Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by jaigner, Nov 8, 2011.
Here's a great blog post on women in leadership. Enjoy.
I didn't see a link.
Yes..great blog post. It's nonexistent, just as women in leadership should be! :laugh:
Good call. My apologies.
Here it is.
Seems funny to you, but probably not to those against whom the Church has in blindness discriminated against.
I look forward to reading it.
I am already sympathetic to the this topic, as I think it is shamefull that there are not more women bible teachers teaching in a mixed setting, and also women pastors, in our Baptist churches.
Since the scriptures support both, why dont we?
Scripture clearly teaches against such - so do we.
Well, of course thats the "party line", but the party line is not always correct.
At one time the "party line" dictated that blacks had to stay up in the balcony of the church, and they could not mingle with the whites.
And they quoted scripture to support it.
But we know better now dont we? :thumbs:
Please point out the Scripture that supports women pastors.
I wonder what you mean by this. Do you mean that because some people in the past got their exegesis horribly wrong or wrested Scripture to make it mean what they wanted it to, we should simply abandon the Bible and do whatever the spirit of the age is indicating?
So how do you explain these women who were definitely in leadership roles in their church?
Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2): a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea
Priscilla (Acts 18:26): Priscilla pastor of a church in Ephesus (Other references to Priscilla and Aquila are Acts 18:2, 18; Romans 16:3, and I Corinthians 16:19).
Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3):
Junia (Romans 16:7):
While I, personally, do not believe women should be preaching, there is definitely no reason they should not be in leadership in the church.
I will defend your right to be wrong and still consider you a friend as you state your beliefs honestly and with kindness.
My initial statement was a joke (as per the laugh). I don't believe women should be excluded from all leadership positions, but the office of pastor is reserved for a man. The verses you provided do not support a woman as pastor.
It is quite the stretch to decide that Priscilla was a pastor. An EXTREME stretch that is not at all supported by the Scriptures.
I do believe that it is fine for women to be in leadership roles but in PROPER leadership roles. I've stated before that fully half of our church staff is female - and we have a very large staff. But no where in Scripture are women told to be in authority over men or to be a pastor.
Maybe I am out of the loop here, but what exactly does "Post-Evangelical" mean?
In those churches that do ordain women, the senior pastor is not seen as "in authority" in our town.
Rather, the senior pastor is "servant of all."
Can't both be right, but it is something to think about.
Is "party line" the only defense you have? This is very similar to trying to tie the homosexual movement to the civil right movement. A rather sophomoric argument.
There are complete oversights and omissions and mistakes made by every generation. Paul forbade women, in certain instances in 1st century Christendom, to exercise authority over men. That was strictly to serve a purpose in those instances. There are times all over the Bible where God instructed his followers to give up some of their rights for the greater good.
Besides, women were basically property in that time. They were largely uneducated, so it made sense that they would be, in those instances, prohibited from being in leadership.
That's no longer the case, just as we no longer have slaves and women can pray with their heads uncovered.
Well said. We could use more of this kind of disagreeing.
In some ways, you're right - it's not the most convincing argument, but it work here. There are times when Christians have almost exclusively been wrong on an issue, but they still purported the same worn out excuses and interpretations to the point where they wouldn't even listen to a good argument.
This is one of those places. Those who would want to limit women from leadership are just repeating the same party line.
Those who argue that the restrictions on women given by Paul were merely circumstantial in nature either:
1. Reject the scriptures as inspired by God and thus God's Word on the matter
2. Ignore the consistent and repeated contextual basis given for these commands
3. reinterpret clear and explicit precepts by examples instead of examples by clear and explicit precepts - thus pitting scripture against scripture
4. Or care less what the Scriptues teach.
The three places where clear and explicit precepts are found in connection with women speaking and/or leading in the congregation are all based upon either the creation order of male and female or the apostolic command based upon scriptures and the explicit command of God (1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; Eph. 5:22-27; 1 Tim. 3:1-7).
Why? Because it suits you? Your statement here is contradictory.