The bible: Women serving in the church?

[teleios]

Hey guys,

Just curious what you're thoughts are on this issue. Nowadays, with gender differences being condemned, it seems as though the line separating male and female activities is slowly but surely being abolished.

1) From the bible (and more specifically, the new testament), what do you think a woman should be able to do in the church? What positions can she (or can she not) serve as?

2) From your own opinions, what do you think a women should be able to do in the church? What positions can she (or can she not) serve as?

3) Finally, if you don't answer it in the above questions - What do you think of gender roles? Do they exist? Should they exist?

This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately.

-Teleios

[Sin of Red]

2) From your own opinions, what do you think a women should be able to do in the church? What positions can she (or can she not) serve as?

Everything really, minus of course the pope, that in itself is a stretch, and the job of women in the church, other then nuns, is still a new concept, and not liked by some people. Some day a women may be pope, we'll see. Now though, I don't see it happening.

3) Finally, if you don't answer it in the above questions - What do you think of gender roles? Do they exist? Should they exist?

In only a few rare cases, very rare cases. Don't ask me to mention them, I'm not sure what they are. They shouldn't, but some people hold on to their beleifs a bit strongly for this age.

[El Viejo]

Hey guys,

Just curious what you're thoughts are on this issue. Nowadays, with gender differences being condemned, it seems as though the line separating male and female activities is slowly but surely being abolished.

1) From the bible (and more specifically, the new testament), what do you think a woman should be able to do in the church? What positions can she (or can she not) serve as?

2) From your own opinions, what do you think a women should be able to do in the church? What positions can she (or can she not) serve as?

3) Finally, if you don't answer it in the above questions - What do you think of gender roles? Do they exist? Should they exist?

This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately.

-Teleios

1. The Bible, as quoted and preached, is unequivocably against women leading. Taking into account the rare instances of women as leaders and equal heirs in the OT, and examining the role of women in the NT, I'd say the Bible is ambiguous, even contradictory.

2. There's no reason anyone shouldn't be pastor, Pope, or Archbishop of Canterbury if they show themselves competent for the job.

3. No one should be excluded from an activity or role purely on the basis of the number of X chromosomes they have. The only determining factors should be a willingness to do and the capacity to do.

[teleios]

1. The Bible, as quoted and preached, is unequivocably against women leading. Taking into account the rare instances of women as leaders and equal heirs in the OT, and examining the role of women in the NT, I'd say the Bible is ambiguous, even contradictory.
Women as leaders in the OT? It's a bit late where I am, but the only one coming to mind is Deborah, and if I remember correctly it seemed she 'worked through' Barak. My memory has been known to falter more and more late at night though.
As for the role of woman in the new testament - Gender roles galore! There are only a couple names that come to mind that were in leadership positions; one prophet who fell out of a window, and a couple deaconesses that Paul mentions (I think at the end of Romans). Point being, woman who stepped out of the gender roles of the time seemed pretty uncommon.

So not sure how contradictory the bible is on this issue, but I can see how it could be confusing.



3. No one should be excluded from an activity or role purely on the basis of the number of X chromosomes they have. The only determining factors should be a willingness to do and the capacity to do.
I find your second statement interesting. Would you say men and women are built differently physically, mentally, and emotionally? Would this change their capacity to complete certain tasks?

God bless!
-Teleios



Edit: You're an xkcd fan? :D
Randall is such a clever guy. He can be a bit excessively crude, but often time has some excellent insights about the programming world (or just the world in general).

[billyjack]

oops...

[billyjack]

2)
3) Finally, if you don't answer it in the above questions - What do you think of gender roles? Do they exist? Should they exist?

In only a few rare cases, very rare cases. Don't ask me to mention them, I'm not sure what they are. They shouldn't, but some people hold on to their beleifs a bit strongly for this age.

rare? i'd say its rare to observe instances where gender roles dont/shouldn't play a part. The blurring of the line between genders is not an advancement or an achievement to hang our hats on. separation is natural.

When men dont perform their gender roles, women are forced to pick up the slack and take on manly behaviors and duties. Men should bring out the femininity in women, not the masculinity. I'll put the blame on men for being metro sexual and applaud women for responding in a practical way.

[Sin of Red]

2. There's no reason anyone shouldn't be pastor, Pope, or Archbishop of Canterbury if they show themselves competent for the job.


True, I completly agree. In this day in age, however, it would cause a few issues.

[Bitterfly]

I think it would probably be interesting to study the role of women in the Church before the thirteenth century, when they were gradually excluded from positions of power by men.
There were very strong abbesses, for example.


When men dont perform their gender roles, women are forced to pick up the slack and take on manly behaviors and duties. Men should bring out the femininity in women, not the masculinity. I'll put the blame on men for being metro sexual and applaud women for responding in a practical way.

I wouldn't put it that way: women are totally capable of responding to a situation in a so-called virile fashion, only they've been routinely stopped from doing so, under the pretext that it wasn't feminine behaviour. If you study history, you'll see that in the cases when they were no men around to impose command, women got on well by themselves, to the extent that when the men came back, they felt frustrated to see that they were, in fact, useless.

You can share out tasks, it's often more practical to do so, but that shouldn't blind one to the fact that women are just as capable as men of taking charge. I don't see anything in the ecclesiastical functional that precludes women from becoming priests, bishops, popes, etc. After all, if there's one area that doesn't require physical strength, it seems to be that one, no?

[billyjack]

If you study history, you'll see that in the cases when they were no men around to impose command, women got on well by themselves, to the extent that when the men came back, they felt frustrated to see that they were, in fact, useless.



looking back in history to justify oneself eventually makes one think backwards as well.

[El Viejo]

You're right, it's Deborah I was thinking of, and she was in the Barakground, as it were.

"...woman who stepped out of the gender roles of the time seemed pretty uncommon."

True, but nevertheless they did lead, and weren't struck by lightning.

"So not sure how contradictory the bible is on this issue, but I can see how it could be confusing."

Most scriptural statements about women pretty clearly put them in a subordinate position, making the exceptions exceptionally confusing.

"I find your second statement interesting. Would you say men and women are built differently physically, mentally, and emotionally?"

Yes. Some differences are overblown, however, and some are overlooked.

"Would this change their capacity to complete certain tasks?"

I think you'd find more differences in capacity among men or among women than you'd find in the average difference between men and women. One exception might be interpersonal interaction. Women seem consistently more capable than men. They seem to see others in higher resolution, if you will, than do men. This, coupled with other strengths, could certainly make them more capable in leadership positions.

RE: xkcd--He does go beyond the G rating at times, doesn't he? My two favorites are Journal and Journal 2 (374 and 377). The one I use for my signature is a reminder to me to be less pedantic, less avuncular, and to just let some things go until later, if ever. It's partially effective.

[byquist]

It goes without say, anything and everything; total equality.

[TheInsomniac]

If the church was run by women, we would all be reading pink bibles and wouldnt be able to argue against anything. Although on the bright side, i guess there would be no more wars.

[dzebra]

Sure there would. They would just be wars over different things.

[TheInsomniac]

I can only imagine everyone getting along with one another, then as soon as someone turns their back, the gossip/rumors start, and the biiiiiitching...

not to say there arnt any good down to earth girls out there. Im just generalising as i am an arrogant bastard.

[kiki1982]

I think that the problem of gender roles in the church, particularly the catholic one, is not so much down to the bible, because, as stated here, it is ambiguous and even contradictory. The problem for me lies rather in the tradition of a patriarchal society in itself. The opposition against women priests is not really there in the west, because, down to the shortage of priests, there are already women serving as preachers (who can't perform the blessing of the bread and wine), but the oppsition rather has its roots in the more conservative areas of the catholic world (South-America, China, Indonesia, and other conservative countries where they also have issues as homosexuality and same-sex marriages, sorry for the people art of those communities!).
The problem for the Pope is not that he wouldn't like to change the rules, because it would solve a lot of problems, but the real problem here is that most cardinals and bisshops, because they are from conservative parts, because they are the biggest community with the most priests, do not want women as priests for whatever reason. The Pope needs to accomodate them because he doesn't want a second Schism (like the one that made the Orthodox Church in the middle ages). There is a continuous friction between those two parts of Chirstianity on the whole, because the west wants to move forward and the rest wants to stay in place, athough the west has great problems concerning the number and age of priests. The more conservative countries don't have that problem because they have a surplus like the west had until 20-30 years ago.
The Vatican and the Pope are an institution like other institutions and need to comply with certain members and that is probably where the problem lies. Until the conservative countries get it in their heads that contraception is a good idea, that women priests will not disgrace the church, that condoms are not evil, etc. the church cannot modernise itself.

[RG57]

In today's society I do not think that there should be any difference in the gender roles. As Christians we believe that we are called by God to do whatever He tells us. I have never had any problems with women becoming ministers or priests if the RC Church allowed them (I'm RC). A part of the problem is that men still feel that they are the only ones who fill the rolls higher u in the church.
I agree with kiki1982, the church has to move into the 21st Centuary, until it does a lot of traditional churches will prevent women fulfilling their true potential.

[El Viejo]

In today's society I do not think that there should be any difference in the gender roles. As Christians we believe that we are called by God to do whatever He tells us. I have never had any problems with women becoming ministers or priests if the RC Church allowed them (I'm RC). A part of the problem is that men still feel that they are the only ones who fill the rolls higher u in the church.
I agree with kiki1982, the church has to move into the 21st Centuary, until it does a lot of traditional churches will prevent women fulfilling their true potential.

As a former member of the RC Church I think women might do better to fulfill their true potential elsewhere, as the Church may take a long, long time entering the 21st century. It took them over 350 years to get around to pardoning Galileo. At that rate we might be in the 24th and a half century before the Church gets to the 21st.

[Sin of Red]

As a former member of the RC Church I think women might do better to fulfill their true potential elsewhere, as the Church may take a long, long time entering the 21st century. It took them over 350 years to get around to pardoning Galileo. At that rate we might be in the 24th and a half century before the Church gets to the 21st.

Yes, the church is very stubborn, is it not?

[El Viejo]

Yes, the church is very stubborn, is it not?

Stubbornness or simple inertia. The result is the same either way.

[hellsapoppin]

The idea that women cannot be ministers or priests is based on a misinterpretation of New Testament teaching. While Greek churches were ordered to keep women from the ministry, this was restricted to Corinthian churches. By stark contrast, look at the book of Romans and you will see an entire roster of female preachers [last chapter].

Phillips' four teenaged daughters were all prophetesses per Acts 21:8,9.

And the entire congregation was a "royal priesthood" per I Peter 2:9.

Therefore, women are allowed to preach in the New Testament.

[Whifflingpin]

"And the entire congregation was a "royal priesthood" per I Peter 2:9.

Therefore, women are allowed to preach in the New Testament."

A preacher is not the same thing as a priest. A priest is one who makes a junction between the human and the divine.

The arguments I've heard against women priests are derived almost entirely from Christ's practice. His chosen apostles were all men. He was a man. Only men were present at the Last Supper.
Some Christian churches see the most effective channel between divinity and man as being through the Eucharist which, by following the form of the Last Supper, brings God directly to the communicants. The celebrant represents Christ in this instance, and must therefore, it is argued, be male.

In other contexts, the whole congregation is indeed a "royal priesthood." Another bridge between the human and the divine is the sacrament of baptism. Any baptised Christian can perform a baptism, which is a priestly function. Offering prayers on behalf of oneself or a community is also a priestly function, which any person can do.

[subterranean]

. The opposition against women priests is not really there in the west, because, down to the shortage of priests, there are already women serving as preachers (who can't perform the blessing of the bread and wine), but the oppsition rather has its roots in the more conservative areas of the catholic world (South-America, China, Indonesia, and other conservative countries where they also have issues as homosexuality and same-sex marriages, sorry for the people art of those communities!).

I thought the 'opposition' agaisnt a she-priest is there through out the Catholic church, regardles of the areas (west, south, north, east). I don't see Indonesia (me being an Indonesian) as a country with conservative Catholic root. I might be wrong on that since I'm not a Catholic.

There's a lady I know in my church here who decided to leave her old church since in that church her idea of becoming a priest is totally rejected. It's not a Catholic church, but a conservative protestant church.

I believe God does not put lines nor assigned different roles between man and woman when it comes to church involvement. The Bible only stated the different roles and functions within the church, depending on the gifts and talent God has given to each person. The body parts analogy to describe how church is build (where Christ is pictured as the head) clearly state that.

[hellsapoppin]

priest as defined in www.blueletterbible.org is as follows:


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2406&t=KJV


"exalted to a moral rank and freedom which exempts them from the control of every one but God and Christ"


prophesy is defined as,



1) prophecy

a) a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events

b) Used in the NT of the utterance of OT prophets

1) of the prediction of events relating to Christ's kingdom and its speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions pertaining to it, the spirit of prophecy, the divine mind, to which the prophetic faculty is due

2) of the endowment and speech of the Christian teachers called prophets

3) the gifts and utterances of these prophets, esp. of the predictions of the works of which, set apart to teach the gospel, will accomplish for the kingdom of Christ



This is what Phillips's four teenaged daughters did.




Since the enitre congregation is a 'royal priesthood', this means that everyone is answerable only to "God and Jesus". THIS INCLUDES WOMEN!




Note: in pagan times, Hellenic (Greek) cults were largely run by female priests. Unfortunately, when the Greeks at Corinth converted to Christianity, the sisters tried to usurp the pulpit as they did in pagan times. Because of this they were punished by the Apostle who strictly forbade them to preach in the Greek Chrsitian churches. I do not know whether this church edict has any statute of limitations.


Bottom line is that in Christian churches women are allowed to preach/teach/prophesy/evangelize except where noted in the New Testament.

[hellsapoppin]

Does anyone care to dispute the definitions above?

[Bitterfly]

Nope. Any idea why "the Apostle" (I suppose St Paul?) was so much against the idea of women priests? Was it only because he considered them as lower forms of humanity, responsible for the original sin, or was there another reason (fighting against paganism in which, as you said, women played an important role)?

[Whifflingpin]

"Does anyone care to dispute the definitions above?"

No but -
just note that "exalted to a moral rank and freedom which exempts them from the control of every one but God and Christ" from your source actually refers to the "royal" of the text not the "priesthood." Doesn't alter what you are agruing though.

"Bottom line is that in Christian churches women are allowed to preach/teach/prophesy/evangelize"
I don't think any significant branch of Christianity would argue with that.

There are two areas that are exclusively male in some branches. Acting as celebrant in the Eucharist, for the reasons, possibly, that I've given above. And forgiving sins, because the authority to forgive sins was given by Christ to male disciples and has been handed on since then exclusively to males.

****************

"Was it only because he considered them as lower forms of humanity, responsible for the original sin,"
Certainly Paul did not hold women as responsible for the original sin - he said "As in Adam all men died" not "As in Eve all men died." Of course, that would probably be considered sexist these days, as Eve did, in the story, sin before Adam, so Paul's words only hold good if the husband is responsible for the wife's actions.

[hellsapoppin]

''fighting against paganism ''


In the Old Testament Jeremiah 10:2 it is written ''learn not the ways of the heathen''. In other words, do not incorporate pagan practices in your religious practices. Romans, Egyptians, Scythians, and other societies were strictly patriarchal. By contrast, Greek women had a much more promient role in their society. And the temples were dominated by them.

Without getting unduly political, churches or clerical authorities (as in other religions of the past and present) represent power. Power, money, and influence. As these Greek women had had great power and influence, it is understandible as to why they did not wish to relinquish their past authority by sharing the pulpit with men. But the apostle put astop to that usurpation.

I do not know of any other argument that has been posited by religious historians. Suffice it to say that if women had been completely barred from religious preaching as it is alleged by certain Christians, there would not have been any listed in the Book of Romans or in other New Testament writings.

[hellsapoppin]

''I don't think any significant branch of Christianity would argue with that.''

Pope John Paul II specifically cited the Book of Corinthians as to why he refused to ordinate women.

[Pendragon]

Well, from what I can read, the New Testament is against women pastors or priest. I fail to see that it is for them being doing nothing in church...

[hellsapoppin]

''the authority to forgive sins was given by Christ to male disciples and has been handed on since then exclusively to males.''


I'm having a little trouble with that one.


In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus pointed out that miraculous healing was an outward manifestation of the divine forgiveness of sin. If it is true that only apostles were given this authority then women minsters would not be given the same title as male minsters. Now consider Phoebe: she should be included among those who can heal through divine forgiveness because she was called ''servant'' in Romans 16:1. The word for servant is ''diakonos'' which is precisely the same word used for apostles. If she was an apostle, then she would have the same authority was the 12 Apostles as no distinction between males and females is indicated in the narrative.

[hellsapoppin]

''the New Testament is against women pastors or priest.''

Please read Romans 16 for a complete roster of female church servants. Note also that Phoebe was called ''succourer'' which comes from the Greek word 'prostasis' meaning "woman guardian, protectress, and guide". Paul even said that she was his religious guardianess!

[Pendragon]

''the New Testament is against women pastors or priest.''

Please read Romans 16 for a complete roster of female church servants. Note also that Phoebe was called ''succourer'' which comes from the Greek word 'prostasis' meaning "woman guardian, protectress, and guide". Paul even said that she was his religious guardianess!
I am used to being disagreed with on scripture. I will say Ihave been wrong before and may be wrong here, but I don't see it that way from Romans 16, KJV.

Wesley's Notes for Romans 16:1

16:1 I commend unto you Phebe - The bearer of this letter. A servant - The Greek word is a deaconness. Of the church in Cenchrea - In the apostolic age, some grave and pious women were appointed deaconnesses in every church. It was their office, not to teach publicly, but to visit the sick, the women in particular, and to minister to them both in their temporal and spiritual necessities.

Notice what I posted as the translation for the word.


God Bless

Pendragon

[hellsapoppin]

A complete definition of ''diakonos'' can be found here:


http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1249&t=KJV



Cross references are also given to prove that this same term was used to define the role of the Apostles.

[dzebra]

That term doesn't include any authority. That's the difference. The apostles and elders of the churches were given the authority.

[hellsapoppin]

Don't know for certain but I would assume that a guardian has authority of some kind, and Phoebe was Paul's guardianess.

[hellsapoppin]

Despite the passing of the centuries, people continue to dispute what role (if any) women are to have in the church. And why? Simple - people refuse to open up their own Bibles to see for themselves as to what those roles are to be. They submissively allow authoritarian figures to dictate to them how they are to think rather than to think for themselves. Moreover, they allow themselves to be persuaded by biblical passages that are taken out of context.

People need to read the Bible and to utilize it in its totality rather than selectively omitting those passages which they deem inconvenient. By doing so, they would learn that they have been misled. The only way to settle this controversial issue is to simply read and utilize the full Bible. Further, disregard the entrenched and erroneous teachings of others. Lastly, confront them with all examples that are plainly exposed in scripture. This will settle any disputes on the matter.

The bottom line: according to scriptural teaching, as opposed to doctrinal teaching, women can serve in the church in a wide variety of capacities.

[dzebra]

Despite the passing of the centuries, people continue to dispute what role (if any) women are to have in the church. And why? Simple - people refuse to open up their own Bibles to see for themselves as to what those roles are to be. They submissively allow authoritarian figures to dictate to them how they are to think rather than to think for themselves. Moreover, they allow themselves to be persuaded by biblical passages that are taken out of context.

People need to read the Bible and to utilize it in its totality rather than selectively omitting those passages which they deem inconvenient. By doing so, they would learn that they have been misled. The only way to settle this controversial issue is to simply read and utilize the full Bible. Further, disregard the entrenched and erroneous teachings of others. Lastly, confront them with all examples that are plainly exposed in scripture. This will settle any disputes on the matter.

The bottom line: according to scriptural teaching, as opposed to doctrinal teaching, women can serve in the church in a wide variety of capacities.

I think you've got it right on the button. I couldn't agree more.

[Pendragon]

Despite the passing of the centuries, people continue to dispute what role (if any) women are to have in the church. And why? Simple - people refuse to open up their own Bibles to see for themselves as to what those roles are to be. They submissively allow authoritarian figures to dictate to them how they are to think rather than to think for themselves. Moreover, they allow themselves to be persuaded by biblical passages that are taken out of context.

People need to read the Bible and to utilize it in its totality rather than selectively omitting those passages which they deem inconvenient. By doing so, they would learn that they have been misled. The only way to settle this controversial issue is to simply read and utilize the full Bible. Further, disregard the entrenched and erroneous teachings of others. Lastly, confront them with all examples that are plainly exposed in scripture. This will settle any disputes on the matter.

The bottom line: according to scriptural teaching, as opposed to doctrinal teaching, women can serve in the church in a wide variety of capacities.
OK. One question. Do you consider yourself an authority on the Bible? I am not being smart, just wondering.

[hellsapoppin]

''I think you've got it right on the button. I couldn't agree more.''


Thanks!

:)

[hellsapoppin]

''Do you consider yourself an authority on the Bible?''


I do not understand Hebrew, Greek, or Latin. Therefore, I cannot access the original writings with their actual intents. On that basis, I regret to answer you in the negative.

Perhaps in another lifetime ...

;)

[Redzeppelin]

One of the difficulties inherent in claiming to be an "authority" on the Bible (especially for a non-believer) is that the book itself (primarily in the writings of Paul, but many of Jesus' statements work likewise) makes it clear that those who are not followers of God lack the insight necessary to discern the spiritual truths the book contains. Without a relationship with God, the Bible will appear to say things that it really does not (or it will appear to not say things that it really does). I Corinthians 2:14 makes it clear that nonbelievers are not clear in their understanding of the Bible's truths:

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (my emphasis)


Secular critics, then, are at a disadvantage; they "misread" the text because they attempt to interpret on a surface/superficial level something on a much deeper level that the Holy Spirit brings to our understanding.

[hellsapoppin]

A very interesting opinion. But it does not square with my experience in academia during the late 1960s. Back then, we had many public debates between religionists and nontheists. The debates were easily won by the nontheists.

I do not know if any such public discourse is undertaken nowadays. But it would be very interesting to see how the issues have evolved. Perhaps a forum academician may fill us in on such details.

[Redzeppelin]

A very interesting opinion. But it does not square with my experience in academia during the late 1960s. Back then, we had many public debates between religionists and nontheists. The debates were easily won by the nontheists.

To be honest with you, the opinion of who was "winner" was very likely split - both sides probably thought they "won" because the arguments of the other side were probably considered invalid partly due to the reasons I listed above.

[NikolaiI]

One of the difficulties inherent in claiming to be an "authority" on the Bible (especially for a non-believer) is that the book itself (primarily in the writings of Paul, but many of Jesus' statements work likewise) makes it clear that those who are not followers of God lack the insight necessary to discern the spiritual truths the book contains. Without a relationship with God, the Bible will appear to say things that it really does not (or it will appear to not say things that it really does). I Corinthians 2:14 makes it clear that nonbelievers are not clear in their understanding of the Bible's truths:

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (my emphasis)


Secular critics, then, are at a disadvantage; they "misread" the text because they attempt to interpret on a surface/superficial level something on a much deeper level that the Holy Spirit brings to our understanding.

This is a very important point in my understanding! Srila Prabhupada also explains very clearly that Bhagavad-Gita cannot be understood by philosophical speculation, but only by devotional service.

[hellsapoppin]

"winner"


In the old days our collegiate debates were conducted British style with a vote taken at the end of the proceedings. The winner was determined by vote.

[backline]

...The word for servant is ''diakonos'' which is precisely the same word used for apostles. If she was an apostle, then she would have the same authority was the 12 Apostles as no distinction between males and females is indicated in the narrative.


And in other New Testament scripture we learn there is (now) no difference between male and female, Greek nor Scythian, slave nor free, since Christ has set things in order (as opposed to patriarchial Judea).

While in Bible school I heard arguments against women serving as Elders because the Greek root was presbuteros (presbytery "brethren"), which was seen by some as a distinction from Deacon (diakonos).

But it seems to me that these squabbles ignore the greater concept that Jesus made all equal. Women's lib got nothin' on Him.

[dzebra]

I think there might be trouble with that, though, since elders are supposed to be the "husband of one wife" (1Tim 3:2).

[hellsapoppin]

I Tim 3:2 is a reference to a bishop. And yes, it does have masculine gender identification. However, a bishop is only one of many offices. Other offices without gender specificity can be found in Ephesians 4:11. See also I Corinthians 12:4-14.

[Redzeppelin]

"winner"


In the old days our collegiate debates were conducted British style with a vote taken at the end of the proceedings. The winner was determined by vote.

This is all fine, and frankly, I'd rather not go on about the topic. I've learned that you are rarely wrong in anything you say, so my attempt to bring in alternative answers never goes far.

Your response, however, says nothing about the nature of the audience and its biases. If 51% of the audience is composed of non-believers, then any vote will attest to the "winning" by the atheist debater. I'll assume that no audience is populated with 100% unbiased individuals.

[dzebra]

I Tim 3:2 is a reference to a bishop. And yes, it does have masculine gender identification. However, a bishop is only one of many offices. Other offices without gender specificity can be found in Ephesians 4:11. See also I Corinthians 12:4-14.

In Acts 20:17, Paul called the "elders/presbyters" (they are the same word in Greek) of the church in Ephesus together and began talking to them. He continues to talk to them, and in verse 28, he says that they are the "overseers/bishops" (they are the same word in Greek), and he tells them to be "shepherds/pastors" (they are the same word in Greek) as if it is their duty. All six words (bishop, overseer, elder, presbyter, pastor, shepherd) seem to refer to the same role in the church. This is not the only place where multiple words are used for the same person, but this is the clearest example I found.

But yeah, there were female prophets, and women can definitely be evangelists and teachers. All Christians are to be evangelists and teachers. As you've pointed out in 1 Corinthians, women have just as varied gifts as men, to be used for the common good.

Previously, I was only trying to point out that the position of overseer is the responsibility of men.

[hellsapoppin]

''I'll assume that no audience is populated with 100% unbiased individuals.''

Not to worry --- the debates were not like meetings of the college Republican clubs where you only get one side of an issue. I bet that would suit your preferences.

[hellsapoppin]

''the position of overseer is the responsibility of men''


For the position of bishop, it would appear that way. But again consider Paul's guardianess. What form of authority could she possible have?

[dzebra]

I'm not familiar with the "guardianess" of Paul. I can't find that in any of his letters, or in Acts.

[hellsapoppin]

Please see my post above # 31 and refer to www.blueletterbible.org 's listing of concordances for definitions.

[dzebra]

Note also that Phoebe was called ''succourer'' which comes from the Greek word 'prostasis' meaning "woman guardian, protectress, and guide". Paul even said that she was his religious guardianess!

All the sources I find translate the word "prostasis" into "helper. Even in the KJV; when it uses succourer, that word means helper.

The Strong's reference book defines it as:
1) a woman set over others
2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

That definition has a motherly connotation of making sure someone has all they need.

The word is used once in the Bible, and in every translation I have found minus one, it is translated into helper, or some synonym of that. The one that translated it "leader" was a literal word for word translation, which generally does not take the context of phrases into account as much.

[Psycheinaboat]

I've skimmed the thread and I'm surprised no one has mentioned the section of Galatians in which Paul states that we are neither male or female under Christ Jesus. Good scriptures have been pointed out, but Galatians largely addresses debates just like this one that were going on in the early church.

[Pendragon]

Please see my post above # 31 and refer to www.blueletterbible.org 's listing of concordances for definitions.And note definition three, which I believe to be what is referred to here. Paul makes it fairly clear about women ministers, in reference to preaching, as not a good thing. Nothing against women teaching say, Sunday School or sharing the Gospel with others. The word "administer" refers to needs of the body, and Paul you will recall had no wife or family.

God Bless

Pen

[hellsapoppin]

``motherly connotation ``

Sounds authoritative to me.
;)

[hellsapoppin]

~~ Galatians largely addresses debates just like this one ~~


And we need be mindful of the fact that it is the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law that matters most. There isn' necessarily a right or wrong answer on this or other issues. We need to use our best judgement and to do so openmindedly without prejudice of any kind.

[Pendragon]

~~ Galatians largely addresses debates just like this one ~~


And we need be mindful of the fact that it is the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law that matters most. There isn' necessarily a right or wrong answer on this or other issues. We need to use our best judgement and to do so openmindedly without prejudice of any kind.
Nice. Unfortunately, people will be people, and people argue over trifles.

[skasian]

Why not? I know a pastor who is a woman, and she is truely a godsend. I can literally feel the presence of the Spirit while she is preaching. She is respected by many male pastors and I'm sure God is extremely proud of her.