Double Standards and Gender

I'm not convinced there is a double standard. Your view is based on an incorrect standard that a housewife is a lower standard. I don't believe that to be the case.

 

Why do you have a problem with it. Kind of weird?

 

I think it is a general way to designate that their PRIMARY role, or vocation is that of being a housewife/homemaker (I don't see the difference). It is simply letting the audience know that they do not have a full-time career. If they did, it might say, "Mary Mohler, SBTS Emplyee in charge of such&such."

 

Question for those who think women need to be pastors:

If We complimentary believe that women have a calling to teach other women, But you believe they should be able to teach men...Are you not yourself devaluing women by saying that teaching them is somehow not as good, or not as high a calling as also teaching men?

 

12strings, I'm not saying women need to be pastors simply because I am of the opinion the Bible does not teach anyone needs to be ordained in the manner we do it in our culture today.

But to answer your question, no, it is not sexist and not saying teaching women isn't good enough.

Your arguments sound like those that fall back to male pride--that is, if someone shows from scripture a mutual submission, mutual service, or any other egalitarian argument rather than refute it with scripture some guys fall back to "gotta protect male pride", which doesn't make sense, since pride is equated with sin.

Telling women that if they want to teach in general, which would include men means teaching only women isn't good enough is the same kind of illogical reasoning.

 

Legit question - You would allow a women to teach another women and so would I, there is no problem there. Teaching women is noble and needed calling.

Where I would jump off your boat and swim to safety is that if said woman also felt called to teach men. You wouldn't allow this and in many cases accuse said woman of pursuing something out of the will of God or even question the legitimacy of her salvation.

I'm not sure how allowing someone to pursue ministry, wherever and whatever that may look like, as led by the Holy Spirit is devaluing women.

What is devaluing women is limiting them in ministry, lifting high the homemaker/ housewife model and supreme over all, not recognizing that there may indeed be another way to serve the Lord that doesn't involve an apron and sex whenever HE wants it.

 

Amen!

I grew up when men took seriously the idea of women not teaching men--which meant men taught SS, at least the boys class.

If we really mean women should not teach men, let's start there.

 

At one time, I believed like many of you, women shouldn't be in the pulpit. In the seminary, while on the Pioneer Penetration, I saw a young black women who converted to Protestantism from Catholicism approach and witness to a priest in the airport in Denver. She did the best job I have ever seen. She is now a minister in the National Baptist Church.
In the 1990s, I worked with a group in South Texas. One of the group was a minister in the United Methodist Church. She may have worked harder and witness to more people than anyone there.
I personally don't see myself at this point going to a church with a female minister, but I wonder how much this anti-woman crusade is men afraid.
I am wondering if these same guys who are anti-woman in church leadership are also afraid of as woman being US President?

 

To address you last point first, I agree that it is not good reasoning, but I heard a pastor say that, and wanted to see what the reaction would be anyway.

Regarding male pride:

1. I don't think anyone on this whole thread has presented biblical arguments on either side... at least that I've seen. Perhaps if the the thread does not get closed too soon we could get to that. My goal so far has been simply to defend the motivations of complimentarians, that they are not simply trying to keep women down.

2. I don't believe that most Complimentarians are motivated by male pride, but rather by their desire to obey what they believe the biblical teaching on the subject. Case in point: many women also believe this way. they are obviously not motivated by male pride.

3. I believe in that the Bible teaches and models male leadership in the church, male sacrificial love and headship in the home, and mutual submission between husbands and wives.


Regarding ordination:

I don't see ordination in the Bible, but I do believe we see a need for some kind of spiritual leadership (Elders, bishops, overseers, pastors, whatever) in the N.T. I don't subscribe to the leader-less church ideas.

 

While we may disagree on whether a woman is allowed to be a Pastor in the N.T.; I think we would both agree that not everything that someone "feels" led to do is of God. I would argue that there are many MEN who may "feel" led to be pastors who should not do it because they do not fit the qualifications of scripture. I simply think we must always test our inclinations, even if we feel they are from the Holy spirit, against scripture.

I also do not see how valuing a housewife as equal to a successful businesswoman is devaluing women.

 

At this point in time, I think 'maybe' you are....and the Bible isn't that clear. I don't see Jesus banning it and Paul in 1Timothy says "I forbid" meaning Paul.
And don't get me wrong, I am not totally sold on it, and I've been reading it in Greek for the last month...

 

I do not know what you call recently. There have been denominations that have had women ministers since the 1800s.
And to be honest you are not going to convince me by calling me a child.
I taught high school kids for 30 yrs and they don't have a clue, how do you expect me to believe what 8 year does....

 

Just because in Paul's time there were no women pastors, there shouldn't be women pastors today. I don't see an absolute ban on it like homosexuality.
Look, do you still cover your head in church?