Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/25/2003 6:00:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2003 6:00:42 AM EDT by GreyGhost]
My stepdaughter goes to a non denominational church that has a woman pastor.I'm very conservative Southern Baptist so this is a big no no in my book.I'd like to tell her this is wrong but I have no evidence to back up my view.Does scripture cover this subject?
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 6:03:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2003 6:05:15 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 6:08:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/25/2003 6:10:18 AM EDT by GreyGhost]
I knew as soon as I said that it would be brought up.I guess the main reason I feel this way is because all of the disciples were men and this is who Christ picked to spread his word.I was just wondering if it is specifically mentioned.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 6:16:33 AM EDT
1 Cor. 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.






Rom 16:16
The churches of Christ salute you!
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 6:17:54 AM EDT
[red]I Cor 14: 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.[/red]

[red]1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.[/red]

Some have commented these were only customs for the times that do not apply today, but...

...given that God NEVER changes, and neither do His preinciples...

...and Gods intent for marriage, which actually supercedes the church...

I'd say this woman minister needs to preach a sermon on these passages.  [:D]
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 6:21:16 AM EDT
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Romans 16:16
The churches of Christ salute you!
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 1:27:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
[red]I Cor 14: 34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.[/red]

[red]1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.[/red]

Some have commented these were only customs for the times that do not apply today, but...

...given that God NEVER changes, and neither do His preinciples...

...and Gods intent for marriage, which actually supercedes the church...

I'd say this woman minister needs to preach a sermon on these passages.  [:D]
View Quote


Yes to what grandman said.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 1:36:51 PM EDT
Can't argue with scripture.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 1:42:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 1:43:51 PM EDT
So, what about that woman Joyce Meyer. I've seen her on TV, and she just comes across as a windbag - albeit a motivational one.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 1:55:35 PM EDT
Depends on the church. I was raised baptist,so I prefer a male minister. The church here in the center of town has a female minister,but it is the united church of christ, and they are way to do-gooder for me. Along with pushing their politics down your throat.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 2:03:04 PM EDT
Which is not to say a woman can't be wise or intelligent.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 2:21:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By clean_cut:
Which is not to say a woman can't be wise or intelligent.
View Quote


clean-cut is right. Christ would have been forgotten along time ago if it had not been for mothers and grandmothers teaching their children about God and Jesus.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 2:37:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JohnBlade23:
Originally Posted By clean_cut:
Which is not to say a woman can't be wise or intelligent.
View Quote


clean-cut is right. Christ would have been forgotten along time ago if it had not been for mothers and grandmothers teaching their children about God and Jesus.
View Quote


Of course women can be "wise and intelligent".  No one said they couldn't.  Expecially the scriptures.

But the question was, "Is It Legit For A Woman To Be A Pastor?".  That is a different question from , "can a woman be wise and intelligent"?

What sayeth the scripture?  A Bishop is a name in the New Testament for pastor.  Please excuse the long passage:

[b]1 Timothy 3:1   This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2   A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3   Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4   One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5   (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6   Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7   Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8   Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9   Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10   And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11   Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12   Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13   For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. [/b]

Only a man can be "the husband of one wife". etc.

Pastors are commanded to be men.  That's it.

Link Posted: 12/25/2003 3:08:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Originally Posted By JohnBlade23:
Originally Posted By clean_cut:
Which is not to say a woman can't be wise or intelligent.
View Quote


clean-cut is right. Christ would have been forgotten along time ago if it had not been for mothers and grandmothers teaching their children about God and Jesus.
View Quote


Of course women can be "wise and intelligent".  No one said they couldn't.  Expecially the scriptures.

But the question was, "Is It Legit For A Woman To Be A Pastor?".  That is a different question from , "can a woman be wise and intelligent"?

What sayeth the scripture?  A Bishop is a name in the New Testament for pastor.  Please excuse the long passage:

[b]1 Timothy 3:1   This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2   A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3   Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4   One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5   (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6   Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7   Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8   Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9   Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10   And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11   Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12   Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13   For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. [/b]

Only a man can be "the husband of one wife". etc.

Pastors are commanded to be men.  That's it.

View Quote



All I meant by saying that women can be wise and intelligent, is that if not as pastors or church leaders, women can still influence the behavior of men through their wisdom (in the Lord). The Bible says that too.

I also didn't want this to be construed as another female-bashing thread.
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 8:10:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
t...

...given that God NEVER changes, and neither do His preinciples...

...
View Quote


I never understood thinking like that.
God didn't write the bible- man did. A 'man' that is by very nature imperfect.
When things go well- it's God's divine will..
When things go bad- It the evil 'man' again.
Very tidy.
Your assumptions are also based on a version that is 1500 years old and has gone through MANY changes and translations.
Much of the bible was written up to 200-300 years after Jesus lived. There isn't even an accurate record of his birthdate.  

The christian church seems to blame women for just about every evil ever committed.

Southern baptists support slavery. I wonder why they keep the name??
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 8:53:36 PM EDT
G-- is so perfect that HIS word spoken unto man WILL never be changed to suit mans wants or needs read Rev 22-18 "I am warning everyone who hears of the prophesy of this book. If you add anything to them, G-- will add to the plagues told about in this book. -19 If you take any words away from this book of prophesy G-- will take away from you the shares from the tree of life, HE will also take away from you You'r place from the HOLY city. -20 He who gives witness to these things says " Yes I am coming soon " 21-May the grace of LORD JESUS be with G-- People
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 9:02:58 PM EDT
did we warp back to the 1800's or something? [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 9:04:01 PM EDT
In a word... [b]NO![/b]

I can't argue with scripture.  For the record, I think we really got on the fast track to the socialist mess this country is in when they gave women the right to vote.  Beginning of the end.

In the words of Melvin Udall when asked how he as an author, wrote his women characters so well:

"I picture a man, then I take away reason and accountability..."   [b]AMEN!!![/b]
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 9:05:28 PM EDT
I think Dr. Laura has already started to grapple with this, and other, questions.  Maybe she can help enlighten us about the role of women in the clergy:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

View Quote
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 9:18:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
did we warp back to the 1800's or something? [rolleyes]
View Quote


I'm suprised that in living the the great state of South Carolina your not exposed to these beliefs on a regular basis.  I've lived a couple places now and still think that the Greenville area was the most socially conservative.  
Link Posted: 12/25/2003 11:37:49 PM EDT
Timothy and Corinthians were letters written by men.  Are you entirely sure they weren't corrup0ted men or by men?

As far as using Levitticus for guidance, I guess maybe if you keep Kosher you can, but if you don't why not?  Are you picking and chosing what to follow based on your convenience?

Me, if I don't agree with a Churches doctrine I can go some place else.  To tell somebody that his beliefs or methods of worship are wrong is pushing the envelope of polite friendship.  I believe there was a Parable about Pharisees that dealt with this wasn't there?  Persoanlly I would have to agree with their being no scripture that says you can.  But as one of the few conservative Episcopalians left it ain't up to somebody outside the church to to tell me or it how to run our business.

In other words, I think you need to butt out and keep yer mouth shut.  It ain't any of yer business how he worships until they staaart sacrificing virgins.  then it becomes your duty to hel[p dry up the supply of sacrifices.



Link Posted: 12/26/2003 1:40:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GreyGhost:
My stepdaughter goes to a non denominational church that has a woman pastor.I'm very conservative Southern Baptist so this is a big no no in my book.I'd like to tell her this is wrong but I have no evidence to back up my view.Does scripture cover this subject?
View Quote


The info is before you, a woman is to remain silent in the church, but they were also put here as our companions.They seem not to honor that either.
Equal rights go figure.
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:55:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 3:58:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 9:45:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Grizzly556:
G-- is so perfect that HIS word spoken unto man WILL never be changed to suit mans wants or needs
View Quote


So the bible was written in English????
and of course Jesus spoke English too.

Link Posted: 12/26/2003 10:09:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/26/2003 10:15:20 AM EDT
Preach it, Eric. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 7:18:42 AM EDT
So, then, what other things shouldn't women do?

Philosopher?
Doctor?
Lawyer?
Judge?
Police officer?
Soldier?
President?


Those are preusmably OK, but pastor is not?
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 10:37:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott:
So, then, what other things shouldn't women do?

Philosopher?
Doctor?
Lawyer?
Judge?
Police officer?
Soldier?
President?


Those are preusmably OK, but pastor is not?
View Quote


The Bible only speaks about pastors.

The others are a matter of opinion, not based upon scripture.
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 11:40:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Sorry, [b]Only_Hits_Count[/b], but His Word was written by the [b]Inspiration of the Holy Spirit[/b], transcending 'what man wrote.'

Humans were only the means by which He wrote His Word and in that capacity, guided by the Holy Spirit, they were infallible!
View Quote


We're going in circles here....

I said it earlier:
God didn't write the bible- man did. A 'man' that is by your definition imperfect.
[b]When things go well- it's God's divine will..
When things go bad- It the evil 'man' again.
Very tidy.[/b]

Your assumptions are also based on a version that is 1500 years old and has gone through MANY changes and translations.
Jesus din't speak english---but of course you claim that the translation are perfect since they were divinely inspired/guided. So the catholics also have the 'correct' version??
Why would christians use a different version then the jews??




Hun:Man did not write the Bible.
Man did not write the Sayings of Jesus.

OHC: The gospel of timothy perhaps??
'saying #1: "god said...".'

If so, where are their scriptures that could correspond to the Personality of Christ?

--The link to pbs has more info on this that I could ever hope to relay here.

Never man spake thus. And never afterwards, either.
Ummm- yeah-- KJV please???  :)

Eric That(OldTimeReligion)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 2:49:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Originally Posted By DScott:
So, then, what other things shouldn't women do?

Philosopher?
Doctor?
Lawyer?
Judge?
Police officer?
Soldier?
President?


Those are preusmably OK, but pastor is not?
View Quote


The Bible only speaks about pastors.

The others are a matter of opinion, not based upon scripture.
View Quote


Isn't the Bible used alot to support ideas of women's roles in amny areas of life?

So it just opinion when people say women shouldn't do any of those things I mentioned above?  There's no biblical arguement against, say, women in combat?
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 3:26:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott:
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Originally Posted By DScott:
So, then, what other things shouldn't women do?

Philosopher?
Doctor?
Lawyer?
Judge?
Police officer?
Soldier?
President?


Those are preusmably OK, but pastor is not?
View Quote


The Bible only speaks about pastors.

The others are a matter of opinion, not based upon scripture.
View Quote


Isn't the Bible used alot to support ideas of women's roles in (many) areas of life?
View Quote


Your question is a difficult one.

The Bible does not address such occupations as those listed, mainly because women were not traditionally even thought to be considered for such roles.

So it just opinion when people say women shouldn't do any of those things I mentioned above?  There's no biblical arguement against, say, women in combat?
View Quote


Again, I believe that it was never even considered that a woman would be a combat soldier.  Until recent history, women were never even considered for these roles.

The Bible does give instructions to husbands for example:

[b]1 Peter 3:7   Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, [red]as unto the weaker vessel[/red], and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.[/b]

What does that mean, "weaker vessel"?  I can only assume that it refers to the physical and emotional strength of women compared to men.  If we as men are to treat women with respect due to their "weaker" strength, surely we would not want them exposed to combat.

But the Bible does not address such issues as military service for women.

And regarding the office of President, I think the arguments against women as Pastors would eliminate their service as leaders of countries.  But that is a personal opinion.

Link Posted: 12/27/2003 3:42:53 PM EDT
My wife and I were married fifteen years ago by a woman pastor in a church I used to be a member of, the Congregational church, (my family had been in it for 250 years), and I saw no problems with it then, or now.

We attend a Baptist church now. UCC = too many liberals.
Link Posted: 12/27/2003 9:02:11 PM EDT
Thanks for the replies.  I really don't know the answer to these questions, so the input is appreciated.  Obviously, if you're married you've already made choices in mates/partners  so proving one position right or wrong is not the point.  

What doesn't make sense to me is how one could use a frame of reference from a historical period 2000+ years ago to make a determination about what is correct today.

I'm happy to stay focused on the "women as pastors" question, but can see how this issue is underlying the entire "fundamentalist" perspective.  

Despite that, my question remains:  Given that priests/preachers/pastors in Bibilical times were of a distinct class of people, and could be nothing BUT men, it doesn't surprise me that women weren't allowed to directly fill that role.  Nor could it even be described as possible, given that historical and cultural context.  

But now it is possible.  I see some women as quite capable of all those things.  Certainly some women are much better suited than some of the men who currently hold those positions.  Doesn't that argue for their suitability to be any of those things, including pastor?

Also, from a logical standpoint if the Bible were written today, I suspect "the rules" might be very different, given all the roles women have successfully fulfilled.  This includes all the jobs I listed above- even President! (i.e., Eva Peron, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher).

Sub-questions:  Were there women mentioned in the Bible who in fact *did* preach or function as preachers/pastors? How about as warriors or soldiers?  If there were, would this argue for a different interpretation of scripture?

Link Posted: 12/27/2003 11:47:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JackBurton:
In the words of Melvin Udall when asked how he as an author, wrote his women characters so well:

"I picture a man, then I take away reason and accountability..."   [b]AMEN!!![/b]
View Quote


I loved that line. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:11:22 AM EDT
DScott said:
Also, from a logical standpoint if the Bible were written today, I suspect "the rules" might be very different...
View Quote


Nope, not one bit.

[b]James 1:17   Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down [red]from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning[/red].[/b]

God is perfect and does not change.  His Word is also perfect and does not change.  It is always the same.

[b]Psalm 119:89   For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.[/b]

It is settled.  It will never change.

Yesterday, today, forever,
Jesus is the same.
All may change,
But Jesus, never,
Glory to His Name.


Link Posted: 12/28/2003 11:05:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
DScott said:
Also, from a logical standpoint if the Bible were written today, I suspect "the rules" might be very different...
View Quote


Nope, not one bit.

[b]James 1:17   Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down [red]from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning[/red].[/b]

God is perfect and does not change.  His Word is also perfect and does not change.  It is always the same.

[b]Psalm 119:89   For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.[/b]

It is settled.  It will never change.

Yesterday, today, forever,
Jesus is the same.
All may change,
But Jesus, never,
Glory to His Name.


View Quote



We're STILL going in circles here....

I said it earlier:
God didn't write the bible- man did. A 'man' that is by your definition imperfect.
When things go well- it's God's divine will..
When things go bad- It the evil 'man' again.
Very tidy.

Your assumptions are also based on a version that is 1500 years old and has gone through MANY changes and translations.
Jesus din't speak english---but of course you claim that the translation are perfect since they were divinely inspired/guided. So the catholics also have the 'correct' version??
Why would christians use a different version then the jews??


Don't you have anything better then that????

Link Posted: 12/28/2003 12:11:08 PM EDT
Ok, I wasn't going to wade into this, but I see a recurring theme happening here:

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:

We're STILL going in circles here....

I said it earlier:
God didn't write the bible- man did. A 'man' that is by your definition imperfect.
When things go well- it's God's divine will..
When things go bad- It the evil 'man' again.
Very tidy.

Your assumptions are also based on a version that is 1500 years old and has gone through MANY changes and translations.
Jesus din't speak english---but of course you claim that the translation are perfect since they were divinely inspired/guided. So the catholics also have the 'correct' version??
Why would christians use a different version then the jews??


Don't you have anything better then that????

View Quote

Yes, we are going in circles, but it is because you don't [b]believe[/b] that the Scriptures were [i]inspired[/i] by God.

Once you get to that point, then you can see that God Himself indicates that "For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." [Ecc 7:20]

Does that mean that man cannot "do good"?  no for even Christ Himself stated such things are possible: " If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" [Matt 7:11].

Yet in this same phrase he indicates that we [b]are[/b] evil, but this is the evil that fails to attain the standard God requires to enter fellowship with Him.

Once you allow for the possibility that there is a God and He can protect His word, then you must discern which 'version' is correct.  To that end, yes, the Roman Catholic church has basically the correct translation.  There are some disagreements about certain books being included (books which have no bearing on the overall message of Scripture), and on interpretation of certain parts of it, however, that is where faith begins to play it's part.  OF course, faith is only created within the believer by The Holy Spirit.  All of the people I know that are Catholic understand the basic plan of salvation.  It's in the other parts of worship etc... that unity among the denominations fail.

You will continue to fail to understand the reasoning behind we Christians because you fail to accept one of the very basic tenents of our faith.  Until you do that, we will continue to go in circles.
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 12:57:08 PM EDT
No
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 1:26:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2003 1:29:25 PM EDT by BusMaster007]
GreyGhost:

Please bear with me on this...
I posted this same type of question quite a while ago.

I was in a search for a church that would meet my criteria as far as the leadership and doctrine.
I hadn't quite gotten it figured out yet when my Dearly Beloved got impatient and began to attend a local Lutheran ELCA church with a woman pastor.

Shortly after this, I had what can only be described as a Spiritual Breakdown.
I had never experienced any doubt whatsoever about my Christian beliefs.
After a few weeks I heard something on 'The Bible Answer Man' radio program by the Christian Research Institute that reaffirmed my beliefs that Jesus IS God, HE is of the MALE gender and called males to be His disciples, all for a REASON.

Keep in mind that I maintain that WOMEN are EQUAL but DIFFERENT in our standing before God.
That is why I believe that MAN was created FIRST, and the WOMAN made from his side, to be next to him.
We have different roles in our lives and we are equal, BUT - - - MAN was first because that is the DESIGN of things...and WHY MEN are to be the leaders in the church and home.
WOMEN have a different role.  
Their position is NOT as the FIRST or LEADER.
Their position is one of HONOR to be sure.  To assist MAN in his role.
That's MY TAKE on GOD'S Plan, anyway.

The long story short is that I decided to go ahead and attend the church my Wife and Daughters started going to because I thought it was more important that DAD go to church with them than to cause further grief about the pastor being a female.  This would be something to work out at a later date.
My Wife did attend a Lutheran Missouri Synod church with me one time and was in tears when we left.  
They are more conservative by a long shot, and a bit tight in their doctrine, even for me.  I relented and have since decided to keep the peace for now by attending with my Wife at the other church.

NOW, to bring you up to speed on how it's been so far...! [;D]

I went to church today with the Wife and Daughters.
The Wife and I shared the readings of God's Word.
The Daughters were the Acolytes and lit the candles and even helped with the offering.
I am still participating in 'being there', even though I don't agree with most of what's going on!
We WILL search for a new church sometime.

Meanwhile, I've had and aired my differences with the pastor and her husband, who is also a pastor...[rolleyes]
They know how I feel.
My Wife also has expressed some dismay at the seemingly overemphasis of 'gender neutrality' or even the 'feminist' attitudes.  
She has even noticed and commented on the very 'liberal' attitudes of the church.
In this, it may very well be God's handiwork that I am there and these things are taking place so that it will be apparent that my attendance is something of a miracle! [;)]

I won't go into the details, but, I have definetly made it known what my feelings and thoughts are.
I stick up for the Conservative side and participate when asked.
Next week, we do the greetings at the door.
In time, things will change, one way or the other.

SO, I don't agree with the Woman as Pastor thing.
I see the Woman's role in the church as one who can certainly teach and preach, but, NOT as the HEAD of the church...
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but, I still do NOT see or feel that the leader of the church is 'ordained' or whatever term you want to use, because SHE IS A WOMAN.
I just don't recognize it as being led correctly, spiritually speaking.

My apologies for a long post, but, the tale had to be told this way.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 1:40:18 PM EDT
BTW BM007, I do believe you are correct in your assesment of who can be a pastor.
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 1:51:25 PM EDT
BusMaster007, your post is well said.

I tend to be inpatient in these matters.  But, sometimes, God's timing isn't the same as ours.  His is always better.

Perhaps God is teaching your wife some lessons before He changes your church.

I admire your patience.  Hang in there.  God's plan is for men to take the leadership role.

And as an old Pastor of mine who is now in Glory, used to say, "There is no better plan than God's plan."
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 2:54:05 PM EDT
Thanks for all the replys and for the links to GODS word.I think that GOD has seperate roles for men and woman but there is no doubt he loves us all equally.Why he loves us at all is a mystery since the only person to truly deserve his love we crucified and tortured when he came to Earth.

There are many things I don't understand about the Bible like Jonah and the whale and how people lived to 800 or 900 yrs old in the Old Testament,etc etc.All I can say is it is GODS word and thus I will take it as fact.I think that is one of GODS tests....Do You Have Faith???

Rarely does GOD deem us worthy enough to reveal his presence/plans to us.It is enough for me that his Holy word speaks to me.All I can pray for is that one day he may find me worthy to kneel in submission at his feet and serve him and his Son for erternity.
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 8:41:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jhasz:
Ok, I wasn't going to wade into this, but I see a recurring theme happening here:

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:

We're STILL going in circles here....

I said it earlier:
God didn't write the bible- man did. A 'man' that is by your definition imperfect.
When things go well- it's God's divine will..
When things go bad- It the evil 'man' again.
Very tidy.

Your assumptions are also based on a version that is 1500 years old and has gone through MANY changes and translations.
Jesus din't speak english---but of course you claim that the translation are perfect since they were divinely inspired/guided. So the catholics also have the 'correct' version??
Why would christians use a different version then the jews??


Don't you have anything better then that????

View Quote

Yes, we are going in circles, but it is because you don't [b]believe[/b] that the Scriptures were [i]inspired[/i] by God.

....
View Quote


We're going in circles because of the bizaree circular logig you're using.

Q: how do you know the bible is true??
A: Cause God said so!!

Q2: What other proof do you have??
A: Because God said so- [i] it's in the bible[/i]!!


Try it from a linear approach-

god says man in imperfect
but you all say that the men that wrote the bible were all divinly iguided/inspired.

but when bad things happen-- we're back to man being bad all by him self.

So does god also cause men to do wrong??
OR- does god prevent people from doing bad things in his name????

or- why doesn't god stop people from doing bad things behind his name??

TV evangelist spring to mind... John Hagee and his little kingdom on earth.... violates (probably over)half the instruction listed above for selecting a pastor.

Just to be really difficult- here's a listing I found via google

"Genesis 2:22 Woman created from Adam's rib
3:16 Woman cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage
19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels

Exodus 20:17 Insulting Tenth Commandment, considering a wife to be property
21:7-11 Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves
22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
38:8 Women may not enter tabernacle they must support

Leviticus 12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days
12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days
15:19-23 Menstrual periods are unclean
19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged

Numbers 1:2 Poll of people only includes men
5:13-31 Barbaric adulteress test
31:16-35 "Virgins" listed as war booty

Deuteronomy 21:11-14 Rape manual
22:5 Abomination for women to wear men's garments, vice-versa
22:13-21 Barbaric virgin test
22:23-24 Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death
22:28-29 Woman must marry her rapist
24:1 Men can divorce woman for "uncleanness," not vice-versa
25:11-12 If woman touches foe's penis, her hand shall be cut off

Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah's nameless daughter sacrificed
19:22-29 Concubine sacrificed to rapist crowd to save man

I Kings 11:1-4 King Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines

Job 14:1-4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one . . ."

Proverbs 7:9-27 Evil women seduce men, send them to hell
11:22 One of numerous Proverbial putdowns

Isaiah 3:16-17 God scourges, rapes haughty women

Ezekiel 16:45 One of numerous obscene denunciations

Matthew 24:19 "[woe] to them that are with child"

Luke 2:22 Mary is unclean after birth of Jesus

I Corinthians 11:3-15 Man is head of woman; only man in God's image
14:34-35 Women keep in silence, learn only from husbands

Ephesians 5:22-33 "Wives, submit . . ."

Colossians 3:18 More "wives submit"

I Timothy 2:9 Women adorn selves in shamefacedness
2:11-14 Women learn in silence in all subjection; Eve was sinful, Adam blameless

Why should women--and the men who honor women--respect and support religions which preach women's submission, which make women's subjugation a cornerstone of their theology?

When attempts are made to base laws on the bible, women must beware. The constitutional principle of separation between church and state is the only sure barrier standing between women and the bible."

Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:17:14 PM EDT
1) 'Constitutional principle of separation of church and state'

Is as much of a 'constitutional' principle as Dredd Scott (right to travel -> right to own slaves) or Roe v Wade ('right to privacy' from a 'penumbra of the 14th')... It's judge made law...

The Constitutional principle is a ONE WAY separation, requiring that govt never pass a law specifically aimed at restricting an establisment, or the exercise, of religeon. That is the text, no more...

Theocracy is bad news (since shotgun conversions are as valid as shotgun weddings), but let's not add things to the constitution that aren't there...

2) Nice to see someone take various sections of the Bible and turn them to their agenda... While the 'wives submit' portions are accurately quoted (ever noticed it's in the traditional marraige vows as well?), some of the rest is not...

The segment reverting to the OT law that the writer of that list states requires 'woment to marry their rapist' is wrong, for one...

The actual passage required [b]the man to marry a woman he was caught consentually screwing around with, who was not engaged to be married to someone else, and pay a fine to her father for 'dishonoring' her[/b]... If she was engaged, they were both executed for adultry (consentual, remember).

The 'woman raped, both man and woman executed' law applied to a specific case where an engaged woman claimed rape but no one heard her scream. The law mad a distinction that if it happened 'in the country', only the man would be put to death, and seems to be a primative attempt at countering false allegations of rape (and considering what the penalty for rape was)... Read the passage...

Solomon was (if you actually read, again) punished for his sexual violations (and the idolatry that came with them) through the divine promise that his son's kingdom would be destroyed by civil war... One must remember that the Bible contains examples of all varieties. Solomon was an example of divine gifts squandered on mortal pleasures, and as you see if you read Ecclesiastes (sp?), towards the end of his life he realized what a screw-up (literally) he'd been, and wrote a whole book lamenting it and advising others to avoid it...

Proverbs/Evil women send men to hell:
An advisory against sexual sin, and Solomon had plenty of experience with the subject... There are plenty of advisories to beware wicked/sinful [b]men[/b] in proverbs, this one was selected because it warned of sinful [b]women[/b] who use sex to ensnare men - again something that Solomon had plenty of experience falling victim to (with all those wives & girlfriends (concubine -> extramarital girlfriend combined with maidservant))....

P.S. OT law is, by historical standards, quite fair (compared to Hamaurabbi's Code, & other contemporaries, for instance)... There is no separate punishment favoring the rich (although there are provisions for 'lesser' punishments for the poor)... Provisions are made for public court trials, self defense, etc...

[b]Also, the NT aborgates OT law as a means of government and salvation (but not the morality it compelled)...[/b]

I can go on from there, but I won't...

3)

There's no biblical arguement against, say, women in combat?
View Quote


Far from it... Even in the OT, there is an example of a female Israelite military commander who won a great victory (Deborah see 'Judges')...

The specific limitation is that women in church service must work under a man's authority. At my church, there are plenty of women in various roles, but the senior pastor has been and will allways be a man.

There is also no discussion of women in commerce, government service, etc... In fact, there are examples of biblical women in almost every facet of life including church service. They were just forbidden to be placed over men in the church...
Link Posted: 12/28/2003 10:37:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2003 10:44:02 PM EDT by jhasz]
To quote a great president "There you go again"

Originally Posted By Only_Hits_Count:

We're going in circles because of the bizaree circular logig you're using.

Q: how do you know the bible is true??
A: Cause God said so!!

Q2: What other proof do you have??
A: Because God said so- [i] it's in the bible[/i]!!
View Quote

Either I didn't make it plain (happens sometimes, not often, but once in a while), or you've lost your reading comprehension skills [;)]

But, you insist on leaving out the aspect of [b]faith[/b]  If you ain't got it, you won't understand it.  If God gives me faith to believe what it says in His word, I'll believe it.

I can only say that what I have witnessed in my life (short as it may be) and have observed in others lives, tells me that 1) there is a God, and 2) [i]that[/i] God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Old and New Testaments.


Try it from a linear approach-

god says man in imperfect
but you all say that the men that wrote the bible were all divinly iguided/inspired.
View Quote

I see no problem with this - it is the same as someone leaning over your shoulder reminding you to add items to your grocery list - altho, God probably wasn't there in a physical form.


but when bad things happen-- we're back to man being bad all by him self.

So does god also cause men to do wrong??
OR- does god prevent people from doing bad things in his name????

or- why doesn't god stop people from doing bad things behind his name??

TV evangelist spring to mind... John Hagee and his little kingdom on earth.... violates (probably over)half the instruction listed above for selecting a pastor.
View Quote


God does not 'cause' evil to happen, altho he might 'allow' it.  Yes, man, because of the fall in the garden (having to do with free will) has made a choice to be 'bad' - so in that sense you have it correct, that man is inherently 'bad' or evil.

As for Hagee, I don't know enough about the man to comment.



[snip - sorry the list was just too long]

View Quote

Where the heck did you com eup with some of that tripe?!?  Just because it comes up in a google search doesn't mean that it's the correct interpretation!  There are a lot of very strange groups out there that really interpret the bible in strange ways.  Sheesh!


Why should women--and the men who honor women--respect and support religions which preach women's submission, which make women's subjugation a cornerstone of their theology?

When attempts are made to base laws on the bible, women must beware. The constitutional principle of separation between church and state is the only sure barrier standing between women and the bible."
View Quote

I'm not sure where this quote is from, but if you actually check out a real Christian church, not some of those you've quoted from google, you will find that the church doesn not teach [b]subjugation[/b] of women, submission yes, but look at how it is actually formed...
 
Eph 5:21 "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."  
Eph 5:22 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."
Eph 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. "  
Eph 5:24 "Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. "
Eph 5:25  "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"

Now, let me ask you this - in that last verse, we are instructed as husbands to love our wives, as Christ loved the church - do you understand what that means?  You do understand that part about "gave himself for it" means that as husbands we should love our wives so completely and unconditionally that we would be willing to die for her?

Also there is this further on:
Eph 5:28 "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. "
Eph 5:29 "For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:"

And even further:
Eph 5:33 "Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband. "

Can you see that those who would turn the wife into a 'slave' have it wrong?  Would someone turn himself into a slave and beat himself?  If so, he would be out of line with Eph 5:29 and 5:33!

Now there are certainly people that have a warped sense of what love is, but we can discover that true, unconditional love is defined in 1 Cor 13 (which I won't quote here) and most (if not all) of what you have provided from the google search you did appears to not stand with the defenition found therin.

Now, all that we have discussed so far in this post simply is part of the discussion Christians have about 'how then shall we live?' - not 'how are we saved?', but again, you really have to watch who you are listening to/reading.  There are a lot of so called preachers, and denominations that have some doctrine that is not very sound.

This is why a Christion needs the Holy Spirit, for discernment (or to "try the spirits")
Jo 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
But one cannot try (test or discern) the spirits unless one has the Spirit of God.

Of course, you will probably fail to see the logic in any of this since you (for whatever reason) cannot accept the bible as even a reference book, apparently.

Edited because I can't speel and typ at the same tyme.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 4:29:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott:

Isn't the Bible used alot to support ideas of women's roles in amny areas of life?

?
View Quote



Guns are misused to commit murder, rob banks etc.

Scripture is misused to support many peoples illegitimate agends.

But NEITHER guns NOR the Bible are rendered illegitimate by their [red]misuse.[/red]


Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:45:57 AM EDT
Interesting topic for sure.

By the word of the scripture, absolutely not has to be the answer.

Looking at it from a historical perspective, Christ was Jewish thus subject to Jewish law although his teachings contradicted many of those beliefs.  That being said, Christ early teachings were to Jews. The woman’s place in ancient Jewish law was well defined. Mary Madeline followed Christ though not mentioned in Scripture as an apostle and it was through a woman that Christ’s resurrection was first revealed.  

It wasn’t until Paul that Christianity actually spread to the gentile, which was not bound by ancient Jewish law.  Paul was given inspiration from God directly thus many religions believe the church can evolve through the guidance of God.  Christianity in effect tore down the Jewish temple and upon its ruins built the church of Christ, however the foundation of that Church was built on the stone of the Jewish temple.  In this question one must ask them self if the original apostles were wrong for their writings were specific or can God change his church through divine intervention. Whole religions are based on this concept.  If they were wrong about the Good News just being for Jews could they not be on the question of a woman’s role in the church.

If you take the stance the Apostles were wrong on this topic why not many others and for that matter why not on all topics, which even the heathen knows is not the case for right is right and wrong is wrong.  It’s a confusing topic in it’s self and as if Paul’s inspiration was to correct a mistake. Cross this line and you open the doors to more than just women as ministers of the faith.

It’s a complex topic for sure and in my opinion an issue between literal translation of the scripture and evolving social standards, which many obviously believe, inspired by God.

BTW, not me.

Tj
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 5:36:14 PM EDT
So the consensus is that Women can't be Pators, because God's Laws or at least Scripture says so.

I guess that means none of you guys have ever been divorced, because the strictures against divorce are pretty pointed too.
Link Posted: 12/29/2003 6:13:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PaDanby:
So the consensus is that Women can't be Pators, because God's Laws or at least Scripture says so.

I guess that means none of you guys have ever been divorced, because the strictures against divorce are pretty pointed too.
View Quote


Not me personally, 31 years in March, but do understand it only takes one in a marriage to want a divorce.

Tj
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top