Women in church

[Philip]

K, all you have to do is address my direct questions - but you've not done so - certainly not about the essential instructions by Paul, or how he could have been mistaken. Or how he could have been merely placing his own ancient cultural sensibilities into the immensely important instructions concerning how to administer God's Church. So, it's not about Geisler, or what I, you or anyone else thinks. And I'm not offended in the least - nor wishing to have an extended argument. But you have the Scriptures that instruct concerning the requirements for certain key leadership positions within the Church. And so this was the model and standard being put forth for the churches going forward. It's also mirrored in the patriarchal line of Christ, the all male original disciples / Apostles, and even within the headship instructions for the family.

So, your disagreement isn't with me - it's that you have a position in direct opposition to what Scripture specifically says. And particularly with the Apostle Paul - as he's the guy who was unimaginably zealous for the freedom Christ brings ALL Christians. He was the one to challenge those, like Peter, who sinfully fell in with others who wanted to continue the oppressive yoke of the Judaisers' bondage upon those already set free in Christ. So it is absolutely inconceivable to think that Paul spoke only from his own personal desires or opinions, or desired to keep Christian women under the yoke of some now-antiquated, cultural bias, or sexist male oppression - well, that's the belief of people reading modern sensibilities into the text who don't want to accept his teachings. Again, if submission is a form of inequality in one's individual value, then Jesus' submission to the Father would show Him to be unequal to the Father - which we know is impossible. And yet their ROLES are different, and Jesus' submittance was totally in sync with the His and the collective will of the Father and Spirit!

[RickD]

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

Fwiw,

I think the only leadership positions in church that Philip was saying that women shouldn't hold, are leadership positions over men.

Iow,

Positions over women and children, are ok.

[Philip]

I also don't see anything wrong with women teaching men. Just not as pastors or elders having authority over them.

[RickD]

I also don't see anything wrong with women teaching men. Just not as pastors or elders having authority over them.

I don't know any teacher/student relationship, where the teacher isn't in a position of authority over the student.

Doesn't the very nature of "teacher", mean a position of authority over students?

[Kurieuo]

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

Fwiw,

I think the only leadership positions in church that Philip was saying that women shouldn't hold, are leadership positions over men.

Iow,

Positions over women and children, are ok.

You see, I think "positions over" talk is just silly -- such are what people focused upon "power" zoom in on.

Rather, it is more correct to see things in terms of there are those in the church who may need help, some who need better teaching, others who need to direction to find their place in Christ's church, others are struggling in life, with their families, and may need non-judgemental support, etc.... Instead, many see things more in terms of who is the pastor, leaders, etc -- and people in such churches often strive to "go up the levels" and become visible as a leader whether it's in a life group or some other role.

So then, to think of a woman "leader" as being someone in a position of power over a man, or over anyone, that's just wrong-headed. Rather, a proper Christian leader in my mind of the church, is someone with humility, willing a impart their knowledge (teach), to serve and be there for others. There is no real "position over" except that such a person rightly deserves honour. They're a true knight or paladin in Christian terms, and the King -- Christ -- will reward such. This idea runs counter to how many churches work today where the leader is in a position of authority to either praise and raise up some, or reprimand and lower others in status.

To highlight the distinction of "leader", the thought came to me of how God gave mankind "dominion" over animals. Some think that means humanity can do whatever the hell it likes to animals, abuse them for our purposes and what-have-you. Certainly, we have an authority of sorts, yet I'd argue a careful analysis means that God has entrusted such creatures and the world into our care. Indeed, we are to be like shepherds over the world God's entrusted to us -- His image bearers.

So then, as to whether or not a woman should "lead" -- really it comes down to the details of what that means. Like with the right employee for the job, it should ideally always be based upon merit and who is more qualified and suitable (though it often isn't) -- so too in churches. As to whether or not women should be in a leadership role (and I'm even suprised I'm having this conversation), I can think of situations where women are more suited to leadership than the men in her vicinity.

For example, let's say ISIS killed off all the men in a church, and yet Christianity is still practiced by the wives in secret and some new male converts from Islam (who were repulsed seeing Muhammad's beliefs carried out to the 't'). Should these men now be immediate leaders because they're male? No, none of them should lead or teach until such a time as they're ready i.e., qualified to do so.

Or let's say missionary work being carried out by a woman in a part of the world where there are no Christians. Once some come to Christ, would it be right for her to lead a church even with newly male converts? I'd hope, and think, noone would say it would be improper in such situations. Clearly, the woman does have more experience and understanding about Christianity than the men, and so it is just more natural for her to be a leader.

I give these situations, because it helps to highlight that it isn't the sex of a person, but rather whether or not there is merit for a person (regardless of sex) to be leading. Yet, if we hold fast and tight to Geisler's and Philip's arguments, then no woman should ever "lead" - and by that, clearly they're thinking more in terms of "power" and less in terms of a Christ-like servitude.

In any case, in Christ's Church (which encompasses all Christians no matter their church or denomination), I again will say I see no real "positions over" except our Lord Jesus Christ who has power and authority over us all. With the way a church, or the one starting a church, sets themselves up however, or a group at the top organising their particular denomination and the like, that ecclesiology belongs to them alone. If in such they create positions of power rather than seeing things more the way I do, THAT is what I hold in low esteem (not churches themselves). Such structures don't come from Christ. Again, when we hear of the disciples debating who'd be the greatest, Christ basically eye-rolled them because they just didn't understand.

[Kurieuo]

I also don't see anything wrong with women teaching men. Just not as pastors or elders having authority over them.

What then is this "authority" that pastors or elders have over other Christians?

[Nicki]

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.

OK - don't mind me then I thought you said something about not having got around to going to church again.

[Nicki]

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.

Wasn't Philip talking about something like Titus 1:6 - 'An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe...' or as the NKJV says '...the husband of but one wife...' ?

I knew you'd be able to not say unbecoming things

[Philip]

I also don't see anything wrong with women teaching men. Just not as pastors or elders having authority over them.

What then is this "authority" that pastors or elders have over other Christians?

K raises a good point - I'm not sure how to parse of women teaching men outside of being a Pastor/preacher or elder. But for pastors and elders, we have clear qualifications noted.

[RickD]

I also don't see anything wrong with women teaching men. Just not as pastors or elders having authority over them.

What then is this "authority" that pastors or elders have over other Christians?

K raises a good point - I'm not sure how to parse of women teaching men outside of being a Pastor/preacher or elder. But for pastors and elders, we have clear qualifications noted.

We wouldn't have this problem, if women just stayed...in...the...

[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.

OK - don't mind me then I thought you said something about not having got around to going to church again.

Yes, I have many years ago been quite down on churches, but I really also dislike the thought I may have put others off going to a church. Debating whether or not churches are good or bad, is just so unhelpful and impractical in many ways.

My going to church / not going, really has nothing to do with whether I think churches are good or bad, whether or not I like them. And by "church" here, I mean the buildings people attend of a particular denominations, generally to hear someone speak out the front once a week, sing songs or hymns (depending upon denomination), etc...

Churches are an outgrowth of greater Christendom. There's always going to be faults, but that's no real reason not to go. Unless someone is lucky with their friends, community, associates, churches are really the only place a person can turn to in order to find like-minded people at least with respect to their beliefs re: Jesus.

Just an important distinction between what we have a churches today, is different from first century Christian churches which were more communities in an area. Such that say the church in Jerusalem, or church in Antioch, it was merely representative of the Christians in such places. And yes, structures were put in place to keep things orderly, elders who were good leaders and could teach and the like assigned. But, I gather such was had more through acknowledge people's gifts in such areas, rather than anyone "applying" for the job if you will (as happens in our churches today).

Anyway, I'd encourage anyone to go to a church, one that makes them feel comfortable with their Christianity rather than being at odds with. It is good if a person can find a church they feel comfortable in, as in the world today which shuns God and Christ, it's just good to know there are indeed others out there. Even if you don't want community, are introverted, it can just be a good being with others who do love God.

[Philip]

You'll never find a perfect church or one that doesn't have at least one, two or even a few people who sometimes can royally irritate you. And that's because, like every other organization on earth, every church is made up of flawed human beings. But Scripture teaches we are to continue the practice of coming together with other Christians. God gifted Christians differently, and their synergy not only has far more power in unison, but through our individual gifts, we teach, change and influence each other in many important ways - a thing that cannot happen without regular, close contact and interaction of believers. "Iron sharpens iron!" Remaining at home means the things God could use your gifts to impact others with will not happen. Nor will other Christians have the opportunity to so impact you. Don't know where to look for a good local church? Well, you'll never find one without becoming serious about searching for one!

[1over137]

Thank you guys for discussing this

adding one more link to the debate https://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html
today we have conference to this topic in my republic church

[Kurieuo]

There is a woman pastor in my church (Baptist), she water baptised me in fact. However, to me "pastor' feels masculine. That said, I've had.no issues with her preaching. In fact, she's been quite good whenever she's spoken. Which is an accomplishmet for either man or woman as I'm quite critical. And, I also don't see that because she's led a service that such puts her in a position of authority over anyone (and same with men). Some perhaps might see it like that, but I see it more in terms she's respected.

[RickD]

Kurieuo wrote:
And, I also don't see that because she's led a service that such puts her in a position of authority over anyone (and same with men). Some perhaps might see it like that, but I see it more in terms she's respected.

Because by the very definition of a pastor, it is someone who leads, or is in a position of authority.

Unless you want to argue that a leader isn't in a position of authority?

pas·tor
/ˈpastər/

noun
1.
a minister in charge of a Christian church or congregation.
synonyms: