Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: math1h3@jetson.uh.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Sexism in the church Message-ID: Date: 7 May 91 04:37:03 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston Lines: 114 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes: >>In article , mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: > [snip] >>Now if a woman says that she feels she has been called to the preaching >>ministry, I think there are valid reasons to say that she has not. The Lord >>does not contradict himself; and God's Word is particularly clear on this >>point: a woman should learn in quietness and full submission, and not act >>as a man's master-teacher. (1 Timothy 2:11,12). If a woman claims to have >>been called to the preaching ministry, then first of all she claims to have >>a new revelation that contradicts the revelation we already have. We should >>reject her as a false spirit, as would the Bereans. > [snip] First of all, those are my words and not Michael Siemon's. Hang around the net a while and you'll know the difference without our signatures. :-) > Well, maybe the Lord doesn't contradict Himself but that doesn't mean > the Bible is always totally consistent. I can understand how you might believe that, but I believe that the Bible is verbally inspired by God. That means it says what God wants it to say, albeit in the words of a number of different human authors. So Paul's words, for me, are God's Words. Otherwise we have to start picking and choosing what is God's Word, and while some think they can do that, I don't. > Pauls' teaching here is quite > different to the teaching of Jesus about women, the Old Testament teaching, > and whats more its is also different to other things that Paul says. > (assuming, of course, that we take it at face value.) You might explain to us what Jesus taught about women that was incompatible with Paul's teachings. I don't find Jesus setting up women as teachers of men or choosing them as apostles. At the wedding at Cana he quite distinctly put his mother in her place. > What about the place were Paul says that in Christ there is neither > Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. Our moderator has already answered this one (which always comes up): men and women have equal status before God, they have equal value, and are equally saved by Christ. This does not mean that their God-pleasing roles cannot be different. Paul also wrote, "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us..." > A friend of mine who teaches at a Bible College told me that a good > way to understand the place of women in the church is to start > with the teaching of Jesus, study that, then go back into the > Old Testament, particularly in Genesis, (the Hebrew makes a few things > clearer in Gen 2 about the place of women which I have not seen in > any English translation so others may not be in the fortunate > position my friend was in) and then finally come to the teaching of Paul. > The mistake so many people make is that they start and finish at the > teaching of Paul and ignore the rest of the scriptures which they > claim they believe. A bad case of ``Paul''-ianity and not ``Christ''-ianity. But if I treat the canonical scriptures as inspired, then I have to accept Paul's interpretation of Genesis in 1 Timothy 2:11-15! And for Christians the real question is not what can a woman do vs. what can't she do. It is a question of how we interpret scripture. Do we treat it as verbally inspired or just occasionally inspirational? > In the church which I attend, which is very much a fundamentalist > Pentecostal church, we practice a glaring double standard with > respect to women's ministry. Women are allowed to do just about > everything such as lead worship, lead home groups, conduct Bible studies, > gives testimonies and so on and so forth. But there are three > things which are absolutely prohibited. > (1) They are not allowed to preach in the Sunday meetings. > (2) They cannot hold the office of elder. > (3) They cannot hold the office of pastor. [deletions] > They are even allowed to teach > from the Bible in our Bible Colleges with male students in their > classes, because this is not ``in church'' where such speaking would > not be tolerated. But they are trying to submit to God's will revealed in the Scriptures. You are basically complaining that they are not being consistent. My church has some problems in this regard too. We don't allow a woman to be a pastor, hold a congregational office, or vote in the Voter's Assembly of a congregation. Women do serve as teachers in various levels of schools. You would probably find us more consistent than your church in this regard. Would you like it any better? I don't know! Our Council of (District) Presidents has decided that church-related organizations may choose to allow women to vote, so long as the organization upholds the Scriptural principle of male headship and female submission (1 Cor 14:34, 1 Tim 2:11). Frankly, I think they stepped on a pretty slippery banana peel on that one, but the basic idea is this: Scripture teaches various things, just one of which is that women should be 'in submission' and should not 'exercise authority over men'. This is based on the facts of the creation story (as interpreted by Paul). The basic principle, based upon God's creation, is eternal. The application of the principle is made by the church in witness to God's truth at a particular place and time. Such application may change from time to time. But when we concentrate on rules, especially rules made by the church, then we are in danger of legalism. The clearest application one can make of this principle is that a wife should submit to her husband: 'wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord,... husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church, etc.' Secondly, it is very clear from 1 Tim 2:12 that a woman should not exercise autority over a man as a man's master-teacher. The best translation of this notion to modern practice is the pastor of a church. How this applies to voting, holding office, etc., is hard to work out, except that the practice we have is compatible with this principle of male headship, and female submission. I can't say there is no reason for our current practice, but I can't say it is compelled by Scripture either. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran.