Questionable acts for women??

Yes to teaching women and children. No to everything else.

I would have said Yes to teaching youths, but I didn't know what you meant by that. To me, youths would be the same as children, but I didn't want to answer on my assumption.

BTW, if you are talking about this "teaching" being done in a Sunday School situation, then I would say No to both since I don't believe in having Sunday Schools.

The best thing women in the church today can do for the other women and children is to teach them by their actions. How is a wife, mother, sister in the church supposed to act? How should their conversations be? Things of that nature.

 

You mean women cannot witness to the lost (which to me is evangelizing)???I didn't realize that the Great Commission was given to men only...

 

SaggyW--

Seems to me that there are a couple of the categories in this poll that can be interpreted in various ways.

I'd be a little hesitant to vote either a 100% YES (or, by default, a 100% NO) on a few of them myself.

See Bro. James Reed's post for some examples of what I mean.

 

Where does the Bible say that only men (or pastors/deacons for that matter) can evangelize, baptize, serve communion....?

We have made things to be what we think they ought to be, and added to scripture with all our rules and regulations.

 

This is one of my pet peeves. It goes beyond just men vs. women. Whenever I hear of baptists complaining about a non-ordained person baptizing or helping with communion, I wonder when we got so Catholic. They aren't means of grace, so if done under the church's authority, ordination shouldn't matter.

As I like to say, ordination doesn't give you magical powers.

 

My belief is, the great commission was given to the apostles, who were the ministers of their time, and through them to the ministry until the end of time.

The one example we have of the Lord's Supper taking place, when the Lord actually implemented it, was with the Lord himself, as the Shepherd of the flock gathered together, presiding over the service. With that example, I believe that we are shown that the shepherd of the flock (meaning the pastor of the church as the undershepherd today) is to preside over the Lord's Supper.

I also can not seem to find anywhere in scripture which indicates someone was baptized by one other than a minister.

As I said, women have their place in the church and men have theirs. Both are equally important functions of the same body, but both are different.

 

Serving communion doesn't necessarily mean "presiding" over the service. It may just mean helping to pass out bread. I do think it is appropriate for an elder/overseer/pastor to "preside" because of their leadership role. Deacons could substitute in their absence. Passing out the elements, though, isn't the same.

I can't seem to find many places in scripture at all that identify who was doing the baptizing. Most of them are passive, saying, "they were baptized." That tells us nothing about the baptizer, though. John the Baptist, Philip, and Paul come to mind, but none of these were pastors.

I am a complementarian, but I believe that we are sometimes more restrictive than the Word demands.

 

In regard to teaching... our adult department has 2 classes, and the teachers, per se, are both women. Years ago I did have difficulty accepting an arrangement like that. But I don't now. "Sunday School," or what we call Bible Fellowship Groups, are not something found in scripture. And actually, if scripture is what is taught, is it not ultimately the writers of scripture who do the teaching? No matter how much we may want to say scripture alone is our authority of faith and practice, the idea that we need "teachers"-- or even preachers or evangelists-- is something additional to that. Somebody selects, somebody emphasizes, somebody illustrates. And since dividing into departments and classes is not something from scripture, why do we try to impose a certain rule, while not having the type of meetings Paul talked about, where everyone has a prayer, a prophecy, a tongue, et al, and not breaking bread together, unless you include splitting a doughnut. Sunday School-- Bible Study, fellowship groups, or whatever we call it-- is not the subject of biblical tenets for orderly meetings following rigid rules, unless we miss what we are aiming for in much bigger ways than in letting a woman teach a mixed group.

But with that said, the arguments can be weak on either position in this. The pro side may point out that Mary Magdalen did not refuse to take Jesus' message to the disciples 'teach' them what she saw and where they were to meet Him. And that in Acts Aquilla and Priscilla taught Apollos the clearer truths of the gospel. But which side does this really favor? Note that these situations also were not "formal" (for lack of a better term of what I mean) meetings, but rather they were geared to particular ones in support of the more comissioned commands to go, teach, baptize, lay on hands, and remember by the elements. So how does 'teaching' simplified basics to subgroups of a congregation violate a command when there is no command for the subgroups in the first place?

 

Case in point: "The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, Come, see a man, which told me all things that I ever did: is not this the Christ? Then they went out of the city, and came unto him....And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did."
--John 4:28-30, 39

 

Well, I misunderstood the point then.

An Elder should preside over the service, but as far as passing the bread and wine around, while I would prefer the deacons do this since that would seem to fit in their role as a deacon, I would not make a big fuss over women passing out the plate and cups.

When I first joined the church, we all sat around the dining room tables at the church and took Communion that way. The Pastor would break the bread, say a prayer, and pass it to the person on his left. That person would then pass it to the person on their left, and so on with the Pastor being the last to partake once it came back around. Same with the wine (Back then we only used one glass for everyone...yes, it was a fairly large glass goblet, but we were a small congregation too). We have now gone progressive and use two glasses; one for the men and one for the women.:laugh:

 

why can a woman not baptize? Good discussion fodder there....




Oh, and for lighter conversation. I've just started something positively evil in our church: Our youth take up the offering on Sunday nights. We now have guys and girls passing the plates. There were questions (good-natured ones, no fighting) among our folks...that were answered by a simple,

"Well...the Bible doesn't even address ushers, so I don't guess gender is an issue there!"

(Just another example of how on occasion, we get pretty set in our ways...sometimes, it's because there's a strong biblical precedent. Other times, it's because that's how Grandpa set things up. The fun part is figuring out which is which.)

 

Well, we don't have ushers and we don't pass a plate, so the women or men issue does not arise there. In fact, I don't know that any issue regarding women/men roles in church has ever been raised in our church. It seems that everyone just instinctively knows their place and what they should be doing and no one complains.

 

I'll be sending my youth to your church next week. Because...

• You've been "deprived" of not having the plate passed, and I'm feeling quite sorry for you all.
• We have a mission trip next week that you all have yet to be "blessed" with the opportunity to "sow the seed of faith." (Sorry, my 'health & wealth' lingo is rusty).
• I haven't been to Outback lately.

Besides, Scripture says you have to have ushers. It's in the book of Capitulations.

:laugh:

 

attempt to make serious discussion: So why is it that women can't baptize?

 

Trying to take our examples from scripture, there is no scripture that supports women baptizing.

 

or not baptizing

 

I mistook the poll...I thought we were to check the "questionable acts". The only one I checked was teaching men, as I see none of the others as questionable from Scripture.

 

That's where you and I seem to differ. You believe that if something is not explicitly forbidden in scripture, then it's okay, whereas I believe that if something is not explicitly authorized in scripture, then it's not okay.

You will find no example anywhere in scripture of a single woman ever baptizing anyone. That tells me that, since the Bible doesn't say to do it, then we shouldn't do it. Christ set up his church perfectly with written instructions on how it is to operate. If he had wanted something else in the church, including granting authority for women to baptize, then he would have let us know such. The only people granted authority to baptize by Christ (not including John here) were his apostles, and through them to the ministers who followed. Why can't we just leave it at that?

That said, since this is turning into a debate, I will discontinue the discussion since this forum is for fellowship rather than debate.

God bless.
James

 

my mistake...missed the "fellowship forum" moniker. :thumbs:

This is a good topic for discussion elsewhere.