; also verse 13
This is from the English Standard Version.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 07:59 PM
Dave, I think that you're making a few faulty assumptions here, and I just want to point out where I think you're making a mis-step so either a) you recognize & correct it; or b) you explain yourself more fully (with scripture to back it up) so that I can recognize & correct my mistake. I'm saying this upfront so that if there's a point where my words might be interpretted as demaning or belittling or arrogant, please know that's not my intention & I'm just trying to discuss. Don't take offense at what I say because I'm not trying to offend.

1) Boomer really hasn't interpretted anything. He went straight to the Bible and relayed exactly what it said. At "worst" he has paraphrased it. This isn't a guess at what he thinks God's saying: it's the scripture. This is the authority structure laid down by God.

2) I'm not really certain what experience you've had with your pastors/preists growing up (head out of he gutter, Mike!:laugh:), but if they were "distant leaders", then I'd have to say that's either a fault of them, personally, or of the heirarchy that your demonination has created. Going back again to the shepherding example, a Pastor is meant to be in direct care of the flock. He's supposed to be rigth there in the trenches, caring for them, ministering to them, praying with/for them.

All of my pastors have always been extremely involved in our lives. They've come to my band concerts, they've been there in the hospitals when my family has celebrated births and mourned deaths. They've been at the weddings, the graduations, the parties. The teach Sunday School (Pastor Bullock is actually teaching a series on family worship right now, it's really convicting). If your pastors do not do this, then they are either failing their congregations or else they are being prevented from ministering by the way the church government allows them to interact.

What I'm trying to get at is this: a good pastor is not a great high leader set upon a pedestal who is to be admired but never disturbed. He is a sinful, broken just like the rest of us, but one who has been given gifts by the Lord to lead others closer to Christ.

3) This is not true. We have women on our Education Committee, on the Foreign Missions Committee, on the Building Maintanence Committee, the Pastoral Search Commity (when we were looking for a new pastor) and in a host of other ministry capacities. While each of these committees is officially chaired by either an elder or a deacon (male), these women are still serving the church from a position of leadership.

In fact, you gave a great example of women leading Sunday School. I've had numerous women Sunday School teachers throughout the years as I've grown up. Also, even though we regularly have elders teaching the adult class, we've also had women teach us. One specific example I can recall was when Mrs. Wade taught a four-week class abuot Bio-Ethics and Stem-cell research (her area of expertise in the "secular" world).

I think the fundamental flaw in your thinking is this: just because they are not in charge does not mean that can't minister to the Church. There's ton of ways that anyone can serve without being an elder , deacon or pastor. For example, my mother is a counselor and she will regularly minister to church members by talking with them and helping them through whatever they're struggling with. To believe that you have to be a pastor in order to serve is a perversion of scripture.

4) I disagree. My church has followed the biblical blueprint for church government & we don't have heirarchal system like the Catholics or the Anglicans. It's very much like a Republic: the elders & deacons are elected by the congregation. They sit on the Session/Deaconate (respectively) & make decisions on behlaf of the church. Whenever a matter of importance arises (church discipline, budget, mission trips, etc.), they bring this matter before the church as a whole and we vote, as a church, on whether or not to pursue action. Once the church votes & a decision is made, the Session/deaconate acts upon the chruch's wishes. As you can see, a woman has just as much power here as any man. Her vote is jus as weighty in electing elders or deacons, approving a budget or agreeing to send out a mission team.

5) Again, this comes back to the problem of how you process your opinions & beliefs: you decide you like Pastor Chris's idea, then you attempt to find scripture to support his idea. What you should be doing is taking scripture at face value and determining what it says first, then taking individual's beliefs & weighing them against scripture. To pick & choose what doctrines are attractive to you & which aren't without basing it on the Bible ishow heresies are started.

6) Also, you're taking an extreme example & treating it like the norm. In the case of a woman leading the family, it's a situation where the adult male is gone. He left the home & she is the only remaining adult. At that point in time, it is up to her to step up & lead. To then try to translate that to a church in which a man chooses to not step up, but rather let a woman take over is comparing apples to oranges. If a man refuses to step into a leadership role when he is needed, that is sinful. This does not, however, give a woman the justification to sin as well. Like they say, two wrongs don't make a right. She should be imploring the men of her church to live up to what Christ requires of them, not allowing them to continue in sin.

7) One of the most ironic things that I've read in this thread (from you & others as well, Dave), is the idea that "as long as she's teaching the Bible" it's OK to have a wman pastor. What makes me laugh is the fact that the Bible clearly states that being a pastor is the role of a man. If this woman was truly teaching the entire Bible, she would never be in the pulpit in the first place. It's like saying "I don't mind if an immigrant is Predident, jsut so long as he upholds the Constitution.":laugh:

1) Of course Boomer has interpreted. He's used the Bible as a basis to draw a set of conclusions that lead to a theory as to why Men are considered better able to lead.

Simply put. Eve Sinned First. The whole interpretation is based on the mirroring of Adam over Eve with the Sin, to Men over Women in the Church being able to Lead.

Its a possible interpretation. Its a clever use of mirror symbolism, that we know the Bible DOES use. but this Authority Structure is a open to interpretation. Why does it matter who sinned first..and why does Eve sinning first mean that Adam is better??? He still sinned....at least She was tempted...He just did what he knew was plan wrong when she bought him the Apple.

So far from it being a Scripture Quote, its an interpretation. A valid and interesting one, but not Gospel if you pardon the pun.

2) Our Priests are far to busy to hands on. Thats why they have Youth Leaders, and Teachers. Those are the people who give you real interaction.

In a Cathedral its slightly different, the Priests are supposed to be a bit distant, the congregation a little larger, because the Church is NOT a parish Church...its something to be used ASWELL AS, and AS A FOCUS FOR, above and beyond the use of your own parish Church.

Difficult to worship else where when your part of a Religious Community attached to it though...and on the whole my past with ministers has always been intense. Some extremely good, and some extremely bad.

3) But if a Woman is not supposed to be above a man...how can she teach the Male Children, and how can she have a hand in selecting the new Male Pastor?? Didnt Saint Paul say she should not be above men? If you really are going to insist that she cant lead, you must adhere to the rest of what he says.

Your women should be covered, Silent, and not have positions over men where they can teach, preach of be influential.. The difficulty is where do you draw the line. When does who someone is, suddenly reach the end of the amount of service it can offer?

4) The Biblical Blueprint is Pontifical. If you want me to post Quotes, just say so. If you follow a Republicanized leadership, post the Scripture that proclaims that to be the Blueprint.

Remember...you should be useing the blueprint for the disciples and churches, NOT The Blueprint for the Apostles. The Book of Acts is about how the Governing Body of the Whole Church works...Saint Paul says something different to how that Governing Body, then governs Churches.

My guess, is you are useing the model laid out in Acts, where all the Apostles voted and stuff...but they were NOT the Church...they were the leaders of the Church getting together to vote. They were not offering referendums to the thousands of Converts....

You might like to know that the model your church uses, is the Model that the Roman Catholics use for ROME directly. When the Seniors of the Church meet (like when the Apostle of the Early church met) THEY, and Exclusively THEY vote. Outside of when the meet, they observe the Pontifical Structure the Paul dictated to Titus. Thats how the Early Church used the Blueprints. So obviously, I dont fundementally aggree that to apply the Apostolic Blueprint, to a whole load of Disciples, rather then keeping it to apply strictly to the Apostles of the community is Scriptural at all. Or rather, its missapplied. In general, I dont think it really matters...I wouldnt condemn a church for not using the pontifical structure, because the man made fabrics are fallen anyway...if it works for you, use it.

However...for the purpose of this discussion it matters, because if you use the ACTS blueprint, you already give women FAR more power then most denominations. Understand...that they dont get a "vote" in Anglianism unless they are within the Leadership...now perhaps you understand why they might have less of a chance to minister...I mean...its the structure of Paul...it limits Women.

By essentially following ther structure of Peter...you give women more of a choice and more influence....far more then Saint Paul would advocate...and even Saint Peter wouldnt apply the leadership approach of the Apostles, to the leadership approach of the wider church.

Think of the giving up of land and such like to the Apostles BY the Disciples. they are two distinct things, governed in different ways. I think your using the governance of apostles, to govern disciples.




5) Pastor Chris, is Ordained, He should be more of an authority, He's probably had special teaching that the laity dont get.

6) in relationships, there is always a flow of power. When GOD allowed the Woman Judge to rule Israel...believe me, there were men in the community, Her sworne helpper, was a Male Commander, who worked UNDER her. Who said he would not attack without HER. He NEEDED Her. She gave the commands, and as long as she came with him, He would follow them

The Lord gave them victory...so they were hardly sinning in their action. Again, say the word, and I will produce the Quote.

7) Well the Bible lists names, some are women, and there is at least a valid thought that they are Priests.

If it was good enough for the Early Church, its good enough for me. Its a matter of interpretation...but until you are telling your women to cover up islamic style...then really you shouldnt be saying my interpretation is anymore pick and mix then your own.

I presume you dont believe Women need to be covered like that :huh:

rearnakedchoke
04-14-2009, 09:23 PM
How would you feel about a woman being the dominate one in your household?

again, i have no problem with it .. i don't see myself holding a dominant position over my wife, and i know men who would do their families an injustice by trying to be a dominant figure ... some people are cut out for it and some aren't ... i don't think being born with a penis makes you an automatic leader ... there are many strong women out there that can lead families, companies and even countries ......

VCURamFan
04-14-2009, 09:44 PM
1) Of course Boomer has interpreted. He's used the Bible as a basis to draw a set of conclusions that lead to a theory as to why Men are considered better able to lead.

Simply put. Eve Sinned First. The whole interpretation is based on the mirroring of Adam over Eve with the Sin, to Men over Women in the Church being able to Lead.
I don't presume to put words in Boomer's mouth, but I think you misunderstood what he trying to say. Here's the paragraph I believe you were responding to (edited for length & emphasis added):
Looking at creation Genesis tells us in the beginning God...put Adam in the garden...afterwards, God made Eve as a helper to Adam. This is important in this debate because the Apostle Paul refers to this in his letter to Timothy. 1 Timothy 2:12-14 – says, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” Paul was highlighting to Timothy the structure of authority God established in relating to God all the way back to creation.Men are singled out in Timothy and Titus as Pastors / Elders because of the created order of God, and not based on period social customs which many use as an excuse for eradicating the masculine focus in those passages. As I see it, Boomer's not trying to say that Eve sinning is why men are in charge. Rather, Boom is showing that the authority structure is of God & was instituted at Creation, not after the fall or in the NT.

Its a possible interpretation. Its a clever use of mirror symbolism, that we know the Bible DOES use. but this Authority Structure is a open to interpretation. Why does it matter who sinned first..and why does Eve sinning first mean that Adam is better??? He still sinned....at least She was tempted...He just did what he knew was plan wrong when she bought him the Apple.
I agree that Eve's sin is a legitimate reason for the authority structure, and I think (again, not trying to put words in his mouth) Boomer does as well. I think if you re-read his post, focusing on 1) the scripture he quoted; 2) the conclusions he draws. Nowhere does Boomer say "Because Eve sinned, women will never lead". In fact, the only time he mentions the Fall is to explain why Christ came.

So far from it being a Scripture Quote, its an interpretation. A valid and interesting one, but not Gospel if you pardon the pun.
While I agree that anytime your read the Bible, there will be at least some interpretation, I don't think that Boomer was jumping through any theological hoops on this one. He simply quoted Scripture & explained how it related to previous passages.

2) Our Priests are far to busy to hands on. Thats why they have Youth Leaders, and Teachers. Those are the people who give you real interaction.
What are the preists doing that keeps them from their responsibilities? Their primary calling is to lead the people and minister to their needs. If they have so much on their plates that they need support staff in order to accomplish it all, they should relinquish their administrative tasks, not their pastoral ones. If it's still too much, then I'm all for hiring assistant pastors, but not surogate ones.

In a Cathedral its slightly different, the Priests are supposed to be a bit distant, the congregation a little larger, because the Church is NOT a parish Church...its something to be used ASWELL AS, and AS A FOCUS FOR, above and beyond the use of your own parish Church.

Difficult to worship else where when your part of a Religious Community attached to it though...and on the whole my past with ministers has always been intense. Some extremely good, and some extremely bad.
Dave, if you're only attending Cathedral become you're part of the ministry staff, but Cathedral is only meant to supplement Church teaching, then how are you growing in your faith? I don't mean this sarcastically at all, I'm just trying to understand your walk a little better.

3) But if a Woman is not supposed to be above a man...how can she teach the Male Children, and how can she have a hand in selecting the new Male Pastor?? Didnt Saint Paul say she should not be above men? If you really are going to insist that she cant lead, you must adhere to the rest of what he says.
There's a distinct difference between "male" and "man" that I think you're either missing or ignoring, Dave. I have a 3yr old nephew. He is male, but not a man. I have a 13yr old brother. He is male, but not a man.

Your women should be covered, Silent, and not have positions over men where they can teach, preach of be influential.. The difficulty is where do you draw the line. When does who someone is, suddenly reach the end of the amount of service it can offer?
I'll be honest, Dave, I don't know. This is something that I have puzzled over, but have not spent enough time prayerfully considering it in the Word to have an answer for you. My gut reaction is that they don't need to be covered or silent, but if I find that the Bible teaches otherwise, I hope I'll have the humility to adjust my beliefs to be in line with the Lord's.

4) The Biblical Blueprint is Pontifical. If you want me to post Quotes, just say so. If you follow a Republicanized leadership, post the Scripture that proclaims that to be the Blueprint.
I think you should. Since this is in the Christianity, we should try to back up everything with say with Scripture. I'll try to do the same with my posts.

Remember...you should be useing the blueprint for the disciples and churches, NOT The Blueprint for the Apostles. The Book of Acts is about how the Governing Body of the Whole Church works...Saint Paul says something different to how that Governing Body, then governs Churches.
I really don't know what you're talking about. If Paul (we're all Saints, not just the ones Rome decided were special) speaks to how the church should be governed, that's how it should be governed. Those no difference between how the "whole" church & how individual churches should be run.

My guess, is you are useing the model laid out in Acts, where all the Apostles voted and stuff...but they were NOT the Church...they were the leaders of the Church getting together to vote. They were not offering referendums to the thousands of Converts....
Dave, you're falling into a very Catholic distinctino that's entirely non-biblical. The Apostles were not above the Church. They helped found many churches, yes, but so do thousands Christians world wide each year. They, like the modern Christians, lead by example. This is not a "Do as I say, not as I do" type situation.

You might like to know that the model your church uses, is the Model that the Roman Catholics use for ROME directly. When the Seniors of the Church meet (like when the Apostle of the Early church met) THEY, and Exclusively THEY vote. Outside of when the meet, they observe the Pontifical Structure the Paul dictated to Titus. Thats how the Early Church used the Blueprints. So obviously, I dont fundementally aggree that to apply the Apostolic Blueprint, to a whole load of Disciples, rather then keeping it to apply strictly to the Apostles of the community is Scriptural at all. Or rather, its missapplied. In general, I dont think it really matters...I wouldnt condemn a church for not using the pontifical structure, because the man made fabrics are fallen anyway...if it works for you, use it.
I still don't know what this "Pontifical Structure" is that Paul apparently told Titus about. I've just read all three chapters of Titus & the only mention of Church Order that he references is the passages I've quoted above, and the closest thing to the Roman Catholic structure he mentions is when he uses the word bishops. This, however, is a very shaky basis for an entire structure because that word could also be interpretted as overseer, superintendent, supervisor, the first, leader or foreman.

However...for the purpose of this discussion it matters, because if you use the ACTS blueprint, you already give women FAR more power then most denominations. Understand...that they dont get a "vote" in Anglianism unless they are within the Leadership...now perhaps you understand why they might have less of a chance to minister...I mean...its the structure of Paul...it limits Women.
Are you complaining? basically, what you're saying is that if we follow scripture, then women are actually given power, whereas if we follow tradition, they have none. I'd say that's a fairly strong reason to follow what scripture says.

By essentially following ther structure of Peter...you give women more of a choice and more influence....far more then Saint Paul would advocate...and even Saint Peter wouldnt apply the leadership approach of the Apostles, to the leadership approach of the wider church.
Had do you know this? On what are you basing that satement? Where SPECIFICALLY does Paul say that the church should be governed like Rome & not like he & the other Christians worked in Acts?

Think of the giving up of land and such like to the Apostles BY the Disciples. they are two distinct things, governed in different ways. I think your using the governance of apostles, to govern disciples.
Again, I'm going to need referenes as I'm not familiar with what you're talking about.

5) Pastor Chris, is Ordained, He should be more of an authority, He's probably had special teaching that the laity dont get.
That's a really dangerous thing to say, Dave. To simply rely on an ordained minister without doing the legwork yourself is what has led to hundreds of heresies throughout the history of the church. He wennt to Smeinary. So what? This isn't magic. There's not some secret decoder ring you get in seminary that magically allows you to properly interpret the Bible. There are thousands of seminary graduates out there that interpret the Bible incorrectly.

As for Pastor Chris specifically, I greatly value his opinion because he does his homework, but also because he offers scriptural basis for his opinions. So far, you have not given any references to back up your statements. You simply take other's statements & twist them.

6) in relationships, there is always a flow of power. When GOD allowed the Woman Judge to rule Israel...believe me, there were men in the community, Her sworne helpper, was a Male Commander, who worked UNDER her. Who said he would not attack without HER. He NEEDED Her. She gave the commands, and as long as she came with him, He would follow them
No, he sinned. God, through Deborah, commanded him to go out to war. Instead of obeying, he relied on a human. For this reason God punished Barak: "the road on which you [Barak] are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman."

The Lord gave them victory...so they were hardly sinning in their action. Again, say the word, and I will produce the Quote.

7) Well the Bible lists names, some are women, and there is at least a valid thought that they are Priests.

If it was good enough for the Early Church, its good enough for me. Its a matter of interpretation...but until you are telling your women to cover up islamic style...then really you shouldnt be saying my interpretation is anymore pick and mix then your own.
That is a gross mis-interpretation of the passage. It never commands the woman to wear burkahs (sp?). At most, they are told to cover their heads. Again, if you had actaully quoted the text, you would have seen this.I just tossed my answers in amongst the post. I didn't feel like trying to remember which number I was referencing. Once it goes beyond 1-3, I loose track!:laugh:

Also, would you mind breaking up your replies into multiple posts? It's a little hard to keep track of these huge multi-paragraphh monsters you & I are shooting back & forth now!:scared0011::laugh:

Preach
04-14-2009, 10:57 PM
Romans 16:1-5
1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 11:34 PM
1) Thats is Boomers interpretation of what the Text means when applied to Paul writing to Timothy. Half the stuff you underlined, was his explaination..not the passage itself. It is possible to view that passage differently.

does the Bible say "authority Structure" or is that a mechanism invented to create a taxonomy?

Its a valid interpretation, but not the only one

2) Listen...Boomer explained his interpretation of Scripture. I havent a problem with that, nor of it being valid. But I dont necc aggree with the paralelle

3) If You've ever worked for paid employment by the Church you begin to realize that things dont just happen by themselves. Every Sunday there are several different surmons to prepare, music to chose, perhaps there is costly work to be done on the maintainance of your church building. Perhaps you congregation has hundreds of children...how can you possibly know each one and go to each ones graduation or sports activity, or whatever.

Then there is the Deanery to consider, stupid PCC meetings, Idiotic Synod Meetings, perhaps a wedding, if your unlucky a funeral. I actually did my work experience following around a Priest for a week...we did do pastoral duties, including going into a local school, who he was a governer of, and hosting an assembly...hardly one on one, just preaching outside of the church...and there was an afternoons visit to a carehome...not to see ONE but again to see all...that left about a morning for visiting people in the parish...we only saw two people, because they do like to sit and chat and pour you yet another cuppa cha.

That is why yes, quite often you will have a Curate, an assistant minister, or maybe even an MSN (Minister in Secular Employment) like my Father is. Its why you also have a whole group of people, those church wardens who do the flowers, print the service sheets, design rotas for prayers, for readers, make sure the words are available for the hymns...

When you get to a Cathedral Setting...you wouldnt BELIEVE the amount of preparation that goes into getting just a SINGLE service

Do you have the processional cross ready and unlocked?
Is the stand for it to go in put out in the correct place?
Have you unlocked all the doors so the Choir can come up from the Crypt?
Are The Vesries unlocked so the Ministers can Robe
Have you got the right Vestments?
Are they in the right vestry for the Minister?
Have you fetched the Service sheets from the Chapter House?
Have the service sheets been given to the correct people to hand them out?
Have you saved back the right number for the ministers
What is todays reading?
Who will be reading it?
Which lecturn will they be reading from?
is the reading on the lecturn ready to go?
Are the choir Medels brought up from the Crypt?
Have you primed your stall?
Have you trimmed the candles for the accolytes?
Have you refueld the various oil lamps posing as candels?
Who are the servers?
How many are there?
Which Altar is being Celebrated on?
Do you have the right number of chairs/service sheets at the correct altar
Is all the plate in the correct place?
Who is bringing up the offerings?
Do they know when to do it?
do they know the route?
What is the route for the processional? Full dome? Half Dome?
Are the Choir in the Quire, or under the Dome?
How long is the introit...how fast will you need to process?
Which part of the procession are you leading
Who are you looking after?
have you primed them?
Do they know where they are sitting?
Do they know when to bow, when to stand, when to sit?

These are just the tip of the iceberg!! Thats the Truely administrative job that not even the Priests deal with.


4) Well we had to worship in Saint Paul's sometimes because being part of the Cathedral we had responsibilities in services, and we had "worship committments" At the time, it was ALL Saint Paul's. You lived the dream day in, day out. When you werent working there, you were there to worship, when you werent there, you were in the home they provided for you, or perhaps you were doing your MA which they funded finacially :laugh:

It was INTENSE

RYou have to understand that the Lay Community changed between when I applied and when I started. When I applied the Founder was still Director. Canon Winkett (then a Minor Canon) created it with the idea that it provided space for your post graduates to think and reflect on their future. She appointed me...and then she left for a short sabbatical...on her Return she was made a Canon, and she was thus no longer the Director of the Community.

The New Director was a guy relatively new to the position of Canon, and he was a bit...miffed that Lucy had gotten to pick who was in the Community...because he wouldnt have picked half of us. We were not "High Church" enough for him. High Church is not about intimacy, its about distance, its not about the Bible, its about observing Traditions and ceremonials...and if you think I am High Church....

So I soon discovered I couldnt approach him for Pastoral Support...so I went to one of the Minor Canons instead. A Guy called Alasdair Coles, he was the guy who presented me to be Confirmed. But he left right after Christmas of my first year. I was then left consulting another Virger called Charles Williams, who was the Landlord of the property the Cathedral subsidized us. He became invaluable.

I dont attend a Cathedral anymore. Ripon is too small for me to appreciate, and York is to far away.

5) Age doesnt make you a Man. but...please tell me what does

6) I'm sure the Christians in the Middle East probably cover themselves like Islamic Women. Whilst I am all for appropriate wear in church...and yes...I have had to unfortunately remove a few scantily clad...well..both sexes infact, from the Cathedral before now...I dont think its needed to cover up. Not Physically.

7) In future we will then :) post scripture I mean :laugh:


8) I dont take others statments and twist them. I ask them questions about their believfs they might find difficult to answer, to see how their theories and interpretations actually fare up. If they are good, I might consider adopting them.

I know Priests dont have all the answers...but why ask me for the proof of my argument, when Pastor Chris has already posted the same proof for His argument. :huh:

9) They WERE above the Church. They were the LEADERS of the Church as a Movement. Thats why when things got to difficult to manage they delegated stuff to other people. Thats the story of Saint Stephen. He was brought in because of disputes in the Discipleship between Converted Jews and Converts from Greece...and who did they go to to settle the dispute? To their Leaders...to The Apostles. And what did the Apostles say? They said words to the effect of, we're actually too busy with the spiritual stuff to care much about the provisional situation anymore. So we will appoint a team to start rationing and the likes (they had the authority to do that...that makes them leaders and makes them above the others, as a kind of Elite group of 12) When complaints continued, they instigated proportional representation on this council...and Saint Stephen was one appointed from the Greek side. Having never been a Jew, he didnt really want to speak softely or try and understand them, he couldnt empathize with them like the Jewish converts...he went to the Temple, told them a few home truths, and they got so angry they murdered him.

Classical conflict of Cultures

Not to mention that all Disciples, like in any commune had to give their wealth and belongings to the Apostles, and the apostles then used it as they saw fit for the good of the Church. Doesnt that mean the Apostles were above the Disciples??

Actually...it is exactly what you said. The Apostles decide things by casting votes. The Disciples do not. The Disciples go through a heirachy of leaders to get noticed and get things done.

10) A pontiffical structure is whats used in most organisations. Basically a string of Line Managers...Worker above them someone more powerful, above them someone even more powerful, every man works beneith the one above a and above the one below.

It doesnt matter what word you use for the different ranks. In the military its all about officers and seargents and captains, in the church its deacons, priests, and bishops...in a working environment its usually a manager, senior manager, executive.

That is a pontifical structure. Its not a strictly religious structure, and its one you no doubt engage in at work or whatever.

11) Paul wouldnt have had to write out the later letter to Titus if he felt the whole Church couldnt be run by the previous method.

The proof is the fact he needed to write a system at all. That prooves that the old system couldnt just be applied...or else why write a new one out? And it was also proof that it wasnt an either or...for when he writes to Titus to instruct...he DOESNT mention the Acts style of Leadership.

Clearly, Churches are supposed to run on this pontifical structure. Not anything that was previous, nor aswell as. Simply, as he wrote to Titus, in place of an existing structure...a structure your church still uses by the sound of it.

12) Not complaining. Just suprised that your system gives women more power but less leadership, whilst ours gives more leadership but less power.

13) A commune doesnt work well on a large scale. Thats one reason we know why Pauls idea is better then Peters...also because Pauls idea came later. He wouldnt have needed to ammend something, if it was perfect for use in the first place.

Titus in governance of the Church, is to Acts, what the New Testament is to the Old. Completely different, and far better :laugh:

14) Do you really want to discuss Barack with me??

15) Think of the time, Ben. When Paul says they should be covered, he isnt thinking a pretty hat from a highstreet store. He is thinking what he would be more accoustomed to in the middle east. Probably some type of head dress, not to dissimilar to what Islamic women wear

Tyburn
04-14-2009, 11:35 PM
Romans 16:1-5
1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:
2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
:blink: the women are everywhere...but at least he's writing to men :laugh:

Chris F
04-15-2009, 12:28 AM
I do have special training but some basic literary comprehension and some basic history and customs one can draw the truth just as Nate had done. Hermeneutics is the basis of all biblical interpretation. The most important rule is let scripture interpret scripture. We can not add our own agendas or dogmas to makes sense of it. If God really forbid women in Leadership he would have been consistent through all of the bible and not just in Paul's books. The weak arguement of Phoebe was called a servant just show a lack of understanding in Greek. By that logic then all deacon are just servants, which is all they should be. Junia for centuries was feminine not until the Alexandrian text did they begin to translate masculine. Again that knowledge is not in your everyday bible study but many years of studying Greek and Hebrew.

So do I like women in leadership? Not really but since God allows it, it is not for me to dispute, my opinions mean nothing. No one on here can prove God does not allow women leadership w/o denying he is the same yesterday today and forever.

NateR
04-15-2009, 01:43 AM
he is the same yesterday today and forever.

Exactly my point. So how many female priests or High Priests do we read about in the Old Testament?

Mark
04-15-2009, 02:08 AM
I do have special training but some basic literary comprehension and some basic history and customs one can draw the truth just as Nate had done. Hermeneutics is the basis of all biblical interpretation. The most important rule is let scripture interpret scripture. We can not add our own agendas or dogmas to makes sense of it. If God really forbid women in Leadership he would have been consistent through all of the bible and not just in Paul's books. The weak arguement of Phoebe was called a servant just show a lack of understanding in Greek. By that logic then all deacon are just servants, which is all they should be. Junia for centuries was feminine not until the Alexandrian text did they begin to translate masculine. Again that knowledge is not in your everyday bible study but many years of studying Greek and Hebrew.

So do I like women in leadership? Not really but since God allows it, it is not for me to dispute, my opinions mean nothing. No one on here can prove God does not allow women leadership w/o denying he is the same yesterday today and forever.



Did you read 1 TI 2:12 Thanks Mark

Chris F
04-15-2009, 02:35 AM
Did you read 1 TI 2:12 Thanks Mark

Yes I did Mark and we must keep in mind the context. Like Corinth, Ephesus was also having a huge influx of flase doctrines and heritical teacher. However Timothy had one certain women who was causing trouble. Paul was telling Timothy that he forbid a women to teach at his church because he must not open the door to the heresy that was going around at that time. For this rule to apply to all scripture then it must be the same everywhere else. Which it does not since women were teaching. Also when you read Pauline writing he clearly tells us when it is his rule and when it is Gods. He will say it is I or I forbid. A good example is Paul prefers people stay single when serving the Lord. The Catholics took this way past Paul's intent and made a dogma of it. When it is the Lord he(Paul) says basically thus saith the Lord. I hope this clears it up for you. Scripture must interpret itself and man has no place to interject dogmatic beliefs into the verses. When we do that we open ourselves to man made ideas. It is commonly called proof texting.

Reading Timothy in context to Ephesus and Acts may help you understand this particular verse more clearly. Thanks for your openness to discuss.

Vizion
04-15-2009, 02:36 AM
Aren't pastors supposed to be shepherds of a flock (congregation)?

How many female shepherds are in the Bible?

NateR
04-15-2009, 02:42 AM
How many female shepherds are in the Bible?

Lots, just like female High Priests in ancient Israel. :Whistle:

Chris F. you didn't answer my question. It's true that GOD is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, soooooo exactly how many female priests or High Priests do we read about in the Old Testament? I'm talking about actual temple priests from the tribe of Levi.

Chris F
04-15-2009, 02:46 AM
Aren't pastors supposed to be shepherds of a flock (congregation)?

How many female shepherds are in the Bible?

Actually housewives were higher on the food chain then shepherds. So bad analogy. Jesus used this analogy to fulfill scripture. John 10 etc. Early church leaders were never referred to as pastors or shepherds, but rather elders or bishops. The term pastor as we know it and use it is new to the Latin Vulgate created by the Catholics.

Chris F
04-15-2009, 02:47 AM
Lots, just like female High Priests in ancient Israel. :Whistle:

Chris F. you didn't answer my question. It's true that GOD is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, soooooo exactly how many female priests or High Priests do we read about in the Old Testament? I'm talking about actual temple priests from the tribe of Levi.

By that logic then no one not from the tribe of Levi is eligible. The OT priest and the NT bishop/deacons are apples and oranges. YOu need to compare apple to apples.

Chris F
04-15-2009, 02:51 AM
Does not scripture say to God there is neither male nor female, Greek or Jew, slave or free? God does not care about gender, this is a man made event unique to our own cultural dictates. So either the bible is right in all or wrong in all. :)

Mark
04-15-2009, 03:01 AM
Does not scripture say to God there is neither male nor female, Greek or Jew, slave or free? God does not care about gender, this is a man made event unique to our own cultural dictates. So either the bible is right in all or wrong in all. :)


Genesis 1:26 Then god said "Let us make MAN in our own Image....
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own Image....

NateR
04-15-2009, 03:25 AM
However Timothy had one certain women who was causing trouble. Paul was telling Timothy that he forbid a women to teach at his church because he must not open the door to the heresy that was going around at that time. For this rule to apply to all scripture then it must be the same everywhere else.

It is consistent with the Old Testament regulations on priesthood. Read Leviticus 21-22 and find any verse in there (or anywhere in the OT for that matter) in which GOD allowed a woman into a leadership position in the Temple worship.

In fact, women weren't even allowed in the Temple, they had to worship in a special court outside of the Temple. Remember Paul started out as a Pharisee and someone that we would recognize as an Orthodox Jew (as was Jesus), so he would have fully understood the segregation of men and women in worship.

Your explanation of 1 Timothy 2: 12 is a little weak, since it's clear that Paul is speaking about women's general role in the church and not against a specific woman. Women are allowed to lead other women, but they are not allowed to have responsibility for the spiritual growth of men.

Just like a mother has a great and irreplaceable role in the family, however, she CANNOT take the place of a father no matter how hard she tries.

Chris F
04-15-2009, 03:39 AM
Genesis 1:26 Then god said "Let us make MAN in our own Image....
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own Image....

Part of a womens curse was for man to rule over her. This refers to the home not the assembly. Man was suppose to be the priest of their home. If a man drops the ball then women are forced to pick it up. If other places in scriputre refer to women leaders we cannot dismiss them in ohters or today. So if Phobe was just a servant then every deacon is just a servant and we are back to square one.

Chris F
04-15-2009, 03:42 AM
It is consistent with the Old Testament regulations on priesthood. Read Leviticus 21-22 and find any verse in there (or anywhere in the OT for that matter) in which GOD allowed a woman into a leadership position in the Temple worship.

In fact, women weren't even allowed in the Temple, they had to worship in a special court outside of the Temple. Remember Paul started out as a Pharisee and someone that we would recognize as an Orthodox Jew (as was Jesus), so he would have fully understood the segregation of men and women in worship.

Your explanation of 1 Timothy 2: 12 is a little weak, since it's clear that Paul is speaking about women's general role in the church and not against a specific woman. Women are allowed to lead other women, but they are not allowed to have responsibility for the spiritual growth of men.

Just like a mother has a great and irreplaceable role in the family, however, she CANNOT take the place of a father no matter how hard she tries.

Based on this response I see you have never read Timothy in context until you do you really are speaking out of line. What is weak is for a man to claim something as truth yet he is clueless. If you read it in context you would know for a fact exactly who Paul was referring to. Also you conveniently ignored the fact Paul tells us when it is his rule and God commandment. So before you call my post weak you might want to educate yourself on the facts first. Again I agree wiht your opinion, but you have no right calling it bible truth because it is not!!!

Neezar
04-15-2009, 03:44 AM
:laugh: She had to fight the Church to be ordained. She had to not only be passionate about her Beliefs, but absolutely fearless in vocalising about it. Later Women just got ordained as Standard...but she was one of the people who started the training BEFORE they knew for certain the vote in the Church would go their way.

She's bound to therefore speak about it alot...Honnestly...its to be expected because she had to actively fight to get the church to acknowledge her. Its should come as no suprise that a lot of her surmons go on themes of Gender Equality, Lots of her themes include a mild brand of feminism. Lots of her ministry is aimed at empowering Women..

She is bound to be slightly like that because she was one of the first. Later Women Priests dont even think about the fact they are women :laugh:

Nothing empowers a woman more than taking her place.


p.s. I vote but I do not run my country so I am not the leader. And my friend teaches Kindergarten and she is the leader of her classroom but she is not the leader of the school. Get it? Women have important and God glorifing roles in the church. It's just that the head of the church isn't one of them. :wink:

Mark
04-15-2009, 03:44 AM
Part of a womens curse was for man to rule over her. This refers to the home not the assembly. Man was suppose to be the priest of their home. If a man drops the ball then women are forced to pick it up. If other places in scriputre refer to women leaders we cannot dismiss them in ohters or today. So if Phobe was just a servant then every deacon is just a servant and we are back to square one.
Please quote scripture at me. please dont just ramble at me. Mark

Neezar
04-15-2009, 03:52 AM
Based on this response I see you have never read Timothy in context until you do you really are speaking out of line. What is weak is for a man to claim something as truth yet he is clueless. If you read it in context you would know for a fact exactly who Paul was referring to. Also you conveniently ignored the fact Paul tells us when it is his rule and God commandment. So before you call my post weak you might want to educate yourself on the facts first. Again I agree wiht your opinion, but you have no right calling it bible truth because it is not!!!

While the bible may not teach that there shouldn't ever be a female to head the church I certainly think there is enough in there to give us pause and second guess any decision to put a female in a leading role in the church. I think the majority of the time the bible speaks against it. It seems like the churches that needed help were all having problems with women in the church.

NateR
04-15-2009, 03:52 AM
Based on this response I see you have never read Timothy in context until you do you really are speaking out of line. What is weak is for a man to claim something as truth yet he is clueless. If you read it in context you would know for a fact exactly who Paul was referring to. Also you conveniently ignored the fact Paul tells us when it is his rule and God commandment. So before you call my post weak you might want to educate yourself on the facts first. Again I agree wiht your opinion, but you have no right calling it bible truth because it is not!!!

I would disagree, it just sounds like your personal interpretation of the scripture. You probably should cite the extra-Biblical sources that you are using to come up with these interpretations.

Again, if GOD has no problems with woman leaders in the Church, then why did He not allow for female priests in the Temple?

Obviously this is not about denying women equal rights, it's about roles and how GOD wants His church to be run. All of your examples can best be described as exceptions to the rule. However, there is still a rule that GOD created men to take leadership in spiritual matters first and foremost.

Chris F
04-15-2009, 03:59 AM
Please quote scripture at me. please dont just ramble at me. Mark


Already did. But it is useless. Some people prefer to follow traditions of men and refuse to follow Jesus and His word unashamedly. You can do as you like but i have been studying scripture for many years and Have been a pastor as well. So with all do respect I will stick to the written word and end this before God no longer receives the glory. Blessings

Chris F
04-15-2009, 04:01 AM
I would disagree, it just sounds like your personal interpretation of the scripture. You probably should cite the extra-Biblical sources that you are using to come up with these interpretations.

Again, if GOD has no problems with woman leaders in the Church, then why did He not allow for female priests in the Temple?

Obviously this is not about denying women equal rights, it's about roles and how GOD wants His church to be run. All of your examples can best be described as exceptions to the rule. However, there is still a rule that GOD created men to take leadership in spiritual matters first and foremost.

They are not extra biblical Nate read Ephesus and Acts in context with Timothy. It really is simple. Stop reading the bible with your rose colored glasses long enough to see oyu are following dogmatic traditions and not scripture. As with Mark I am ending this line of discussion. I have shown clearly the truth of scripture. I will leave it to the Holy Spirit to reveal truth to you.

NateR
04-15-2009, 04:08 AM
Already did. But it is useless. Some people prefer to follow traditions of men and refuse to follow Jesus and His word unashamedly. You can do as you like but i have been studying scripture for many years and Have been a pastor as well. So with all do respect I will stick to the written word and end this before God no longer receives the glory. Blessings

Just saying "I have been studying scripture for many years" is not evidence to support your interpretation, you need to cite your sources. That sounds more like an argument from authority to me: stating a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it’s true.

We are giving you evidence directly from the Bible and you are refuting the Bible with what are clearly extra-Biblical sources. I'm just asking you to cite those sources.

The fact that you don't even seem to be willing to consider the writings of the Old Testament in your personal interpretation suggests that you are focused solely on the New Testament. Do you even study the Old Testament?

Neezar
04-15-2009, 04:11 AM
They are not extra biblical Nate read Ephesus and Acts in context with Timothy. It really is simple. Stop reading the bible with your rose colored glasses long enough to see oyu are following dogmatic traditions and not scripture. As with Mark I am ending this line of discussion. I have shown clearly the truth of scripture. I will leave it to the Holy Spirit to reveal truth to you.

Already did. But it is useless. Some people prefer to follow traditions of men and refuse to follow Jesus and His word unashamedly. You can do as you like but i have been studying scripture for many years and Have been a pastor as well. So with all do respect I will stick to the written word and end this before God no longer receives the glory. Blessings

Sorry, Nate but he is done. Your rose colored glasses must be dirty and you missed this. :laugh:


Remember back on the old forum when Pastor Chris would say he was finished and keep coming back and posting? Ahhhhh, the good ole days!

Chris F
04-15-2009, 04:18 AM
Just saying "I have been studying scripture for many years" is not evidence to support your interpretation, you need to cite your sources. That sounds more like an argument from authority to me: stating a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it’s true.

We are giving you evidence directly from the Bible and you are refuting the Bible with what are clearly extra-Biblical sources. I'm just asking you to cite those sources.

The fact that you don't even seem to be willing to consider the writings of the Old Testament in your personal interpretation suggests that you are focused solely on the New Testament. Do you even study the Old Testament?

READ ACTS AND EPHESIANS IN CONTEXT TO TIMOTHY. ALL 3 BOOKS ARE IN THE BIBLE. ACTS GIVES YOU THE HOSTORICAL CONTEXT AND EPHESIANS GIVES YOU THE THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT. THEN READ ALL PAULS WRITNING AND PAY ATTENTION TO EVERYTIME HE REFERS TO HIS SUGGESTIONS AND GOD COMMANDS. THEN GO BACK TO HTE GREEK AND LOOK FOR SAYING CALLED IMPEARTIVES WHICH ARE DIRCECT COMMANDS. NONE OF WHAT OYU SAID IS SUPPORTED IN SCRIPTURE IT IS ALL YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. YOU ARE PROOF TEXTING YOU ARE NOT QUOTING IN CONTEXT IN THE LEAST. AS FOR THE OT GOD HAD FEMALE LEADERS. YOU CANNOT DENY THAT. SO YOU ARE BUILDING STARW MEN W/ NO MERIT. THE OT ACTUALLY BUILDS MORE OF MY CASE. BTW IT IS NOT MY PERSONAL INTERPERTATION IT IS CONTEXUAL HERMEUNITCS. IT IS YOU SIR FORCING OPINIONS AS PROOF. WE GOT INTO THIS ON THE OLD THREAD AND YOU IGNORED THE FACT THEN AS WELL. IF SOMEONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR NARROW MINDED INTERPERTATION YOU RIDICULE THEM AND BLOW THEM OFF. I AM A TRAINED THEOLOGIAN AND WAS A PASTOR, YOU SIR ARE A COMPUTER PROGRAMER. I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY THEY HAVE ANYHTING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

SO I HOPE YOU WILL STOP THIS SOPHMORIC EXCHANGE AND JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE.


Sorry about the all caps i was looking down and did not notice the caps lock.

NateR
04-15-2009, 04:18 AM
I have shown clearly the truth of scripture.

You have shown clearly your personal interpretation; but I do agree with you that we should agree to disagree for now and allow the Holy Spirit to convict where necessary.

If I am wrong, then I would like to know about it and I would hope that your heart would be similarly open to divine correction.

VCURamFan
04-15-2009, 04:22 AM
READ ACTS AND EPHESIANS IN CONTEXT TO TIMOTHY. ALL 3 BOOKS ARE IN THE BIBLE. ACTS GIVES YOU THE HOSTORICAL CONTEXT AND EPHESIANS GIVES YOU THE THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT. THEN READ ALL PAULS WRITNING AND PAY ATTENTION TO EVERYTIME HE REFERS TO HIS SUGGESTIONS AND GOD COMMANDS. THEN GO BACK TO HTE GREEK AND LOOK FOR SAYING CALLED IMPEARTIVES WHICH ARE DIRCECT COMMANDS. NONE OF WHAT OYU SAID IS SUPPORTED IN SCRIPTURE IT IS ALL YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. YOU ARE PROOF TEXTING YOU ARE NOT QUOTING IN CONTEXT IN THE LEAST. AS FOR THE OT GOD HAD FEMALE LEADERS. YOU CANNOT DENY THAT. SO YOU ARE BUILDING STARW MEN W/ NO MERIT. THE OT ACTUALLY BUILDS MORE OF MY CASE. BTW IT IS NOT MY PERSONAL INTERPERTATION IT IS CONTEXUAL HERMEUNITCS. IT IS YOU SIR FORCING OPINIONS AS PROOF. WE GOT INTO THIS ON THE OLD THREAD AND YOU IGNORED THE FACT THEN AS WELL. IF SOMEONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR NARROW MINDED INTERPERTATION YOU RIDICULE THEM AND BLOW THEM OFF. I AM A TRAINED THEOLOGIAN AND WAS A PASTOR, YOU SIR ARE A COMPUTER PROGRAMER. I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY THEY HAVE ANYHTING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

SO I HOPE YOU WILL STOP THIS SOPHMORIC EXCHANGE AND JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE.


Sorry about the all caps i was looking down and did not notice the caps lock.Wow, I was gonna say "Man, Mark & Nate really pissed off Pastor Chris!":laugh:

Chris F
04-15-2009, 04:23 AM
You have shown clearly your personal interpretation; but I do agree with you that we should agree to disagree for now and allow the Holy Spirit to convict where necessary.

If I am wrong, then I would like to know about it and I would hope that your heart would be similarly open to divine correction.


I was corrected. I had the same sexist view as you did for 20 years. Then I spent 6 years studying ACTS and the epistles written during the history of acts and it revealed everything. CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. oops did it again. I still personally believe women have no place in pastoral leadership. I would not attend a church lead by a women. But if God did not want female leaders then he would have NEVER ever allowed it. So since he is the same yesterday today and forever I will submit to his word and if a church wants a women pastor all the power to them.

Chris F
04-15-2009, 04:28 AM
Wow, I was gonna say "Man, Mark & Nate really pissed off Pastor Chris!":laugh:

Not at all. I hit the caps lock and did not turn it off and was to lazy to retype it. I agree with them for the most part. I just find it funny. Now if they had attended seminary and had been studying as long and were followers as long then maybe they might have learned the importance of hermeneutics. It is kinda like me trying to correct Nate on proper use of Java scripts quoting a computer book I read a few times. I am not trying to do anything but lead people to Christ and fighting over if women should serve as ministers is hardly a battle worth fighting when so many are dying and going to hell.

NateR
04-15-2009, 04:33 AM
READ ACTS AND EPHESIANS IN CONTEXT TO TIMOTHY. ALL 3 BOOKS ARE IN THE BIBLE. ACTS GIVES YOU THE HOSTORICAL CONTEXT AND EPHESIANS GIVES YOU THE THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT. THEN READ ALL PAULS WRITNING AND PAY ATTENTION TO EVERYTIME HE REFERS TO HIS SUGGESTIONS AND GOD COMMANDS. THEN GO BACK TO HTE GREEK AND LOOK FOR SAYING CALLED IMPEARTIVES WHICH ARE DIRCECT COMMANDS. NONE OF WHAT OYU SAID IS SUPPORTED IN SCRIPTURE IT IS ALL YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. YOU ARE PROOF TEXTING YOU ARE NOT QUOTING IN CONTEXT IN THE LEAST. AS FOR THE OT GOD HAD FEMALE LEADERS. YOU CANNOT DENY THAT. SO YOU ARE BUILDING STARW MEN W/ NO MERIT. THE OT ACTUALLY BUILDS MORE OF MY CASE. BTW IT IS NOT MY PERSONAL INTERPERTATION IT IS CONTEXUAL HERMEUNITCS. IT IS YOU SIR FORCING OPINIONS AS PROOF. WE GOT INTO THIS ON THE OLD THREAD AND YOU IGNORED THE FACT THEN AS WELL. IF SOMEONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR NARROW MINDED INTERPERTATION YOU RIDICULE THEM AND BLOW THEM OFF. I AM A TRAINED THEOLOGIAN AND WAS A PASTOR, YOU SIR ARE A COMPUTER PROGRAMER. I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY THEY HAVE ANYHTING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

SO I HOPE YOU WILL STOP THIS SOPHMORIC EXCHANGE AND JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE.


Sorry about the all caps i was looking down and did not notice the caps lock.

I'm talking about female priests in the Temple, not female leaders (judges, queens, etc.) of which there were a few. Show me one example of a female priest from the tribe of Levi, in the Old Testament.

Just because you are a trained theologian and were a pastor (of which we only have your word to go on) doesn't mean that we should just accept your interpretations without question. This is the internet after all, you could be anybody. Again, an argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

Not trying to attack you, but you have to understand that it's really easy for anyone to lie about their identity over the internet. Getting angry and abusive is not going to help your online credibility.

On a side note, I'm not a computer programmer, my degree is in graphic design. I can post a scan of my diploma if you need proof. :wink:

Anyways, I will reread Acts and Ephesians to understand where your interpretation is coming from.

Neezar
04-15-2009, 04:35 AM
I was corrected. I had the same sexist view as you did for 20 years. Then I spent 6 years studying ACTS and the epistles written during the history of acts and it revealed everything. CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. oops did it again. I still personally believe women have no place in pastoral leadership. I would not attend a church lead by a women. But if God did not want female leaders then he would have NEVER ever allowed it. So since he is the same yesterday today and forever I will submit to his word and if a church wants a women pastor all the power to them.

Are you saying that God never allowed anything to happen that wasn't pleasing to Him? :huh:

NateR
04-15-2009, 04:44 AM
But if God did not want female leaders then he would have NEVER ever allowed it.

GOD doesn't want husbands to divorce their wives, but He allowed for it: Deuteronomy 24: 1-4.

GOD intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman, but there are plenty of examples of Old Testament patriarchs taking multiple wives (not even counting concubines). Does the example of King Solomon mean that the Bible supports polygamy?

Chris F
04-15-2009, 04:45 AM
I'm talking about female priests in the Temple, not female leaders (judges, queens, etc.) of which there were a few. Show me one example of a female priest from the tribe of Levi, in the Old Testament.

Just because you are a trained theologian and were a pastor (of which we only have your word to go on) doesn't mean that we should just accept your interpretations without question. This is the internet after all, you could be anybody. Again, an argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

Not trying to attack you, but you have to understand that it's really easy for anyone to lie about their identity over the internet. Getting angry and abusive is not going to help your online credibility.

On a side note, I'm not a computer programmer, my degree is in graphic design. I can post a scan of my diploma if you need proof. :wink:

Anyways, I will reread Acts and Ephesians to understand where your interpretation is coming from.

Well I have has several old forum members attend my church when I was up near St Louis (New Haven) So You can believe as you wish. If you are ever in Oklahoma you are welcome to stop by and view my papers as well as my degrees. I apologize for my mistake on your profession.

As for a battle of logic I can find plent of fallaccies in your post but that would be pointless. In fact any debate in scripture is in itself illogical. One can never understand the bible wiht logic.

BTW I am far from angry or being abusive. Not sure how you can asertain that online. In fact I am happy to educate people on the truth and love the chance to teach the truth of Gods word. Why be angry when you know you are right. :)

Chris F
04-15-2009, 04:51 AM
Good night! I got to get up at 5:00 AM and it is almost 11. God bless!

MattHughesRocks
04-15-2009, 04:51 AM
:laugh:


Remember back on the old forum when Pastor Chris would say he was finished and keep coming back and posting? Ahhhhh, the good ole days!

Tyburn
04-15-2009, 01:03 PM
Did you read 1 TI 2:12 Thanks Mark
isnt there a difference between Paul writing about specific women, and Paul wiriting about Women in General.

As he worked with Women, He cant have been that much against their Ministry. He might have been against certain specific women, in certain churches, spreading certain herasies.

I think in context that is what it means...I also think that this problem is exactly what sparked Paul into creating a new order for the Church authority. Obviously with persuasion, a Heresy can become imbedded permanently if it wins a common vote by the congregation. So restricting the priesthood, and allowing the governing to be directed more by the Priests, then the congregation would force those churches who might vote in favour of a heresy, to adopt the truth whether they found it pleasent or not :)

Tyburn
04-15-2009, 01:05 PM
The term pastor as we know it and use it is new to the Latin Vulgate created by the Catholics.
:huh: is it?

I didnt know that, because the Roman Church doesnt use the term "pastor" really anymore.

Tyburn
04-15-2009, 01:07 PM
Genesis 1:26 Then god said "Let us make MAN in our own Image....
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own Image....
Well if you base Intrinsic Value of being made in the image of GOD...then your saying Women arent made in the image of GOD

Does a Woman have No intrinsic Value, because she isnt made in the image of GOD. Or is "man" supposed to be referenced to Humanity, Humankind?

Makes a difference to my theology. If I considered the word to have the same pragmatics as your implying, I would be forced to see women as worthless (well...holding as much worth as any other animal)

Tyburn
04-15-2009, 01:10 PM
Nothing empowers a woman more than taking her place.


p.s. I vote but I do not run my country so I am not the leader. And my friend teaches Kindergarten and she is the leader of her classroom but she is not the leader of the school. Get it? Women have important and God glorifing roles in the church. It's just that the head of the church isn't one of them. :wink:
You have more power then the leader...because you select him

YOUR vote can change History, regardless of how he leads. :ninja:

Tyburn
04-15-2009, 01:11 PM
Please quote scripture at me. please dont just ramble at me. Mark
:laugh:

Tyburn
04-15-2009, 01:17 PM
I'm talking about female priests in the Temple, not female leaders (judges, queens, etc.) of which there were a few. Show me one example of a female priest from the tribe of Levi, in the Old Testament.
.

Deborah.

It says she was a Spiritual Judge of Israel. Doesnt that make her a Spiritual Leader...maybe not a Priest in the common sense of the word...perhaps higher then the Priests because evidently THEY couldnt Judge Israel. The name "Judge" isnt primarily about Rule like a Queen...its about changing the course of a nation who has done wrong. They were used like Spiritual fix its, after GOD rebuked the Nation. Sooo the Nation would sin...GOD would flatten them, and then a Judge would be raised by GOD to bring the Nation back to its feet. The Judge would then die...and the cycle begins again. So...I dont think you can exempt the role of Judge and say it isnt the paramount of Spiritual Change under GOD in Ancient Israel before the Monarchy.

I have to say...I do believe she is the only Woman Judge though :unsure-1: but even the rest, who were Spiritual Leaders...we not Priests...they seem to come from all over the place, many from politics, many from the Military also.

But the "Judging" part wasnt political or military...it was to Judge Israel on a spiritual level.

One Women made that Grade out of...I dont know, ive read at least 10 of them so far...I dont know how long it goes on before a Monarchy is established. I've just got to Samson.... :laugh:

possibly the worst Judge of Israel ever :laugh:

rearnakedchoke
04-15-2009, 02:12 PM
Not at all. I hit the caps lock and did not turn it off and was to lazy to retype it. I agree with them for the most part. I just find it funny. Now if they had attended seminary and had been studying as long and were followers as long then maybe they might have learned the importance of hermeneutics. It is kinda like me trying to correct Nate on proper use of Java scripts quoting a computer book I read a few times. I am not trying to do anything but lead people to Christ and fighting over if women should serve as ministers is hardly a battle worth fighting when so many are dying and going to hell.

I happen to agree with your interpretation, however, for the record, I think you were SHOUTING when you say you had on CAPS LOCK ... as when you are writing with CAPS and you shift, those letters would not have been CAPS .. since the rest of your posts have capitals and the CAPS were ALL CAPS, I think you meant it, thought about it and realized you shouldn't put it is CAPS .. just my observation .. come on Chris .. come clean .. tell me I am right ... LOL

Chris F
04-16-2009, 12:48 AM
I happen to agree with your interpretation, however, for the record, I think you were SHOUTING when you say you had on CAPS LOCK ... as when you are writing with CAPS and you shift, those letters would not have been CAPS .. since the rest of your posts have capitals and the CAPS were ALL CAPS, I think you meant it, thought about it and realized you shouldn't put it is CAPS .. just my observation .. come on Chris .. come clean .. tell me I am right ... LOL


if you read most of whjat I right, I often do not use caps or puncuation or propre spelling and grammar for the most part when I am in a hurry. I am a very lazy typer. I swaer to you I was not mad nor shouting. I have had this discussion for many many years. For a long time I was on the other side of the issue.

Chris F
04-16-2009, 12:50 AM
:laugh:
I said I was finished arguing about it. But I will however respond if asked or spoke about. Since I work 12 hour days 6 days a week now the good ole days will not happen very often. :)

Chris F
04-16-2009, 12:53 AM
:huh: is it?

I didnt know that, because the Roman Church doesnt use the term "pastor" really anymore.

That is what I have read when we researched its etomology. I could be worng. RC have changed a lot since the Days of their inception.

Mark
04-16-2009, 01:10 AM
Well if you base Intrinsic Value of being made in the image of GOD...then your saying Women arent made in the image of GOD

Does a Woman have No intrinsic Value, because she isnt made in the image of GOD. Or is "man" supposed to be referenced to Humanity, Humankind?

Makes a difference to my theology. If I considered the word to have the same pragmatics as your implying, I would be forced to see women as worthless (well...holding as much worth as any other animal)


Did you read GE 1? Mark

NateR
04-16-2009, 01:24 AM
Adam was made from the dust of the Earth, in the image of GOD. Eve was made from Adam. In fact, she wasn't even named "Eve" until after their fall into sin. Thus, before she sinned, she didn't even have her own identity and was just referred to as "woman."

Mark
04-16-2009, 01:49 AM
Already did. But it is useless. Some people prefer to follow traditions of men and refuse to follow Jesus and His word unashamedly. You can do as you like but i have been studying scripture for many years and Have been a pastor as well. So with all do respect I will stick to the written word and end this before God no longer receives the glory. Blessings


Do you think that you could be wrong? On any subject? I have a open mind, do you? Have you been studing scripture for so long that you think you are all knowing? I think the bible was wrote by commen people for commen people. Mark

Chris F
04-16-2009, 02:30 AM
Do you think that you could be wrong? On any subject? I have a open mind, do you? Have you been studying scripture for so long that you think you are all knowing? I think the bible was wrote by commen people for commen people. Mark

When it comes to scripture I am very close minded. What it says in context is what it means. I was wrong when I had the audacity to think God would never use a women in ministry. I am far from all knowing in a lot of things. But on this subject I a 100% positive in what scripture says. Paul when writing had no idea his letters would become scripture. So it was a personal letter. Do you seriously think when Paul wrote he meant it to be a command for all? If yes then why was he silent to the other churches? Why just Ephesus and Corinth? He repeated himself many times when it was important. Also what Dave said about why would he speak a female ministers if he forbade it? What you are guilty of is a simple case of proof texting. If found a few verses that agree with your view and you cite them over and over. If Paul truly did not want women to teach he would not have welcomed female leaders like Junia Phoebe, etc.

So all I am saying is stop and look at scripture in it whole and not just the verses you like. How has Paul written in the Past. There are so many point you must consider to apply proper hermeuntics to this subject.

NateR
04-16-2009, 02:36 AM
When it comes to scripture I am very close minded. What it says in context is what it means. I was wrong when I had the audacity to think God would never use a women in ministry. I am far from all knowing in a lot of things. But on this subject I a 100% positive in what scripture says. Paul when writing had no idea his letters would become scripture. So it was a personal letter. Do you seriously think when Paul wrote he meant it to be a command for all? If yes then why was he silent to the other churches? Why just Ephesus and Corinth? He repeated himself many times when it was important. Also what Dave said about why would he speak a female ministers if he forbade it? What you are guilty of is a simple case of proof texting. If found a few verses that agree with your view and you cite them over and over. If Paul truly did not want women to teach he would not have welcomed female leaders like Junia Phoebe, etc.

So all I am saying is stop and look at scripture in it whole and not just the verses you like. How has Paul written in the Past. There are so many point you must consider to apply proper hermeuntics to this subject.

I wish you would follow your own advice and compare the New Testament text to the Old Testament.

Paul didn't have to explain that women were not allowed to lead in the New Testament, because it was already well established in the Torah.

There were no gospels written in Paul's day and you claim that he didn't know that his letters were going to be included in the Bible. So what scriptures did he teach from? And what do those scriptures say about female religious leaders?

Mark
04-16-2009, 02:48 AM
[QUOTE=Chris F]When it comes to scripture I am very close minded. So you get on hear to correct and teach people not to learn?

What it says in context is what it means. I was wrong when I had the audacity to think God would never use a women in ministry. I am far from all knowing in a lot of things. I do believe this, and you are like me.

But on this subject I a 100% positive in what scripture says. I dont think so, about...... 100 %

Paul when writing had no idea his letters would become scripture. Did God know It was going to be scripture? Mark

Chris F
04-16-2009, 02:52 AM
I wish you would follow your own advice and compare the New Testament text to the Old Testament.

Paul didn't have to explain that women were not allowed to lead in the New Testament, because it was already well established in the Torah.

There were no gospels written in Paul's day and you claim that he didn't know that his letters were going to be included in the Bible. So what scriptures did he teach from? And what do those scriptures say about female religious leaders?

Nate you just do not get it. Paul welcomed female ministers. So was he schizophrenic? Did he say one thing and do another? The OT has female leaders. You excuse about the priesthood disqualifies all who are not from Levi. So I guess oyu better ask your pastor if he is kin to Levi because if he is not he is a fraud by your logic. Judges were spiritual leaders. Just sit down take a deep breath. Erase your dogmas you were taught by man, search the scripture in context and you will have your answers.

Chris F
04-16-2009, 02:56 AM
[QUOTE=Chris F]When it comes to scripture I am very close minded. So you get on hear to correct and teach people not to learn?

What it says in context is what it means. I was wrong when I had the audacity to think God would never use a women in ministry. I am far from all knowing in a lot of things. I do believe this, and you are like me.

But on this subject I a 100% positive in what scripture says. I dont think so, about...... 100 %

Paul when writing had no idea his letters would become scripture. Did God know It was going to be scripture? Mark

We should learn from scriputre. God annoint certain people to explain scripture not to invent it. I am a teacher I would never discourage learning. What I am close minded about is false teachings and man made tradtions.

If you do not believe scripture is 100% accurate then you are in trouble. If you doubt what it says there is no point following it.

Exactly God did know and that is why if it were an issue he would have made it an issue all through scripture. SO no female leaders would have ever emerged. And Paul would have told every church to forbid female teaching. Not just two,

Mark
04-16-2009, 02:57 AM
Chris go to the closet,open the door, grab the book under the four phone books. wipe the dust off of it, This is your bible, start reading it!! Mark

Chris F
04-16-2009, 03:06 AM
Chris go to the closet,open the door, grab the book under the four phone books. wipe the dust off of it, This is your bible, start reading it!! Mark

Mark with all do respect you are off base and rather belligerent. I did not insult you so why are you suddenly being so rude? I know when confronted with the truth it is easier to spew hate then to converse in a civil and respectful manner. Do you speak to your pastor with such flippancy? You would be better served to refrain from making it personal and prove your point. You were, after all, the one who opened the door to this pandoras box with your question. Have you read the section in Acts dealing wiht Timothy? Have you took the time to understand Pauline writing? Have you taken the time to seek the custom and cultrual context issues? My guess is no, since your only response is a personal insult to a minister who is only trying to get you to learn. :)

Chris F
04-16-2009, 03:12 AM
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God, he created him; male and female he created them." —Genesis 1:27, (emphasis added)

"I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days." —Joel 2:28–29 & Acts 2:17–18 (Peter quoting Joel explaining Pentecost event; emphasis added.)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." —Galatians 3:28, (emphasis added)

Chris F
04-16-2009, 03:15 AM
Philippians 4:2,3
I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Chris F
04-16-2009, 03:16 AM
Sarah (Genesis 12–23)—the mother of Isaac and the nation of Israel. She and her husband, Abraham, followed the call to leave their homeland and go to a land God would show them. Along the way, the couple learned the necessity of faith in God, which culminated in the birth of a nation.

Miriam (Exodus 15; Numbers 12)—the sister of Aaron and a prophetess. She led all the women in praise and worship when the Israelites were delivered from Pharoah's hand. Deborah (Judges 4 & 5)—a prophetess that settled disputed matters for the Israelites. She sent Barak, under the authority of God, to command the army that would defeat Sisera and win the freedom of the Israelites against Canaan. She even prophesied of the battle's end and that the victory would really belong to a woman—Jael.

Jael (Judges 4 & 5)—she was the one chosen by God to kill Sisera, in order to free the Israelites and bring about 40 years of peace.

Naomi and Ruth (Book of Ruth)—women who knew sorrow and sought after God and the land of his people. After the death of her husband and two sons, Naomi packed up and left everything to move back to her native Bethlehem. Ruth, her daughter-in-law, stayed loyal to Naomi and traveled back with her to make a new home. There Ruth met and married a man named Boaz, and began a line in history that would bring forth such people as King David and, ultimately, Jesus Christ.

Huldah (2 Kings 22: 14–20 & 2 Chronicles 34:19–28)—the advisor to Josiah, who was called a great king of God, she interpreted the sacred Book of Law for him.

Esther (Book of Esther)—a queen, the wife of Xerxes I of Persia. King Xerxes chose her for her beauty, but God placed her in such a high position in order to prepare her to save her people (the Jews) from a plot by a governmental official aiming to destroy them all.

Anna (Luke 2:36–38)—prophesied the birth of Jesus and prayed for his coming for over 50 years. At the birth of Jesus, she approached Mary and Joseph and spoke with them about the redemption of Jerusalem.

Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:1–3; John 20:1–2, 11–18)—a devoted follower of Jesus. Along with Joanna, Susanna, and others, Mary helped Jesus and his disciples by providing food and lodging for them. Also, staying with Jesus throughout his ministry until his death and resurrection, she provided a living example of his healing power and grace, even preaching the first Easter sermon as she brought the news of his resurrection to the others.

Dorcas (Acts 9:36–42)—a woman known for her hospitality and care for the poor. She was known for providing food, clothing, and other basic needs for the poor in her community. Her death brought great grief to those around her, who then sent for Peter. He prayed, God raised her to life again, and Dorcas became an example and witness of God's power.

"Four daughters of Philip" (Acts 21:9)—who were prophetesses.

Lydia (Acts 16), Chloe (1 Corinthians 1), and Dorcas were all patrons and leaders in their churches.

mikthehick
04-16-2009, 04:13 AM
I've read a lot of the stuff on here, and can respect each side. As for my opinion, women can be effective leaders in a church. I know this by proof, in the Lutheran church where I grew up, St. Matthew's Lutheran in Woodbridge, VA, there is a wonderful pastor there named Tarja Stevenson. She is married, but has no kids.

She actually instilled a lot of great values and morals which molded my mind. I'm proud to call her one of the people I look up to the most in life. And when I get married one day, she's going to be one of the pastors.

I don't want to pull out specific bible verses now except the one at the top of MH toolbar, Phil. 4:13, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. This applies to everyone, not just males or females.

Don't ask if I'm a feminist, i most definitely am not. My political values align with the Constitution party (which is also why I abstain from political discussions on here. Some strong women that come to mind include my great grandma, my mom, my aunt, Jael, Esther and Ruth from the Bible, and Sarah Palin. Say what you will, but all these women share the qualities of leadership and moral values and character. Those are the kind of women girls like me can look up to.

I'm tired of settling for men who either can't lead or just don't belong in a church elders group or even as pastors. And yes I've had poor examples since I can remember. Maybe I'll add some bible verses onto this later, but that's all for now.

NateR
04-16-2009, 04:26 AM
Mark with all do respect you are off base and rather belligerent. I did not insult you so why are you suddenly being so rude? I know when confronted with the truth it is easier to spew hate then to converse in a civil and respectful manner. Do you speak to your pastor with such flippancy? You would be better served to refrain from making it personal and prove your point. You were, after all, the one who opened the door to this pandoras box with your question. Have you read the section in Acts dealing wiht Timothy? Have you took the time to understand Pauline writing? Have you taken the time to seek the custom and cultrual context issues? My guess is no, since your only response is a personal insult to a minister who is only trying to get you to learn. :)

I agree with Mark. I don't understand where you are getting your interpretations from, but you seem to be ignoring the plain meaning of the text. When Paul writes, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man," and you try to claim that Paul is actually saying, "It's okay for women to be leaders in the church and have authority over men," then it just sounds to me like you are not honestly interpreting the scriptures.

NateR
04-16-2009, 05:16 AM
Sarah (Genesis 12–23)—the mother of Isaac and the nation of Israel. She and her husband, Abraham, followed the call to leave their homeland and go to a land God would show them. Along the way, the couple learned the necessity of faith in God, which culminated in the birth of a nation.

Miriam (Exodus 15; Numbers 12)—the sister of Aaron and a prophetess. She led all the women in praise and worship when the Israelites were delivered from Pharoah's hand.

Jael (Judges 4 & 5)—she was the one chosen by God to kill Sisera, in order to free the Israelites and bring about 40 years of peace.

Naomi and Ruth (Book of Ruth)—women who knew sorrow and sought after God and the land of his people. After the death of her husband and two sons, Naomi packed up and left everything to move back to her native Bethlehem. Ruth, her daughter-in-law, stayed loyal to Naomi and traveled back with her to make a new home. There Ruth met and married a man named Boaz, and began a line in history that would bring forth such people as King David and, ultimately, Jesus Christ.

Huldah (2 Kings 22: 14–20 & 2 Chronicles 34:19–28)—the advisor to Josiah, who was called a great king of God, she interpreted the sacred Book of Law for him.

Esther (Book of Esther)—a queen, the wife of Xerxes I of Persia. King Xerxes chose her for her beauty, but God placed her in such a high position in order to prepare her to save her people (the Jews) from a plot by a governmental official aiming to destroy them all.

Anna (Luke 2:36–38)—prophesied the birth of Jesus and prayed for his coming for over 50 years. At the birth of Jesus, she approached Mary and Joseph and spoke with them about the redemption of Jerusalem.

Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:1–3; John 20:1–2, 11–18)—a devoted follower of Jesus. Along with Joanna, Susanna, and others, Mary helped Jesus and his disciples by providing food and lodging for them. Also, staying with Jesus throughout his ministry until his death and resurrection, she provided a living example of his healing power and grace, even preaching the first Easter sermon as she brought the news of his resurrection to the others.


These women, while they had a significant role to play in Israel's history, are irrelevant to the point you are trying to make

Deborah (Judges 4 & 5)—a prophetess that settled disputed matters for the Israelites. She sent Barak, under the authority of God, to command the army that would defeat Sisera and win the freedom of the Israelites against Canaan. She even prophesied of the battle's end and that the victory would really belong to a woman—Jael.

Deborah and Jael were chosen to lead in a period of great turmoil in Israel and a spiritual low point. However the position of Judge is clearly different from the position of priest or Rabbi.

Dorcas (Acts 9:36–42)—a woman known for her hospitality and care for the poor. She was known for providing food, clothing, and other basic needs for the poor in her community. Her death brought great grief to those around her, who then sent for Peter. He prayed, God raised her to life again, and Dorcas became an example and witness of God's power.

"Four daughters of Philip" (Acts 21:9)—who were prophetesses.

Lydia (Acts 16), Chloe (1 Corinthians 1), and Dorcas were all patrons and leaders in their churches.

A patron and a leader are two very different things.

Chloe:
In 1 Corinthians 1: 11, the verse describes "those of Chloe's household" but that could simply mean that she was the hostess, since the church met in her house. In the very next verse, when Paul is describing the factions that are forming, Chloe is never mentioned as being a potential leader of one of the factions. This is the only verse in which Chloe is mentioned in the Bible.

Lydia:
Acts 16: 14-15, 40 - These are the verses that mention Lydia, but again she seems to be more of a hostess, providing a home for worship, not a teacher. These are the only verses in which Lydia is mentioned in the Bible.

Dorcas:
Acts 9: 36-43 - Dorcas (or Tabitha) is restored to life. She is described as "full of good works and charitable deeds," but there is nothing in those verses that implies she was a leader or teacher in the early church. This is the only passage in which Dorcas (or Tabitha) is mentioned in the Bible.

Philip's daughters:
Philip is originally mentioned in Acts 8:40 and is described as an "evangelist" in Acts 21:8. His "daughters who prophesied" are mentioned in the very next verse and never again after that.

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 12:48 PM
Adam was made from the dust of the Earth, in the image of GOD. Eve was made from Adam. In fact, she wasn't even named "Eve" until after their fall into sin. Thus, before she sinned, she didn't even have her own identity and was just referred to as "woman."
But as she is modeled on us, and we are modled on GOD...does that mean she is made in His image aswell...or not :huh:

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 12:50 PM
Did you read GE 1? Mark
Yes...but I understood it as "Man" refering to MANKIND, that INCLUDES women.

So rather then "man is made in our image, and women are not" it becomes "all Humans are made in our image"

That is pretty conventional Theology...but I could...unfortunately, see how your Theology on this could be Valid also depending on your pragmatics for the word "man" :unsure-1:

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 12:51 PM
Do you think that you could be wrong? On any subject? I have a open mind, do you? Have you been studing scripture for so long that you think you are all knowing? I think the bible was wrote by commen people for commen people. Mark
:laugh: my Father has a saying about "the faith of a simple bretton peasent" :laugh:

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 12:53 PM
Chris go to the closet,open the door, grab the book under the four phone books. wipe the dust off of it, This is your bible, start reading it!! Mark
This is what I mean about Mark being nice...but scary :unsure-1:

:laugh:

I may not aggree with everything you say, Mark, but it is rather fun being able to debate in this section with you :)

Preach
04-16-2009, 02:29 PM
Why I will question a lot of things about a lot of people. There is one thing that I will not question and feel it is not anybodies position to question. That is the CALLING that God has on their lives.
I do understand both sides and have found myself on both sides. But after being around female ministers I must say that God can and does use them greatly

Llamafighter
04-16-2009, 02:57 PM
Why I will question a lot of things about a lot of people. There is one thing that I will not question and feel it is not anybodies position to question. That is the CALLING that God has on their lives.
I do understand both sides and have found myself on both sides. But after being around female ministers I must say that God can and does use them greatly

:blink: I was just about to post the exact same thing.
I'm curious to everyone's belief in "ones calling". Many times I hear ministers and leaders speak of "when I got the call to serve The Lord". What abotu females that have been called into service?
Of course it is important to support every point with scripture, but what about our faith. If someone tells me that God told them to minister to others through Priesthood, Pastorship, etc (whether they're male of female) I have to believe, and support them.
Your thoughts?

Preach
04-16-2009, 05:14 PM
:blink: I was just about to post the exact same thing.
I'm curious to everyone's belief in "ones calling". Many times I hear ministers and leaders speak of "when I got the call to serve The Lord". What abotu females that have been called into service?
Of course it is important to support every point with scripture, but what about our faith. If someone tells me that God told them to minister to others through Priesthood, Pastorship, etc (whether they're male of female) I have to believe, and support them.
Your thoughts?

The Bible tells us to test or try the spirits. But in doing so we dont need to question their calling or desire but rather their spirit. The Bible says we will know them by their fruit that they bear. I know alot of men that have never lead anyone to the Lord. But I also know several women whom have led several. The Bible tells us that a person who win's souls is wise. So regardless of male or female we are I hope working towards the same goal and that is winning people to Jesus.
So regardless of your belief on women leaders. Let me ask this question to everyone involved in this discussion. When was the last time you led someone to the Lord? Do you have fruit? We as Christians get so caught up with this and that, that we forget our mission. Jesus said he came to seek and to save that which was lost.That should be our main concern regardless of who leads them as long as they get led. I love discussions just like everyone else but there comes a time when discussions take away from our cause or mission.
So as I thought of the woman taken in the very act and they asked Jesus. What does the law say. All he asked them was he who is without sin go ahead and cast the first stone. When in reality he was and is the only one that meets that criteria. Lets unite to see people saved not fight amongst ourselves. About who's and how's.

Llamafighter
04-16-2009, 05:30 PM
What are the thoughts on Children be ministers? I've seen several specials on TV that have shown young children 8-12 that have heard the call of The Lord to minister.

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 05:44 PM
:blink: I was just about to post the exact same thing.
I'm curious to everyone's belief in "ones calling". Many times I hear ministers and leaders speak of "when I got the call to serve The Lord". What abotu females that have been called into service?
Of course it is important to support every point with scripture, but what about our faith. If someone tells me that God told them to minister to others through Priesthood, Pastorship, etc (whether they're male of female) I have to believe, and support them.
Your thoughts?
They believe they have a calling also. Thats why this is difficult.

IF it is true that GOD doesnt accept Women in the Priesthood, why has he blessed the Ministries of so many of them :huh: Going against GOD for a Christian usually leads to heartache...why are these Women being spiritually encouraged to continue??

And it calls into questions exactly what this "calling" is. So many people say they have a calling to do something. How do they know? How can we judge those who say they have a calling? If you say look at the fruits...thats when it gets so difficult with Women Priests...because they do just fine as leaders


...But of course, the problem is that some people will do things that we know cant possibly be sanctioned by GOD. These Religious Extremists, honnestly believe that they are called also.

So what exactly is a Calling and how does one recognise what it is?? thats a question...I dont have the answer to :unsure-1:

rearnakedchoke
04-16-2009, 05:47 PM
Chris go to the closet,open the door, grab the book under the four phone books. wipe the dust off of it, This is your bible, start reading it!! Mark

Come on now, that was uncalled for .. you started the thread asking for people's thoughts and interpretations, and now someone who doesn't agree with you interpretation gets ridiculed and insulted? Great way to promote discussion .. you should have just started the thread with your interpretation and said, if you don't agree with me, don't bother posting in here cuz i will just disrespect you ...

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 05:49 PM
if you don't agree with me, don't bother posting in here cuz i will just disrespect you ...
:ninja: Are you aware of "Mark" Surname :huh:

He's Mark....as in Hughes....as in Twin Brother of Matt :happydancing:

So...dont be to quick to do anything disrespectful :ninja:

Preach
04-16-2009, 05:49 PM
:duck: :duck: :rpg013: :duh: Come on now, that was uncalled for .. you started the thread asking for people's thoughts and interpretations, and now someone who doesn't agree with you interpretation gets ridiculed and insulted? Great way to promote discussion .. you should have just started the thread with your interpretation and said, if you don't agree with me, don't bother posting in here cuz i will just disrespect you ...

Llamafighter
04-16-2009, 05:50 PM
Come on now, that was uncalled for .. you started the thread asking for people's thoughts and interpretations, and now someone who doesn't agree with you interpretation gets ridiculed and insulted? Great way to promote discussion .. you should have just started the thread with your interpretation and said, if you don't agree with me, don't bother posting in here cuz i will just disrespect you ...

I agree that that was a little rough, but in Mark's defense (not that he needs it) he did not ask for interpretations.

What does everyone think about women being elders or pastors in the church?

Miss Foxy
04-16-2009, 05:51 PM
Come on now, that was uncalled for .. you started the thread asking for people's thoughts and interpretations, and now someone who doesn't agree with you interpretation gets ridiculed and insulted? Great way to promote discussion .. you should have just started the thread with your interpretation and said, if you don't agree with me, don't bother posting in here cuz i will just disrespect you ...
Yikes:wacko:

Llamafighter
04-16-2009, 05:51 PM
:ninja: Are you aware of "Mark" Surname :huh:

He's Mark....as in Hughes....as in Twin Brother of Matt :happydancing:

So...dont be to quick to do anything disrespectful :ninja:

You're so scared of him :laugh:
:ninja: me too

NateR
04-16-2009, 05:51 PM
The Bible tells us to test or try the spirits. But in doing so we dont need to question their calling or desire but rather their spirit. The Bible says we will know them by their fruit that they bear. I know alot of men that have never lead anyone to the Lord. But I also know several women whom have led several. The Bible tells us that a person who win's souls is wise. So regardless of male or female we are I hope working towards the same goal and that is winning people to Jesus.
So regardless of your belief on women leaders. Let me ask this question to everyone involved in this discussion. When was the last time you led someone to the Lord? Do you have fruit? We as Christians get so caught up with this and that, that we forget our mission. Jesus said he came to seek and to save that which was lost.That should be our main concern regardless of who leads them as long as they get led. I love discussions just like everyone else but there comes a time when discussions take away from our cause or mission.
So as I thought of the woman taken in the very act and they asked Jesus. What does the law say. All he asked them was he who is without sin go ahead and cast the first stone. When in reality he was and is the only one that meets that criteria. Lets unite to see people saved not fight amongst ourselves. About who's and how's.

True, but, as I've said before, I would be suspicious of ANYONE, man or woman, who is actively seeking leadership or power in the church. Every Christian is called by GOD into the ministry, that shouldn't even be up for question. However, not every Christian can be a leader. First of all, it's not practical. Could you imagine the chaos if even a small church was full of people who all believed they should be in charge? Secondly, some people are just not leaders by their nature.

So, a Christian who lives a life of service and is a great witness for the Lord, is not necessarily a leader. We're all supposed to be doing that.

My dad was an ordained minister, so I grew up viewing churches from the inside (in the sense of them being human-run organizations). I also spent over 10 years serving the military and I can say with absolute confidence that those who actively seek positions of leadership almost never make good leaders. Whether it be the military, the business world or the church, that's always proven to be true.

Also, winning souls to the LORD shouldn't be a competition. We can't always see the end of every person's journey, so we'll probably never know how many people we might have influenced in this lifetime. Also, when we do help someone make that final decision for Christ, we should keep in mind that we were likely just the last link on a long chain of Christians who led this person to Christ. It shouldn't be a matter of boasting for us. GOD did all the work.

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 05:53 PM
You're so scared of him :laugh:
:ninja: me too
If You had met him...you'd be skeeeerd of him too :laugh:

He's nice...but scary :mellow:

Miss Foxy
04-16-2009, 05:54 PM
If You had met him...you'd be skeeeerd of him too :laugh:

He's nice...but scary :mellow:
Yeah he looks intimidating..Don't get me wrong he's got a "cara de angelito." However he looks like he can rock someones world!

rearnakedchoke
04-16-2009, 05:55 PM
:ninja: Are you aware of "Mark" Surname :huh:

He's Mark....as in Hughes....as in Twin Brother of Matt :happydancing:

So...dont be to quick to do anything disrespectful :ninja:

i am aware who he is .. i was not being disrespectful though ..... and I don't think Mark is just trying to push his weight around because of who he is related too, so people shouldn't make it look like that ... it wasn't my intention as I would have responded to anyone on here in the same manner ....

Llamafighter
04-16-2009, 05:55 PM
If You had met him...you'd be skeeeerd of him too :laugh:

He's nice...but scary :mellow:

It probably doesn't help your fears, to see him aiming a rifle at you in Nate's sig :laugh:

rearnakedchoke
04-16-2009, 05:57 PM
True, but, as I've said before, I would be suspicious of ANYONE, man or woman, who is actively seeking leadership or power in the church. Every Christian is called by GOD into the ministry, that shouldn't even be up for question. However, not every Christian can be a leader. First of all, it's not practical. Could you imagine the chaos if even a small church was full of people who all believed they should be in charge? Secondly, some people are just not leaders by their nature.

So, a Christian who lives a life of service and is a great witness for the Lord, is not necessarily a leader. We're all supposed to be doing that.

My dad was an ordained minister, so I grew up viewing churches from the inside (in the sense of them being human-run organizations). I also spent over 10 years serving the military and I can say with absolute confidence that those who actively seek positions of leadership almost never make good leaders. Whether it be the military, the business world or the church, that's always proven to be true.

Also, winning souls to the LORD shouldn't be a competition. We can't always see the end of every person's journey, so we'll probably never know how many people we might have influenced in this lifetime. Also, when we do help someone make that final decision for Christ, we should keep in mind that we were likely just the last link on a long chain of Christians who led this person to Christ. It shouldn't be a matter of boasting for us. GOD did all the work.
I agree with the fact that you should be aware of people trying to seek leadership, it is a calling .. but i don't think that God only calls men to do this ...

Miss Foxy
04-16-2009, 05:57 PM
i am aware who he is .. i was not being disrespectful though ..... and I don't think Mark is just trying to push his weight around because of who he is related too, so people shouldn't make it look like that ... it wasn't my intention as I would have responded to anyone on here in the same manner ....
I don't think anyone was trying to make it look like that, but clearly you set yourself up on that one. The good thing is you cleared up your intentions. :)

NateR
04-16-2009, 05:57 PM
Hey, rearnakedchoke, how's it going? Posted anything stupid or poorly thought out recently?

Come on now, that was uncalled for .. you started the thread asking for people's thoughts and interpretations, and now someone who doesn't agree with you interpretation gets ridiculed and insulted? Great way to promote discussion .. you should have just started the thread with your interpretation and said, if you don't agree with me, don't bother posting in here cuz i will just disrespect you ...

Oh wait, never mind. :rolleyes:

Seriously, read what's been going on in this thread and you'll see just how ignorant your comment really is.

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 05:57 PM
True, but, as I've said before, I would be suspicious of ANYONE, man or woman, who is actively seeking leadership or power in the church. Every Christian is called by GOD into the ministry, that shouldn't even be up for question. However, not every Christian can be a leader. First of all, it's not practical. Could you imagine the chaos if even a small church was full of people who all believed they should be in charge? Secondly, some people are just not leaders by their nature.

So, a Christian who lives a life of service and is a great witness for the Lord, is not necessarily a leader. We're all supposed to be doing that.

My dad was an ordained minister, so I grew up viewing churches from the inside (in the sense of them being human-run organizations). I also spent over 10 years serving the military and I can say with absolute confidence that those who actively seek positions of leadership almost never make good leaders. Whether it be the military, the business world or the church, that's always proven to be true.

Also, winning souls to the LORD shouldn't be a competition. We can't always see the end of every person's journey, so we'll probably never know how many people we might have influenced in this lifetime. Also, when we do help someone make that final decision for Christ, we should keep in mind that we were likely just the last link on a long chain of Christians who led this person to Christ. It shouldn't be a matter of boasting for us. GOD did all the work.
I aggree with everything you've said above.

My Father is also an ordained Minister, and I've worked for the Church myself...I dont know about the Military though...but everywhere else I have worked the same ethos is true.

Its not so much a matter of man or woman...its a matter of how they lead. For Example, I can name both good and bad managers at the store, that are both Male and Female

The unfortunate fact of the matter is, it looks like our next Duty Fresh is a competition between a man and a woman...neither of which I consider good..infact...I am quite worried about how little they might know of the role one of them may end up doing soon. Tiz a worry :frantics:

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 05:59 PM
Hey, rearnakedchoke, how's it going? Posted anything stupid or poorly thought out recently?



Oh wait, never mind. :rolleyes:

Seriously, read what's been going on in this thread and you'll see just how ignorant your comment really is.
:laugh: I cant wait to see how Mark responds :unsure: :laugh:

He probably wont I suppose :ninja:

rearnakedchoke
04-16-2009, 06:01 PM
Hey, rearnakedchoke, how's it going? Posted anything stupid or poorly thought out recently?



Oh wait, never mind. :rolleyes:

Seriously, read what's been going on in this thread and you'll see just how ignorant your comment really is.

i actually have been reading what has been going on, and there was great discussion, but to tell someone you don't agree with to go get their bible out from the bottom of the closet and dust it off, isn't really called for .....

Preach
04-16-2009, 06:02 PM
True, but, as I've said before, I would be suspicious of ANYONE, man or woman, who is actively seeking leadership or power in the church. Every Christian is called by GOD into the ministry, that shouldn't even be up for question. However, not every Christian can be a leader. First of all, it's not practical. Could you imagine the chaos if even a small church was full of people who all believed they should be in charge? Secondly, some people are just not leaders by their nature.

So, a Christian who lives a life of service and is a great witness for the Lord, is not necessarily a leader. We're all supposed to be doing that.

My dad was an ordained minister, so I grew up viewing churches from the inside (in the sense of them being human-run organizations). I also spent over 10 years serving the military and I can say with absolute confidence that those who actively seek positions of leadership almost never make good leaders. Whether it be the military, the business world or the church, that's always proven to be true.

Also, winning souls to the LORD shouldn't be a competition. We can't always see the end of every person's journey, so we'll probably never know how many people we might have influenced in this lifetime. Also, when we do help someone make that final decision for Christ, we should keep in mind that we were likely just the last link on a long chain of Christians who led this person to Christ. It shouldn't be a matter of boasting for us. GOD did all the work.

Although I agree with your post I do know that I get excited when I lead someone to Christ. It's like getting a trophy. Like Paul said some plant, some water, and some harvest. So I agree but you have to understand. That in my 30 years I see alot of people who are not doing any of these 3. As I am sure you have as well. And also the Church is full of people who want to be leaders just wait till your church is looking to put new carpet in the church or a new door you will see what I mean.
I never said winning souls should be a competiton but rather or ultimate goal. I also dont remember the intial post saying anything about women demanding Leadership. But I do know that when God puts someone in leadership he also equips them for their duty. Hence the old saying God doesn't always call the equiped but equips the called

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 06:02 PM
i am aware who he is .. i was not being disrespectful though ..... and I don't think Mark is just trying to push his weight around because of who he is related too, so people shouldn't make it look like that ... it wasn't my intention as I would have responded to anyone on here in the same manner ....
Good. I'll make sure I respond to any "disrespect" you threaten to show in the future in the same appropriate manner I would if you launched it at anyone. :ninja:

Miss Foxy
04-16-2009, 06:06 PM
i actually have been reading what has been going on, and there was great discussion, but to tell someone you don't agree with to go get their bible out from the bottom of the closet and dust it off, isn't really called for .....
Well Chris F did state that he is close minded when it comes to the scripture so I think what Mark and Nate were getting at was them wanting Chris F to show them the scriptures.

NateR
04-16-2009, 06:08 PM
i actually have been reading what has been going on, and there was great discussion, but to tell someone you don't agree with to go get their bible out from the bottom of the closet and dust it off, isn't really called for .....

Well, when dealing with a self-proclaimed Bible expert who refuses to admit that he's human and could possibly have made a mistake in his interpretation, even when his interpretations totally defy the plain meaning of the text, then claims that anyone who disagrees with him are heretically clinging to dogma instead of the Word of GOD; then sometimes you may need to be a little blunt.

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 06:11 PM
It probably doesn't help your fears, to see him aiming a rifle at you in Nate's sig :laugh:
:laugh: Its like I said.

"All I can say is, for me, he is more frightening, and er, yes, more frightening then Matt. I think He's...The best way to describe him a little bit, is sort of like, a little bit like Matt Hughes but with the handbreak taken off...."

:ashamed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjc8FDA6G9g

Miss Foxy
04-16-2009, 06:16 PM
:laugh: Its like I said.

"All I can say is, for me, he is more frightening, and er, yes, more frightening then Matt. I think He's...The best way to describe him a little bit, is sort of like, a little bit like Matt Hughes but with the handbreak taken off...."

:ashamed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjc8FDA6G9g
So mind your P's and Q's Dave or Mark is gonna get you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :scared0015: lol..

Llamafighter
04-16-2009, 06:17 PM
:laugh: Its like I said.

"All I can say is, for me, he is more frightening, and er, yes, more frightening then Matt. I think He's...The best way to describe him a little bit, is sort of like, a little bit like Matt Hughes but with the handbreak taken off...."

:ashamed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjc8FDA6G9g

you realize that if you see Mark on your states tour it's going to be 100 worse for you now?:wink:

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 06:22 PM
you realize that if you see Mark on your states tour it's going to be 100 worse for you now?:wink:
:laugh: well, Mark would probably have to be at the HIT Squad gym, in the fall (when he will probably be busy with Harvest) and I shall have a camcorder this time




.....Tazers are legal in your country :unsure-1: ...right :unsure: :huh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

rearnakedchoke
04-16-2009, 06:54 PM
Good. I'll make sure I respond to any "disrespect" you threaten to show in the future in the same appropriate manner I would if you launched it at anyone. :ninja:
sounds good ...

Boomer
04-16-2009, 07:18 PM
Chris go to the closet,open the door, grab the book under the four phone books. wipe the dust off of it, This is your bible, start reading it!! Mark

Ok what am I missing. I opened the door and sure enough ... phone books. I left them up and nothing but an old piece of cheese and a used band aid. :huh:

Where is this Bible you speak of? :blink:

:D

Seriously this is Mark's way of saying, "Hey .. how yea doing. Lets go have a mocha."

Don't know what ya'll getting so riled up about?

Llamafighter
04-16-2009, 07:26 PM
Ok what am I missing. I opened the door and sure enough ... phone books. I left them up and nothing but an old piece of cheese and a used band aid. :huh:

Where is this Bible you speak of? :blink:

:D

Seriously this is Mark's way of saying, "Hey .. how yea doing. Lets go have a mocha."

Don't know what ya'll getting so riled up about?

:ninja: did you eat the cheese or smell the band aid?? :Whistle:

:laugh: :laugh:

Bonnie
04-16-2009, 07:38 PM
You're so scared of him :laugh:
:ninja: me too


Fear not, he is but a man! Nothing more than flesh and bone. So what if his bones can snap yours in two. :laugh:

Bonnie
04-16-2009, 07:41 PM
:laugh: well, Mark would probably have to be at the HIT Squad gym, in the fall (when he will probably be busy with Harvest) and I shall have a camcorder this time




.....Tazers are legal in your country :unsure-1: ...right :unsure: :huh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Dave, just stare him in the eye and see who :blink:s first. If that fails....jump behind Nathan. :laugh:

Tyburn
04-16-2009, 07:53 PM
....jump behind Nathan. :laugh:
:laugh: I think I might go right for that one actually :laugh:

Boomer...please dont answer the question posed about the cheese and bandaid :mellow:

Crisco
04-16-2009, 09:13 PM
I don't think Mark drinks Mocha's

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:17 AM
I agree with Mark. I don't understand where you are getting your interpretations from, but you seem to be ignoring the plain meaning of the text. When Paul writes, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man," and you try to claim that Paul is actually saying, "It's okay for women to be leaders in the church and have authority over men," then it just sounds to me like you are not honestly interpreting the scriptures.

In context he is not making a blanket command but an order for a certain church. It is called hermeneutics. The bible must interrupt the bible. Not man and your opinions are a man made beliefs. It is a tradition of men. I gave you a long list of female leaders and scripture to back it up. All you have is out of context proof texting. Can you prove Paul meant it as a blanket command. Is it even an imperative in the Greek? Just because your denomination and traditions teach it does not make it biblical. To make that so you would have to ignore all the info I gave you and prove Paul was making an imperative for all the churhces.

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:20 AM
These women, while they had a significant role to play in Israel's history, are irrelevant to the point you are trying to make



Deborah and Jael were chosen to lead in a period of great turmoil in Israel and a spiritual low point. However the position of Judge is clearly different from the position of priest or Rabbi.



A patron and a leader are two very different things.

Chloe:
In 1 Corinthians 1: 11, the verse describes "those of Chloe's household" but that could simply mean that she was the hostess, since the church met in her house. In the very next verse, when Paul is describing the factions that are forming, Chloe is never mentioned as being a potential leader of one of the factions. This is the only verse in which Chloe is mentioned in the Bible.

Lydia:
Acts 16: 14-15, 40 - These are the verses that mention Lydia, but again she seems to be more of a hostess, providing a home for worship, not a teacher. These are the only verses in which Lydia is mentioned in the Bible.

Dorcas:
Acts 9: 36-43 - Dorcas (or Tabitha) is restored to life. She is described as "full of good works and charitable deeds," but there is nothing in those verses that implies she was a leader or teacher in the early church. This is the only passage in which Dorcas (or Tabitha) is mentioned in the Bible.

Philip's daughters:
Philip is originally mentioned in Acts 8:40 and is described as an "evangelist" in Acts 21:8. His "daughters who prophesied" are mentioned in the very next verse and never again after that.


You need to look more into the context as I have said a million times already. You say it means one thing, but what you sat does not apply ot the context nor the cultural aspects of the time of the time. Do you understand Ancient Near East familial patterns? How about Romans households?

NateR
04-17-2009, 03:21 AM
I gave you a long list of female leaders and scripture to back it up.

There were no religious leaders on that list with the possible exception of Deborah.

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:23 AM
The Bible tells us to test or try the spirits. But in doing so we dont need to question their calling or desire but rather their spirit. The Bible says we will know them by their fruit that they bear. I know alot of men that have never lead anyone to the Lord. But I also know several women whom have led several. The Bible tells us that a person who win's souls is wise. So regardless of male or female we are I hope working towards the same goal and that is winning people to Jesus.
So regardless of your belief on women leaders. Let me ask this question to everyone involved in this discussion. When was the last time you led someone to the Lord? Do you have fruit? We as Christians get so caught up with this and that, that we forget our mission. Jesus said he came to seek and to save that which was lost.That should be our main concern regardless of who leads them as long as they get led. I love discussions just like everyone else but there comes a time when discussions take away from our cause or mission.
So as I thought of the woman taken in the very act and they asked Jesus. What does the law say. All he asked them was he who is without sin go ahead and cast the first stone. When in reality he was and is the only one that meets that criteria. Lets unite to see people saved not fight amongst ourselves. About who's and how's.

@2 people last week and I am working on one at work now!

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:23 AM
There were no religious leaders on that list with the possible exception of Deborah.

According to you! The bible says differently :)

NateR
04-17-2009, 03:24 AM
According to you! The bible says differently :)

In your opinion.

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:26 AM
I agree that that was a little rough, but in Mark's defense (not that he needs it) he did not ask for interpretations.

He asked for thoughts? What else would that mean then peoples thoughts on this subject. Come on now. He should have said if your biblical proof disagrees wiht my traditions then keep it to your self.

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:30 AM
i actually have been reading what has been going on, and there was great discussion, but to tell someone you don't agree with to go get their bible out from the bottom of the closet and dust it off, isn't really called for .....

Thanks for the support. However I guess since they do not know me they feel it is okay to disrespect me. Even though I have left pastoral ministry I still preach often as an evangelist at youth rallies and bible conferences. So I guess they assume ministers keep their bibles on a shelf. Funny thing was there a phone book on it. :laugh: I had put it there after I called Pizza Hut.

NateR
04-17-2009, 03:32 AM
He asked for thoughts? What else would that mean then peoples thoughts on this subject. Come on now. He should have said if your biblical proof disagrees wiht my traditions then keep it to your self.

Y'see now there's the old, arrogant Pastor Chris showing his head again. :angry:

What we have is your personal interpretation and you're trying to convince everyone that the text means the exact opposite of what it actually says. That's closer to heresy than hermeneutics.

You have yet to present any CONVINCING evidence that the Bible describes female leaders in the early church.

I was about 60% sure on this issue, but after reading your "proof" I'm more convinced than ever that women should not have positions of authority in the church. All I knew before was how I was raised to believe, but you've helped convince me that I was raised the right way. :)

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:34 AM
True, but, as I've said before, I would be suspicious of ANYONE, man or woman, who is actively seeking leadership or power in the church. Every Christian is called by GOD into the ministry, that shouldn't even be up for question. However, not every Christian can be a leader. First of all, it's not practical. Could you imagine the chaos if even a small church was full of people who all believed they should be in charge? Secondly, some people are just not leaders by their nature.

So, a Christian who lives a life of service and is a great witness for the Lord, is not necessarily a leader. We're all supposed to be doing that.

My dad was an ordained minister, so I grew up viewing churches from the inside (in the sense of them being human-run organizations). I also spent over 10 years serving the military and I can say with absolute confidence that those who actively seek positions of leadership almost never make good leaders. Whether it be the military, the business world or the church, that's always proven to be true.

Also, winning souls to the LORD shouldn't be a competition. We can't always see the end of every person's journey, so we'll probably never know how many people we might have influenced in this lifetime. Also, when we do help someone make that final decision for Christ, we should keep in mind that we were likely just the last link on a long chain of Christians who led this person to Christ. It shouldn't be a matter of boasting for us. GOD did all the work.

It happens a lot. Especially in small churches. One family will want to run the show. A big tithers etc.

Leadership is never somtehing forced. I for one nevr sought it in anything I did it just always came to me because God had a calling and a plan for my life.

I agree it is not a compettion, but not trying to help souls find truth is disobeying God and open rebellion is not a sign of a true believer. SO if anyone is not sharing their faith I doubt they are even saved.

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:35 AM
Well Chris F did state that he is close minded when it comes to the scripture so I think what Mark and Nate were getting at was them wanting Chris F to show them the scriptures.

I did!!! I am close minded to man's tradtions not so much scripture. I take it literal and will not budge.

Mark
04-17-2009, 03:36 AM
Chris, what Denomination of church did you preach at? When were you saved? Why did you stop preaching? were or are you married, kids? What are you doing now? Take a break from arguing with Nat. Give us a little testimony if you will. Thanks Mark

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:38 AM
Well, when dealing with a self-proclaimed Bible expert who refuses to admit that he's human and could possibly have made a mistake in his interpretation, even when his interpretations totally defy the plain meaning of the text, then claims that anyone who disagrees with him are heretically clinging to dogma instead of the Word of GOD; then sometimes you may need to be a little blunt.

1. I know I am human. This is why I rely on the Holy Spirit and scripture and no man tradtions fo rmy faith.

2. The plain meaning must be in context you still refuse to look at the total context. So your interpertation is a man made philosophy and not proper hermeuntics

3. You can disagree w/ me all you want. But until you prove it I know I am right. Prove Paul meant it as a blanket command.

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:43 AM
Y'see now there's the old, arrogant Pastor Chris showing his head again. :angry:

What we have is your personal interpretation and you're trying to convince everyone that the text means the exact opposite of what it actually says. That's closer to heresy than hermeneutics.

You have yet to present any CONVINCING evidence that the Bible describes female leaders in the early church.

I was about 60% sure on this issue, but after reading your "proof" I'm more convinced than ever that women should not have positions of authority in the church. All I knew before was how I was raised to believe, but you've helped convince me that I was raised the right way. :)

You really are clueless. Go learn some hermeneutics and then come back until then I stand by the fact you worship mans religion and not scripture. Why do you refuse to take the context into consideration? Why is your traditions so much more important to you then the bible? You are worse then a pharisee!

Chris F
04-17-2009, 03:59 AM
Chris, what Denomination of church did you preach at? When were you saved? Why did you stop preaching? were or are you married, kids? What are you doing now? Take a break from arguing with Nat. Give us a little testimony if you will. Thanks Mark

1. Assembly of God
2. April 7th 1979
3. I did not stop. I just quits pastoring because the church was treating my family bad and wanting to run the show. It was a small church with one large family who has been there 40 years and want to leave it the same way.
4. yes, 2 kids
5. I work as an evangelist, adjunct teach at a community college (history), and manage a restaurant.

I was saved as a child. My mother was a preachers daughter but a black sheep sure enough. Grandpa made sure I went to church. So I was raised in church for years. My mom died in 1985. I blamed God and left the church. When I was 20 after living a very sinful life I came back to Christ and God reminded me of my calling to preach. I did not want to. My Grandpa, uncles, cousins were all pastors and they were treated really bad by some churhces and I saw that and wanted no part. Needless to say I gave in before God sent a whale to take me to Nineveh. I went to bible college and Seminary and started pastoring in 1998. After finishing school and Grad school I started senior pastoring until last month. I now go to youth rallies and preach Jesus Chrsit and him crucified. I preach a lot like a guy named Paul Washer. The truth is not popular, and when you are not willing to itch ears you face trials. You and Nate are saying all the same things I did for years. Then I started reading the epistles as they related to the book of Acts. I found a lot out there was a lot more to the context. Then I also learned you can't make a doctrine that is out of nature of the writer and of God. Since God is no respecter of persons and Paul always told us when it was him and not God making the commands I let the bible interpret itself and realized I was wrong. Just as you all are. God can call whomever he wants into leadership, and he does. Are you saying God will not use a women in leadership? If yes then oyu must ask why did he call these women i listed and why did he allow it? Thanks for discussing it.

Mark
04-17-2009, 04:07 AM
Listen God can make good out of anything. Im not waisting my breath on this. But dont say that Im wrong, You could be. Right????? Mark

Chris F
04-17-2009, 04:23 AM
Listen God can make good out of anything. Im not waisting my breath on this. But dont say that Im wrong, You could be. Right????? Mark


Who knows! We may both be wrong and God might be scratching his head at the irrelevance of our discussion. All I know is what the bible says in its complete context. One can easily make many doctrines out of a text that says one thing but means the opposite when put in context. This is why we all must study to show ourselves approved workman rightly dividing the Word of truth. If God can use a donkey to save His people he can call a women into leadership as he did in both the OT and NT. I would be happy to review any evidence in context you our Nate have. Show me where Paul made this a command for all his churches? Why would he say I forbid.... if when he was speaking for God he always days The Lord commands... This is what you must rectify before you can prove your tradition.

Mark
04-17-2009, 04:30 AM
You dont get it do you??? Im not waisting anymore of my time. If you want to talk about something else thats fine. If you make me say this again i will have to us caps! Mark

NateR
04-17-2009, 04:33 AM
You really are clueless.

I'm going to bow out of this discussion before it gets any uglier, but I want to set the record straight on some of your accusations.

you worship mans religion and not scripture.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that GOD is the author of relationships and Satan is the author of religion. Religion is simply a way of drawing people away from GOD using traditions, ceremonies, myths, and works-based salvation. To choose a manmade tradition over the Word of GOD is one of the worst sins a Christian can commit in my mind.

Why do you refuse to take the context into consideration?

I am taking the context that Paul was a Jew raised in the Temple that women weren't even allowed inside. They had to worship GOD is a special court outside. Also, there was no New Testament written when Paul began his ministry, thus he had to preach the gospel of Jesus out of the Old Testament.

Why is your traditions so much more important to you then the bible?

Again, you couldn't be more wrong. Traditions usually equal heresy as far as I'm concerned. When I got saved, it was just me, GOD and the Bible. I was raised in Baptist churches, but fell away from that for about 10-12 years. I didn't join a church until more than a year after I was saved. Before then, most of my Bible studies came from television, primarily Kay Arthur a female Bible teacher.

Interestingly enough, she would probably disagree with your interpretation of female leaders in the early church.

You are worse then a pharisee!

You're making assumptions and trying to paint me as a legalist. I'm just disagreeing with your interpretation. Which oddly enough is the exact same interpretation that the church I currently attend holds.

Your evidence is simply not enough to convince me that your interpretation is correct.

If you remember, you and I actually agree more than we disagree on this.

Chris F
04-17-2009, 04:34 AM
You dont get it do you??? Im not waisting anymore of my time. If you want to talk about something else thats fine. If you make me say this again i will have to us caps! Mark

Good night and God Bless! :) DO NOT GET MAD ITS JUST A DISCUSSION :laugh:

Chris F
04-17-2009, 04:42 AM
I'm going to bow out of this discussion before it gets any uglier, but I want to set the record straight on some of your accusations.



Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that GOD is the author of relationships and Satan is the author of religion. Religion is simply a way of drawing people away from GOD using traditions, ceremonies, myths, and works-based salvation. To choose a manmade tradition over the Word of GOD is one of the worst sins a Christian can commit in my mind.Religion is when oyu place man before God. This dogma does just that



I am taking the context that Paul was a Jew raised in the Temple that women weren't even allowed inside. They had to worship GOD is a special court outside. Also, there was no New Testament written when Paul began his ministry, thus he had to preach the gospel of Jesus out of the Old Testament.Paul used to kill those pesky Christians. The he found Jesus. By your logic then Paul should have agreed with the Judizers and forced circumcision. They met in houses because the Jews were worng. geeze Nate I know you know better



Again, you couldn't be more wrong. Traditions usually equal heresy as far as I'm concerned. When I got saved, it was just me, GOD and the Bible. I was raised in Baptist churches, but fell away from that for about 10-12 years. I didn't join a church until more than a year after I was saved. Before then, most of my Bible studies came from television, primarily Kay Arthur a female Bible teacher.Then oyu know God can use them

Interestingly enough, she would probably disagree with your interpretation of female leaders in the early church.Yes she does not believe in female pastors.



You're making assumptions and trying to paint me as a legalist. I'm just disagreeing with your interpretation. Which oddly enough is the exact same interpretation that the church I currently attend holds.Again it is not my interpertation it is what the context teaches

Your evidence is simply not enough to convince me that your interpretation is correct.See above response. Until you read the context and learn hermeuntics you will never get it. By your logic you personal beliefs are equal to Gods word and if anyone says different including the church you now attend they are worng. Yet you refuse to read the scriptures in their context. Show me once where Paul has made a blanket command that is not repeat in all his letters.

If you remember, you and I actually agree more than we disagree on this.Absoultly. I would never go to a church with a female leader. But I will also never say she cannot be called of God to do so.

My response are above in red.

Neezar
04-17-2009, 04:57 AM
Chris, is there anything that you have learned from the bible that applies to you and the church?

Chris F
04-17-2009, 05:15 AM
Chris, is there anything that you have learned from the bible that applies to you and the church? I am sorry I do not understand what you are asking. Have I learned anything from the bible? Tons. My guess is you are fishing for a comment like doesn't the bible say do not waste time with useless ramblings and arguments? Yes it does. I have learned the Jesus Christ dies on the cross and that is the only gospel message worth preaching and it does not matter if it is a male or female telling others about Jesus and Him Crucified. :laugh:

Neezar
04-17-2009, 11:32 AM
I am sorry I do not understand what you are asking. Have I learned anything from the bible? Tons. My guess is you are fishing for a comment like doesn't the bible say do not waste time with useless ramblings and arguments? Yes it does. I have learned the Jesus Christ dies on the cross and that is the only gospel message worth preaching and it does not matter if it is a male or female telling others about Jesus and Him Crucified. :laugh:

Well, you guessed wrong.

You said that Paul was writing to one particular church and then another letter was referring to only one woman. Is there any teachings in the bible that you think applies to your church?

Tyburn
04-17-2009, 12:58 PM
There were no religious leaders on that list with the possible exception of Deborah.
She is no Exception. But she wasnt a priest I dont think

Tyburn
04-17-2009, 01:01 PM
Chris, what Denomination of church did you preach at?
I think He's Pentecostal if I remember rightly :)

Tyburn
04-17-2009, 01:10 PM
Listen God can make good out of anything. Im not waisting my breath on this. But dont say that Im wrong, You could be. Right????? Mark
Sounds to me like its purely a matter of interpreation.

You have the scriptures relating to Man in Genesis which you use as Mirror Symbolism, which the Bible often Uses, and base your theology on a few verses of Scripture, assuming that Paul is making a blanket statement to all women, and assuming that the women listed are not ministers. Presumably you write off Deborah in the old testament by saying she isnt a priest, therefore she isnt really a spiritual leader in the sense of a minister

It seems a valid interpreation

I have The Scriptures relating to Man in Genesis but do not use mirror symbology as I believe the pragmatics of the world "man" to include Women in that instance. I recognise those Verses where Saint Paul writes to a church about Women, but believe it was not so much to do with women in ministry, but a warning, for specific women. I believe, based on some secondary historical accounts, which Pastor Chris posted earlier, that those women listed, are ministers, I believe this is also in keeping with the old Testament women in leadership like Deborah

It seems a valid interpretation

Because the identities of the Women is not 100percent disclosed, and because using mirror symbolism is subjective...this is something that we could dissagree about forever...the Bible isnt actually 100percent clear. Whilst it seems on first reading to condemn women ministers, GOD seems to bless those in ministry today regularly.


So perhaps Nathans Theology is a comprimise.

Men should lead, but if they Cant, Women should fill the gap. :)

Everybody is right...and everybody is wrong. :laugh:

Llamafighter
04-17-2009, 01:28 PM
is this STILL going on???
Who won?:wink:

:laugh:

rearnakedchoke
04-17-2009, 02:03 PM
is this STILL going on???
Who won?:wink:

:laugh:

I think i did .. no really, i just prayed that cooler heads will prevail and the bickering could stop ... looks like it worked ...

Llamafighter
04-17-2009, 02:19 PM
I think i did .. no really, i just prayed that cooler heads will prevail and the bickering could stop ... looks like it worked ...

I just sat in the fetal position in the shower and had a good cry about it...

:laugh:

Neezar
04-17-2009, 02:22 PM
I think i did .. no really, i just prayed that cooler heads will prevail and the bickering could stop ... looks like it worked ...


I just sat in the fetal position in the shower and had a good cry about it...

:laugh:

Yet, you can't leave......

Crisco
04-17-2009, 02:28 PM
Yet, you can't leave......

I didn't know we where allowed... :unsure-1: :unsure-1: :unsure-1: :unsure-1:

Llamafighter
04-17-2009, 02:45 PM
Yet, you can't leave......

What do you mean? I'm not in here:laugh:

:ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja:

Crisco
04-17-2009, 02:53 PM
What do you mean? I'm not in here:laugh:

:ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja: :ninja:

A true Ninja must never reveal himself

Llamafighter
04-17-2009, 03:09 PM
A true Ninja must never reveal himself

And a true revealer should never ninja himself...:cool:

:huh: