buying the lie

You have got to know that no woman ever taught her children Hebrew.

 

You still haven't explained why you think women are better at reaching women and children, and if they are better why God didn't put them into the office of elder/bishop. You said some nonsense about leading, but the fact remains that a leader is worthless if he can't reach someone.

 

Are you married?

If you studied the history of the early church you would learn that it was the women who cared for the women and children. God made women much different than men and not just anatomically. You would also learn that culturally there was not any contact between a woman and a pastor.

 

Yes I sure am.

 

You would also learn that culturally there was not any contact between a woman and a pastor.

Where are you getting this information? I'd like to reference the source for myself. Otherwise, I can't just take your word for it.

 

Church history and other documents. It is still that way in some of those countries. It has been many years since I have read that material and cannot remmber where I read it. Most of my books are in another state so I am unable to reference them.

 

I've been forced to read quite extensively in church history, and I do not recall any text that suggested that women were not to be in contact with their pastor. I have found that women have always been somewhat influential in the church, from Martin Luther's wife to the wives of other pastors, most of whom also served in the church in some form or fashion.

I've read A Pastor's Sketches by Ichabod Spencer, and in that 19th century volume, he quite extensively had dealings with women in and out of the church. By the way, I highly recommend the book. It is a great read.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1599250853/?tag=baptis04-20

Christianity has rather been the pace-setter as far as women's rights (as full human beings with equal worth before God) are concerned. From Jesus dealings with influential wealthy women who supported His ministry to the revelation at the tomb to women first, to the supporting role women played in the early church, etc., I've found that women were not excluded from church circles, but neither were they brought into leadership roles for the most part (several rare exceptions exist, even until today).

 

I am not talking in Europe. I am talking about the first century church and its location. It is still that same way in some of those countries.

I am not talkiing about excluding them in any way. I am talking about what was cultural. If we followed their practices that they had then, we would not have men getting caught up with some man's wife in the church. In those days if a pastor wanted to communicate with a female in the chruch he went through a male deacon to a deaconess then to the woman. I have a friend who told me that it is still that way in the country where he served as a missionary for 23 years.

 

So you have historical documents of the first century church that describe this?

 

RADam,

I believe it is referenced in the Talmud that first century synagogues separated men and women. (Would have to go back and check my sources, but this is a pretty well known fact) If that is the case, then it is reasonable to assume the first century Jewish church and possibly even Gentile churches would have done the same. I don't know of any specific sources that reference this, but it could be the reason underlying 1 Cor. 14.34-35. (specifically, that they have to wait until they are "at home.") Shouldn't be dogmatic about that though.

Beyond that, I have to profess ignorance, but perhaps stating there was no contact between pastors and women is overstating the facts just a little, especially since the Apostles themselves did not limit themselves in this way. (Acts 16.13-15; numerous greetings of Paul to women would indicate he had direct contact with them - ex. Rom. 16.6)

Randy

 

There is no question that early history was somewhat male dominated, but it is also fact that there were queens in many cultures, which puts a blinker on that thought. The book of Esther also puts a pause on the thought as well.

Even Jesus communicated rather well with women of all walks of life.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I think Jim makes a very valid point. Seems that Jesus had direct contact with women in ministry as did the apostles.

 

So it is ok to assume first century church practice based on how the Jews ran the synagogue? Are you kidding?

Again, I'm waiting for first century church historical records that prove what he is claiming.

 

When did Jesus ever ordain anybody?

 

If we play the culture card here (and I'm not sure that's what you are doing), that Paul didn't understand future cultures, what we are saying is that God, the author of Scripture was limited in His understanding of future cultures, and therefore, His Word is not applicable now. To say that God is limited is a dangerous supposition.

IF God said it was wrong "back then" then it is still wrong today.

Just my opinion.

 

Are you saying these men weren't ordained? If the apostles were not ordained, why should we bother to ordain anyone today? As a matter of fact, the word "ordination" is not used in connection with the original apostles but John 20:21-22 looks a lot like an ordination to me. And, although separated in time from John 20 by about three days, John 17:6-26 looks a lot like an ordination prayer.

Even if they weren't formally ordained, an idea I won't concede without some evidence, we know they were all men. Jesus chose men, not women to carry on His work. So why should we think He made a mistake?

 

Depends on what you mean by "ordained." If you mean "called out and set apart," then of course.

If you mean participants in a service that in most Baptist churches has become nigh unto a sacrament, then nope.

My point wasn't about gender--it was about clarification that somehow Jesus ordained the apostles.

 

"Of the second sort are the hours appointed for public prayers, sermons, and sacraments; quietness and silence under sermons; the singing of hymns; the places appointed for these services, and the days fixed for the celebration of the Lord's supper; the prohibition of Paul, that women should not teach in the Church, and the like; . . .
. . . these things are not necessary to salvation, and ought to be applied to the edification of the Church, with a variety suitable to the manners of each age and nation, therefore, as the benefit of the Church shall require, it will be right to change and abolish former regulations, and to institute new ones. I grant, indeed, that we ought not to resort to innovation rashly or frequently, or for trivial causes. But charity will best decide what will injure or edify, and if we submit to the dictates of charity, all will be well.
. . . these are not fixed and perpetual laws by which we are bound, but external aids for human infirmity, which though we do not need, yet we all use, because we are under obligations to each other to cherish mutual charity between us. This may be observed in the examples already mentioned. What! does religion consist in a woman's veil, so that it would be criminal for her to walk out with her face uncovered? Is the solemn decree respecting her silence such as cannot be violated without a capital offence? Is there any mystery in kneeling, or in the interment of a dead body, which cannot be omitted without sin ? Certainly not; . . . it is sometimes as proper for her to speak, as at other times to be silent. . . . Nevertheless, in these things, the customs and laws of the country we inhabit, the dictates of modesty, and even humanity itself. will direct us what to do, and what to avoid; . . . If any one object, and resolve to be wiser on this subject than is necessary, let him examine by what reason he can justify his obstinacy to the Lord. We ought, however, to be satisfied with the declaration of Paul, "If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God."" ---John Calvin, Institutes, vol. 4, ch. 10, sec. 29-30.

 

Why don't you think so? I take it you don't think the passages I cited could have anything to do with ordination?

 

Did Jesus call these men & send them out? Of course He did.

But I don't see where the two verses you quoted strongly resemble what is typically an "ordination service" in the modern Baptist Church.

That's my point. To say "Jesus 'ordained' the Apostles" requires one to make clear what one means by "ordained." If the phrase is defined as "called and sent out," then I agree. If we mean the other definition--the typical procedure and service for "ordination" as practiced in the modern Baptist church--sorry, but I just don't see it.

Of course, that gives away an issue for me, anyway--I don't like the idea of ordination as a "third ordinance," anyway. Not the point or the purpose.

I'll say no more on this thread about this particular issue, so as to not further derail the topic. (If a separate thread starts, I'll bite.)