Women in church

[Nessa]

And whatever you do, don't ask Rick about it!

Woman are allowed to make sammiches in the church kitchen.... how would they have time to do anything else?

[Kurieuo]

Phil, why you do apply a deep cultural (ANE) lens over Genesis 1-6, and yet drop it with Jesus, Paul, the NT. Seems to me that you're applying an inconsistent method of interpretation, maybe one which suits your old man Christian views?

Apostles were also not necessarily leaders alongside Jesus, but rather their leadership came later. Rather Jesus was the Rabbi and apostles his students. Yet, Jesus also opened up the door to women viz. Martha's sister, while Martha was rightly fulfilling her as a woman should back then -- making the sandwiches -- she was even shown up by Jesus for her jealousy of her sister listening to Jesus' teachings.

Indeed, the very first prophets God chose of Jesus' resurrection were women -- and today Christian apologists claim that as evidence for authenticity because if such stories were conjured up at the time, it would have surely been "more reliable" male witnesses.

So then, with churches, I'll restate that they're normally religious and manmade and even lead to cults and many theological errors being taught. I'd much prefer a woman like Nicki who understands the trinitarian doctrine (or the importance of it), than many a Hillsong leader who doesn't, or even someone more extreme who is a wolf in sheeps clothing like Benny Hinn.

With that said, it seems to me men are more naturally wired to discuss theology and philosophise and do science and all that stuff. And yet, it isn't always the case every woman is disinterested in such, and some women are just as learned as men. Normally women have a different set gifts to men, ones which are unnatural to men, and same vice-versa. In any case, God is the one who really chooses. And, if a man-made church neglects such a person, man or woman, God will open up other opportunities for such a person to fulfill His will.

[Philip]

K, what you're not doing is answering my key questions about the listing of qualifications for key offices - why are women not noted, particularly as this is supposed to be instructive as to choosing church leadership? And how can this be an accident? It's a very straight-forward question. This part of the consideration should not require a complex answer. Why no women disciples, Apostle leaders within the Church chosen? Why men headship of families? Because the rest are more technical considerations. And when those instructions for leaders were given, deep theological analysis did not exist amongst people beginning churches - they needed clear, easily understood instructions - which I think are clear.

And your last two paragraphs are emotional responses that don't get to the heart of my basic questions. Because if you can't answer those key questions, then I think it makes the more technical answers suspect - least in this case and considering this was the early church being so critically instructed. Paul: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." I mean, how can you glue that statement to an assertion that women pastors or elders are perfectly compatible with the Church or his noted qualifications/descriptions?

[Philip]

Here's what Norman Geisler has to say about the roles of women within the Church:

https://slideplayer.com/slide/6662614/

(easier to read down the left side, as opposed to the slideshow)

[Nicki]

Nicki: When pastoring is seen as a function and as serving the church, it doesn't make much sense to exclude all women.

Nick, it's important to realize that most evangelical churches that don't allow women to serve as elders or pastors aren't doing it because of some sexist/elitist/antiquated societal views, as they base it upon the qualifications and instructions given for these positions listed in the New Testament, and are in place in individual churches wishing to honor those. So the right or wrong of it should have nothing whatsoever to do with societal or personal preferences. Should Jesus not have chosen a female disciple as one of the originals? And surely, upon replacing Judas, they would have considered a woman, correct? But that's not what Scripture reveals. Why did God almost overwhelmingly choose the Patriarchs to deal with? Why is the man supposed to lead his family? I would submit that it has not one thing to do with abilities/capabilities or intelligence, nor that God places more value upon men than women. So, it's none of that. So, the rightness or wrongness of doctrinal beliefs shouldn't be judged upon our modern sensibilities.

It's OK - you can call me by a man's name if it makes me more acceptable Just kidding. That reminded me, I had a discussion with a non-Christian gay man on Twitter recently (first time I've really been attacked there ) who said among other things that according to the Bible I shouldn't be trying to teach a man. Would the scriptural commandment extend to that - a woman discussing Christianity with a man and trying to teach him? It's not something I'd thought of before because of my experience with female pastors and preachers.

[Nicki]

Phil, why you do apply a deep cultural (ANE) lens over Genesis 1-6, and yet drop it with Jesus, Paul, the NT. Seems to me that you're applying an inconsistent method of interpretation, maybe one which suits your old man Christian views?

Apostles were also not necessarily leaders alongside Jesus, but rather their leadership came later. Rather Jesus was the Rabbi and apostles his students. Yet, Jesus also opened up the door to women viz. Martha's sister, while Martha was rightly fulfilling her as a woman should back then -- making the sandwiches -- she was even shown up by Jesus for her jealousy of her sister listening to Jesus' teachings.

Indeed, the very first prophets God chose of Jesus' resurrection were women -- and today Christian apologists claim that as evidence for authenticity because if such stories were conjured up at the time, it would have surely been "more reliable" male witnesses.

So then, with churches, I'll restate that they're normally religious and manmade and even lead to cults and many theological errors being taught. I'd much prefer a woman like Nicki who understands the trinitarian doctrine (or the importance of it), than many a Hillsong leader who doesn't, or even someone more extreme who is a wolf in sheeps clothing like Benny Hinn.

With that said, it seems to me men are more naturally wired to discuss theology and philosophise and do science and all that stuff. And yet, it isn't always the case every woman is disinterested in such, and some women are just as learned as men. Normally women have a different set gifts to men, ones which are unnatural to men, and same vice-versa. In any case, God is the one who really chooses. And, if a man-made church neglects such a person, man or woman, God will open up other opportunities for such a person to fulfill His will.

Thanks I don't think I'm going to be a pastor but I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to theology, philosophy and science The gay guy on Twitter I mentioned above asked if I was a wolf in sheep's clothing

That paper you shared pointed out all the women who worked alongside Paul and who started churches and hosted them in their homes. The question is, does that mean any of them were actually leaders or pastors? Phoebe is described in one version as a 'deacon' and in another as a 'servant of the church', reflecting uncertainty about her role, I guess.

[Philip]

Nicki, I think it's fine for women to teach or instruct men. It's only the issue of authority in which Scripture reveals the submission of women in roles of the male authority of elders and pastors that is to be different - to not be in leadership over men. Note that even Jesus submitted to the Father - not as an unequal in any way, but as per His function of His role within the Trinity.

[Kurieuo]

It should go without saying, at least to those who know me here, I hold churches and their ecclesiologies in very low esteem.

Do you go to church Phil? What is the denomination? Which churches would you endorse? I think such are important pre-requisite questions before an exchange even happens over whether women should lead in such churches. In fact, for certain church denominations, even in first century Christian communities under Roman governance, I'd say no -- it'd just not be acceptable or expected. For churches today however, certain Christian communities, it would be and is more acceptable. So then, each to their own.

My main concern with a Christian church would be more with correctness of fundamental doctrines, as well as whether people in a particular church are loving and gracious. If people are more concerned with "key offices" and roles, and there are many such in churches, and such people just don't gel with me.

Ecclesiology is a whole topic for discussion. Sadly, many think of leaders in terms of power and authority. This is even how the apostles thought when they debated who'd be the greatest amongst them in heaven. Jesus' response to them is awesome once broken down. When understood, really turns it all upside down and brings them down to a level of humility.

As for churches, when the curtain was torn in two, such for me is a sign God shredded such structures. Throw in Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came and dwelt upon each person rather than in a place. To say that no women should lead, actually requires proclaiming there is a right church structure -- and I disagree that there is any particular ecclesiology or "church" that is right above all others (except Christ's church which is of the spirit). So then, I'd equally reject a Catholic claiming RCC is the one true church, an Eastern Orthodox claiming it's theirs, an Evangelical claiming it is Baptist, or even an Evangelical Pentecostal claiming it is like AOG or something, etc.

The only ecclesiology I therefore fully endorse is one of spirit, any and all who are are in Christ no matter their particular "church" or denomination thereof. That's not a cop out, it's just the way it is as I see matters. Where two or more are gathered in Christ's name, that is the true Church right there in that moment.

As for the early Christian church, such were more tight-knit Christian communities. Paul is dealing with a different kettle of fish. Things were much different during the first century, all people who confessed Jesus is Lord were apart of the church. Compared to the churches that developed over the next 200 years, groups splitering off or ecclesiola in ecclesia forming, and compared to the churches people now attend on a Sunday (or Saturday if that's the preference), it's just not the same.

Now I've written a bit, but I really don't even have the faintest of what I'm debating against with you Phil. It seems our disagreement is to be had elsewhere, over the nature of churches, rather than whether or not women lead in a church.

[neo-x]

1. Women didn't have equal status is Jewish society in Jesus' time. It was a male dominant culture and It was considered a taboo for women to speak out in public. Paul kind of reiterates this when it came to church.
2. Most women were uneducated even to the point of not being educated in reading of basic Torah.
3. The duty of an apostle was a difficult one including travelling without guarantees of shelter or food. Road wasn’t safe for a women or at least that is what was the common understanding of the day.
4. Unmarried women were not allowed to travel or do something without a father's permission. The married one had to obey the husband. A main reason why one of the first women disciples was a prostitute. She could at least act freely.
5. Not that I think Jesus was a sexist but appointing a woman as a disciple or later to be a leader was simply inefficient in Jesus' time.

*did his 1 post and going back now.

[Kurieuo]

Here's what Norman Geisler has to say about the roles of women within the Church:

https://slideplayer.com/slide/6662614/

(easier to read down the left side, as opposed to the slideshow)

The following slide I just couldn't help smiling.

geisler.jpg (52.64 KiB) Viewed 5870 times

I find Geisler to be quite chauvinist and priggish with his lame attempt to try and throw women a bone on this slide.

It also either shows just how pathetic he might be as a man and/or head of his household, or perhaps (more likely) some deceitfulness on his part. Does he really believe a great man is told what to do by his wife and can't do anything for himself? Such would be a quite pitiful man in my opinion. And, I find that seriously more troubling. So I'm doubtful he believes that, which means he's being less than candid and saying stuff tongue-in-cheek.

Seriously, how else could one take this slide? It'd have been better if he just said more straight-out, "but women are better at making sammiches."

[Philip]

K, your emotional responses don't refute what Scripture actually says about this. As for your attack on Geisler's honestly and character - that's really sad.

K: Does he really believe a great man is told what to do by his wife and can't do anything for himself? Such would be a quite pitiful man in my opinion. And, I find that seriously more troubling.

But he didn't say that - as you merely read that into it! The secretary thing - I don't know. But Geisler is one of the most humble, kind, insightful Bible scholars on the planet. To accuse him of being cluelessly sexist - really cheap shot! You just don't like it because he doesn't agree with you on this particular topic. And neither does the Bible! And not once have you offered an explanation why the qualifications for elder and pastor are all male. Or how they could have possible left out women by mistake. Or why all the hand-picked disciples and apostle leaders were male. No, they are intentional. The pronouns all masculine. And Paul directly instructs about women not having authority over men. So, you need to either address why we should have SCRIPTURAL reasons these were negated, or just admit you believe whatever you desire to about it from an emotional standpoint.

K: Does he really believe a great man is told what to do by his wife and can't do anything for himself? Such would be a quite pitiful man in my opinion.

So, you attempt buttress your assertion that women should have the right for authority over men in the Church, and yet you show disdain for a man who submits to such situationally desired authority in the home?

For the record - it's not how I would choose to set the Church up. But I'm not God! I'm not His chosen apostle who wrote the majority of the New Testament. And I have zero problems with women in any societal setting leading corporations, in politics, any of that. I don't think men are superior in spiritual gifting, intelligence, etc. While there ARE clearly things, in GENERAL, that women are better at than men, and vice-versa, per their overall characteristics. But those can vary significantly in key individuals.

[Philip]

Hello, Neo, hope you've been well. I'd been thinking about you amidst the recent regional termoil.

[Nicki]

It should go without saying, at least to those who know me here, I hold churches and their ecclesiologies in very low esteem.

I think I remember you saying you stopped going to church when your kids were little, but you might enjoy it more now. I like the music the most, I think - worshipping God in harmony with others. I wouldn't mind some more upbeat songs at our current church - they tend to stick to pretty slow ones, but they're often beautiful. The sermons are thought-provoking and often uplifting and give me something to go away with (I really should start taking notes, though, so I can remember them properly) and although I'm not much of a people person I appreciate the fellowship as well. I've been going to a small Bible study group and getting to know a few people better there. I wouldn't have much in the way of in-person friendship if it weren't for church! You might be more blessed in that regard, though. We don't exactly have a little church thing going on at home either so what our congregation offers is pretty important to me. Churches are all different and none are perfect - they're just people trying to live out 'let us not give up meeting together'.

[Kurieuo]

I did stop, but I didn't say I don't go to a church. Also, didn't say I hold churches per se in low esteem.

[Kurieuo]

K, your emotional responses don't refute what Scripture actually says about this. As for your attack on Geisler's honestly and character - that's really sad.

K: Does he really believe a great man is told what to do by his wife and can't do anything for himself? Such would be a quite pitiful man in my opinion. And, I find that seriously more troubling.

But he didn't say that - as you merely read that into it! The secretary thing - I don't know. But Geisler is one of the most humble, kind, insightful Bible scholars on the planet. To accuse him of being cluelessly sexist - really cheap shot! You just don't like it because he doesn't agree with you on this particular topic. And neither does the Bible! And not once have you offered an explanation why the qualifications for elder and pastor are all male. Or how they could have possible left out women by mistake. Or why all the hand-picked disciples and apostle leaders were male. No, they are intentional. The pronouns all masculine. And Paul directly instructs about women not having authority over men. So, you need to either address why we should have SCRIPTURAL reasons these were negated, or just admit you believe whatever you desire to about it from an emotional standpoint.

K: Does he really believe a great man is told what to do by his wife and can't do anything for himself? Such would be a quite pitiful man in my opinion.

So, you attempt buttress your assertion that women should have the right for authority over men in the Church, and yet you show disdain for a man who submits to such situationally desired authority in the home?

For the record - it's not how I would choose to set the Church up. But I'm not God! I'm not His chosen apostle who wrote the majority of the New Testament. And I have zero problems with women in any societal setting leading corporations, in politics, any of that. I don't think men are superior in spiritual gifting, intelligence, etc. While there ARE clearly things, in GENERAL, that women are better at than men, and vice-versa, per their overall characteristics. But those can vary significantly in key individuals.

Attack on Geisler? There were 1 of 2 options I presented. He's either doing one or the other, either humouring women (which is to me dishonest on an important topic) or what he calls a great man having his bum essentially wiped by women would be someone I see as quite a pathetic man.

Can you not see any situation where a woman might take up a leadership position in a church? Just one situation.

Otherwise, this was never an issue that I'm emotionally attached to. If I go back over the thread, I detected that your hairs stood on end in reference to something in my linked-to article at ChristianThinkTank. You never elaborated, but just started showing contempt for it. Left me scratching my head, and I asked to pull out the particular points you're getting ruffled by, and then you continued to avoid and turn it back on me.

So I really don't think I can have any exchange with you over this. Evidently, it's a push button issue for some reason. Maybe you had problems with a female leader. I don't know. But, I'm walking away from it lest I do truly say things that are unbecoming.