Female Pastors

Re: Without any exegesis...

Really - common sense for whom? I can not overlook how subjective this is. Common sense, as it were, will be determined largely on someone's enviromental conditioning. Just because it is your observation that women prefer to work in "next to" and not "over" men - what if my experience is different? Who's common sense shall be a guide?

Steven King

 

Re: Re: More stuff to chew on

 

Stephen,

Oh, you're right: I'm giving a subjective approach to this, but that surely doesn't just negate it right out the window. It's as common sense, in my opinion, as is that of the knowledge of right and wrong. No one's going to completely agree on what's right and wrong, but the mere discussion of it--and the fight for it--insures there's a standard over and above us dictating that the standard exists, whether some grab it better, worse, or differently than others.

No difference than what I'm referring to with regard to common sense of men and women's movement (better than the word 'rolls'). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there's a natura, common-sense movement among men and women of any class and of any place on planet earth. (Dont' mean that to sound sarcastic.) Men just "know" (though they abuse the hek out of it) that they are the stronger, the ones to be in so-called charge, to lead, to be the "priest" of the house, if you will. I mean, that's not that hard to see all around us. Neither is it that hard to see the same approach to the functionality of movement within the spiritual arena. Women generally don't want to lead or to be in a reversed position--not inferior--to that of what they will say should be the man's place. (Why must we think that this therefore means that men are superior or better?). Again, it doesn't mean a woman can't move in these ministerial functions--that's not the point--it means, though, that even if she does, there's something of her place that still finds itself defined by what I've just stated.

I remember a woman pastor of a home-church I attended. She told me, "I'm a pastor because there isn't a man around here that will do the job." I knew what she meant, though I think that par of her pastoralship was that she did want to be the pastor regardless of the lack of a man to do the job. It wasn't without the tension, though, that I've just described.

I believe the NT takes this into consideration without as much as saying so. To run to "Oh, well that was the culture back then" (women to be silent, women to not be over a man, etc.,) is to miss the whole point: that the over-all thrust of all those passages we are taking about says something about the need for women in ministry to be considered with care, because of the possibility of the movement of men and women being reversed or abdicated. In other words, that it is even brought up in the first place in the NT (and NOT so for the man--he is told to not abuse these positions) is to say something of the unspoken (unnecessary to be spoken) way things just are between men and women because they were created this way. It isn't to stop women from ministry (such as pastoring and teaching--leadership rolls), it is to condition it for safety's sake. Men aren't given this kind of conditional saftey exhortation. Rather, they are told to not abuse their positions, to care for their positions as Christ cares for the body, to remember that they too are over-seen by the Bishop of their souls. This is a different message to men then to women.

Thanks,

Keith

 

Cultural Relevance

I agree a standard exists for "right and wrong" but that is a much different issue than women being involved in ministry. There is a fundamental sense of "oughtness" that permeates most creatures with respect to what is "right" vs. what is "wrong". It is one such argument that has been used historically to even substantiate belief in God. However, to assign this sense of "this is the way it should be" to an issue as pivotal (and clearly as divisive) as female pastors belies common sense. Pivotal issues should be filtered through the screen of it seems so to me based on my observations? I don't think so. Reminds me of an AA buddy of mine who couldn't buy a lot of Christianity except for what he could see - because AA had taught his so.

Interesting. A few decades ago, the same argument would have been proffered as a substantiation of slavery. People believed, rocket science notwithstanding, that people of color were just inferior. Didn't the Bible substantiate it, too? Sure it did...those supporting slavery employed eisogesis [taking Scripture out of context] to make the Bible say whatever was needed.

Maybe as a man you inherently know that you are the one to be in charge. What of women with different backgrounds than you? What of the women who have been called into the mission field throughout history? Would their role have been any less than pastoral for a certain group of people? What of the little girl who grows up without a father - does she inherently "know" that men are the natural leaders of the home? What if that hasn't been modeled for her? Does her "common sense" approach to male leadership become negated because it differs from yours?

According to whom? I doubt the women who are in pastoral roles would agree with this statement. Some historians contend that women played a pivotal role throughout revival history within Christianity. What if we turned back the clock and investigated the thinking of these women, would they believe they "found themselves" defined by an instinctive knowledge of their place?

Tension that you understand - because a woman pastor wouldn't fit within your definition of common sense guidelines. I am not sure that the exegesis to date of 1 Tim and 1 Corinthians are as easily navigable as proponents claim. Many scholars contend that the translation from the Greek in both passages is extremely difficult - which will bring us full circle to the thrust of my post.
We see in Scripture largely what we want to see.

I disagree...cultural relevance plays a huge factor in accurate biblical interpretation. Likewise, a careful reading of either passage would not lead anyone to conclude that Paul believed women in pastoral roles would somehow reverse the role of men and women. Again you appeal to the way things "just are." According to whom? Apparently to you because you feel that this is the way things are...but your feelings are not shared by others. So where does that leave us?

You feel I am trying to discount your post because of its apparent subjectivity - where I am really saying that everyone has an opinion. How do we measure whose opinion is better than another?

Remember that men are instructed to love their wives, as Christ loved the Church. For a practical application we understand that Christ died for the Church because of his great love for us.

The larger issue here is a form of misogyny that is trying to militate against a feared feminism. I am not a feminist, or a person of color, but one can not restrict women in ministry [or develop Christian doctrine] due to a "feeling" of how things "just are". Subjectivity will always breed closemindedness.

Thanks,

Steven King

 

Continuing on...

Hey Steven,

You said, Pivotal issues should be filtered through the screen of it seems so to me based on my observations? I don't think so.

Now, I'm not advocating total filtering through this process. I've already noted I'm not coming from an exegetical framework here. so, in view of this filtering, I will ask you this: are you saying that there can be NO filtering of this kind for any pivotal issue of men and women? Are not some things pretty obvious without having to be learned in them? Is it absolutely unthinkable that the most pivital issue of a man and a woman--that they were mean to be with each other, and not man with man or women with women--is something one will see as truth in general (if one looks around enough)? I mean, throw out the ability to use the instinct, the senses, this filtering ability, and then it really won't make any difference of right or wrong or of the rolls of men and women; we will need to be taught everything, and that with all the controversy circumscribing it with exegetical problematic interpretation. Come on, Steve. It's pretty clear that some things are truth because it's obviously so. I didn't say everyone will get it right, but you can't discount the filtering system I'm utilizing just because the issues are pivitol, can you?

I still contend it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know some of these things; that slavery is wrong. Just because the masses follow the flow doesn't make the flow right. What, did we just now come to light that slavery is wrong? It wasn't known before this era? Well then, it certainly cannot be trusted that our value judgement, albeit a little late in the game, is of any value. It's not truth, it's a judgement of sorts. Thus, everyone else's judgement is still as applicable as ours. No, it's clear, obvious, and it's truth, and the filtering system does quite well to distinguish it as truth from error: slavery is wrong.

I think I'm still being misunderstood here. From the mouths of most every woman I have talked with comes the same type (though, perhaps, differently flavored, as I've already noted) of information: they seem to all agree that it is the place of walking side-by-side a man with him being the one that is not to MAKE the decisions, but is expected to show the leadership THROUGH the decisions. See the difference I'm after here? (Any women reading this, please chime in with your thoughts.) And this same feature carries over into ministry: the man is generally the one who is seen as leading THROUGH, not MAKING the decisions. He is the one who generally (not all the time, of course, but generally) is expected to exhibit this characteristic. We're not talking about being better than or lording over, we are talking about the same differences spiritually which are as clear as the differences of the male and female body. Clearly because the male body is seen as stronger physically, that doesn't make the male better. It serves the purposes, however, which are greatly needed to complete the male/female functionality, as does the females. This just isn't all that hard. At least not as I see it.

Keith

 

Hey guys,

I'd love to get more into this but I just don't have time today.

I'm applying for a secondary teaching job. wish me "luck".

Chris

 

............

GUYS?? . Ah ha!! So only guys get this?

Good "luck" and BTY, you're wrong on 1 Tim 2:11,12 because Bowman, Moo, Saucy, and Powell's exegesis show you to be!

 

As of this posting, a whopping 88.46% of Degreeinfo respondents believe that it is contrary to their faith for women to serve in a position of religious leadership over men. (According to a 2000 Gallup Poll, only 23% of Americans hold this view.)

I certainly respect your religious commitment and willingness to hold unpopular beliefs--but the next time you wonder why there aren't that many women around here...


Cheers,

 

==========

That's right! As soon as this poll hit the screen degreeinfo lost half of its "weaker" sex membership.

To these and all others again I'll say as far as my posts on this matter go (1) it's just my own opinion and many more qualified disagree with me, (2), I get along fine with those who take the other position , (3) I do not consider this issue fundamental to the faith.

So, to all you departed women , if this discussion has caused your hurried exodus, please return as your presence here is more important than our poll.

 

Hey Bill,

I'm wondering if you're not having a crisis of authority here. I mean, I don't know about you but I believe the Bible is the final word of authority. Maybe you are thinking of moving over to the Roman Catholic side of revelation so that the Bible + certain "elite" scholars have the authority put together.

?

 

One more thought, Bill. I'm only replying here because I think you misunderstood me on a point.

On 1 Cor. 14 here is your statement:

which leads you to this:

My point is precisely that the Mosaic Law is in view by the person who is the speech agent that restricts the role of women. Since we assume that, we agree. I disagree with you that the Mosaic Law actually teaches that women should be restricted from speaking in the church, and I think Paul does too. That, I suggest, is why he quotes the Corinthians.

One can say that 1 Tim 2 is a similar refererence to women being somehow restricted through the example of Adam and Eve, but the reference in 1 Tim 2 is not an attempt to recover the original intent of the text, it looks more like one of Paul's special uses. Like the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians. Regardless, 1 Tim 2 does not argue that the Pentateuch teaches that women should be restricted in church. It only attempts to recover an example, not an intention.

1 Cor 14 tries to recover an intention. "As the Law says." I would emphasize that the use of the "Law" here is incorrect. I would also ask you if you think Paul is using the Mosaic Law incorrectly, since you believe this passage to be Pauline. I find this much easier to understand if Paul is quoting the erring church, like he does in other places in the book.

Usually, Paul follows his quotations with rhetorical questions to refute such a quote. He also does this also in 1 Cor. 14.

I think Don Carson's article was very good on this issue in RBMAW with Grudem. Although he takes a different position, I thought it was a good review, though.

I don't see any other solution if we really take the "Law" quotation seriously.

Chris

 

..................

For heaven sakes, Chris! You failed to see that as a joke? The point is we each have our scholars and reasons. we can argue about this for quite some time.

 

dude!!!

dude, I was totally joking.

That was my reason for the

Shalom in Christ,

Chris

 

Re: dude!!!

..........

Good, thanks!

 

Re: Continuing on...

Ethical issues are different than hermeneutic issues. While one can be contained in the other - I doubt that the subjectivity of one's own common sense is definitive enough to make the distinctions you've outlined. In no way have I implied that "common sense" be thrown out with the bath water.

Let's see...obviously...everyone...you can't discount - these type of phrases speak directly to my original point: subjectivity can not be accurately assessed by those who do not hold the same viewpoint. An objective means of assessing pivotal issues keeps us from making foolish assertions because subjectivity is too conditioned environmentally.

Of course our cultural understanding of slavery is different, let's say, than the time in which slavery was espoused as being "correct". As a huge black eye in America's history, sadly, many churches/Christians endorsed slavery - even touting biblical references in support of their view. Subjective filtering systems do not do well in distinguishing truth from error. Look at history - when Hitler slaughtered 6,000,000 Jews in the Holocaust many German churches were woefully silent on the issue. Was their common sense filtering system merely "off" which kept them from crying out against the "obvious" error of ethnic cleansing? Did they not have the same Bible we espouse? Were they confused on the verses that speak to the sanctification of life? Apparently their subjective understanding, or perhaps their willingness to attain "survival" at any cost, impeded their common sense filtration.

Again, this is your experience...and your spin on the male/female issue. Gender issues are only obvious physically. We cannot suppress women in ministry because it fits within our ill defined understanding of spiritual differences. We cannot divorce cultural reletavism from biblical interpretation. To do so banishes us to obscurity and will cause us to alienate many who otherwise would not be inclined to entertain the salvation message.

If you're taking offense to this - I apologize. I can not believe this issue is as "black and white" as you imagine.

Steven King

 

Well, this is surreal. Now 60.71% of respondents believe that women can serve as senior pastors. Maybe more folks noticed this thread...?


Cheers,

 

=======


Ya, but Chris and Steve are voting many times!

 

Are women allowed to vote on this issue?