Should women be ordained

LionOfJudah

LionOfJudah

Member, Dreamcast Fishing Guru
what do you guys think should women be ordained ministers with out a formal or even with a formal education? i know that women are told to be silient in the church, as far as leadership, but there are somethings women should lead like Womens ministries and so forth, scripture i am using to back this up is 1 Corinthians 14:34.35

sexist versus i know but it is about orderly worship hehe, just asking a question not my view.
 
Well being a woman I think female ministers would be nice, however it is not biblical. Men and women have special talents and characteristics. I have no problem with woman leadership and support groups but if the bible is against I must submit to God's will.
 
The way I see it, if you prevent a woman from being a minister simply based on her sex you better not criticize the treatment of women in the Islamic world anytime soon. Unless you dont mind being a hypocrite.
 
God has never said women can be ministers or that they cant but by tradition( evil indeed) they have never been and they where created to be mans copanion and his aid to be by his side, and pretty sure it says that the woman isnt to rule her husband but to submit to his will, and the husband is suppose to be the spirtual leader of his house hold, so if the women is a minister that kind in a way could interfer with Gods plan, grant it Jesus came to Fulfill the law and now to remove it.
 
I think women SHOULD be ministers!  You guys have to remember that when you're dealing with a passage like the one in Corinthians, those are letters that Paul wrote to a particular society.  The women in that society were not religiously educated, so Paul said they shouldn't be ministers/pastors because of that.  Did you notice that the same instruction is not in any of the other letters? Those societies had different needs. Paul was not writing the letters for the Bible, he was writing the letter to instruct Churches of various societies. You guys have to look at everything when trying to interpret the Bible, because often there is a reason that passages have been constructed the way they have.  In todays modern society, women have the same opportunities for religious eductation as men do, so why shouldn't they be ministers?
 
because even if they are educated they should not be above a man in ministry, in the Bible i think
rock.gif
also for the reasons i stated above that the man is the spirtual leader. but the question my mother has put be fore me at times is what if the husband/father is not a spirtual man, then it does fall to the wife to teach the children and to try to bring the husband to the Lord also but he also tells us not to be unevenly yoke, there are so many What ifs and Then whats about this that it could go on for years just asking because one of the churchs i am going to is going to ordain their youth director (minister for all purpose just dont want the controversy cuz she is a women after all hehe)
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]because even if they are educated they should not be above a man in ministry, in the Bible i think
Click to expand...

No, that was an instruction given to a particular society.
 
hmmm so you agree with womens rights and feminist huh? i am not saying women should not have rights but they are able to sue companies when no women are managers but a male can not sue a company that has no male managers is that right no. plus Jesus only came to fullfill the law and now to abolish it.
 
"hmmm so you agree with womens rights and feminist huh? i am not saying women should not have rights but they are able to sue companies when no women are managers but a male can not sue a company that has no male managers is that right no. plus Jesus only came to fullfill the law and now to abolish it."

I think this wins the award for largest number of idiotic irrelevancies in a flame in CCGR history.
 
"Holy-Trolling Batman"

Affirmative action wouldn't be needed in an ideal world. <looks around> And your point would be?

Eon
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]hmmm so you agree with womens rights and feminist huh? i am not saying women should not have rights but they are able to sue companies when no women are managers but a male can not sue a company that has no male managers is that right no. plus Jesus only came to fullfill the law and now to abolish it.
Click to expand...

I don't like the double standards either. I'm a right-wing conservative, but the way that I understand Paul's letter is that it was written to a particular society, which it was, and that society has particular and unique needs, which it also does. Besides, if that instruction was meant for everyone, why is it not repeated in his other letters? As for fulfilling the law, and not abolishing it. Well, have you been making you atonement sacrifices lately? No? Good, you don't have to. Some things change.

BTW, one of the great attractions to early Christianity was it's equality of men and women.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Affirmative action wouldn't be needed in an ideal world. <looks around> And your point would be?
Click to expand...

Affirmative action isn't needed period. It's blatent racism, and people who don't recognize that need a reality check. Affirmative action is preventing equality of the races and sexes, not helping it.
 
Really? In my neck of the woods pre-Christianity there were several Matriarchial tribes, and Priestesses were sacrosanct and respected. Post-Christianity and women were blamed for original sin, subordinated to their husbands and banned from ordination.

You must be talking about some OTHER part of the world.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Tom Kazansky @ Dec. 15 2002,12:09)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Affirmative action wouldn't be needed in an ideal world. <looks around> And your point would be?
Click to expand...

Affirmative action isn't needed period.  It's blatent racism, and people who don't recognize that need a reality check.  Affirmative action is preventing equality of the races and sexes, not helping it.
Click to expand...
in THEORY I agree with you - Affirmative action shouldn't be needed.

In PRACTICE, you should look at the salaries of your female co-workers. They can be as much as 25% less than their male equivalents. See how many women and minorities serve in Company directorships.

The problem is, that in certain circles, it's still pretty much a big "Old Boys" club. Us "Old Boys" don't have a problem with it - and all we see is what we consider to be the best man for the job getting that job, that bonus etc.

It's not so much MY generation that's the problem (Born 1974) it's the old guard, and until that guard changes, there will still be a need for affirmative action. Personally I can't wait to see the back of it.

Eon
 
You forget that men and women (husbands and wives) are commanded to submit to one another. Not just the wife to the husband.

There have been many very respectable and very important deaconesses and leaders throughout Christianity. Check the history books.

As Tom noted, you have to keep the Bible in context. You have to know who was talking to who about what. If you take it out of context, in can be so misconstrued that it is no longer even vaguely related to the original command or thought.

God bless,
Van
 
"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."
1. Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."
1. Thimoty 2:11-14

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."
Ephesians 5:22-24
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]You must be talking about some OTHER part of the world.
Click to expand...

Take a look at early Christianity in a Roman history book.  We learned about it in Grade 11 ancient civ.  Very interesting little tid-bit of information.  Blaming women for the orignial sin is hardly treating them like second-class citizens.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]In PRACTICE, you should look at the salaries of your female co-workers. They can be as much as 25% less than their male equivalents. See how many women and minorities serve in Company directorships.
Click to expand...

Oh come on man!  Women and minorities have had plenty of time to "catch up" with white males.  You want a job, you want higher pay, than work for it.  Any smart business will promote their employees based upon merit, and if they don't they'll be in a lot of trouble.  They don't need the PC-police controlling their decisions for them.  Affirmitive action is so racist that it makes me sick.  Think about it.  Quotas deny qualified members of society based upon their race; tell me that's not racism!  Anyone who thinks it isn't is either an idiot or a moron, one of the two.

As for your third post about women, all I have to say is you're not listening to me.  Those were instructions given by Paul to specific societies, they don't reflect the modern, educated woman.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Tom Kazansky @ Dec. 13 2002,10:15)]
Click to expand...
(Tom Kazansky) I think women SHOULD be ministers! You guys have to remember that when you're dealing with a passage like the one in Corinthians, those are letters that Paul wrote to a particular society. The women in that society were not religiously educated, so Paul said they shouldn't be ministers/pastors because of that.

(Me) A number of women in Hellenistic cultures were actually the religious and political leaders before becoming Christians. There are many instances of female-dominated priest(ess)hoods in Hellenistic societies.

Also, how will you deal with Priscilla, who taught Apollos (and many others) about the Scriptures? Shouldn't Paul have allowed HER to hold teaching authority over men if education were the only thing holding him back?


(Tom Kazansky) Did you notice that the same instruction is not in any of the other letters?

(Me) You'll actually find this mentioned throughout the Bible, as the Biblical paradigm is always man over woman in earthly authority, though the woman is not inferiority. In the New Testament, Paul specifically indicates to Timothy (who he was instructing for a teaching position) that he will not allow a woman to hold teaching authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12, if I'm remembering correctly). Thus, given the Biblical paradigm, and the specific command in the Pauline epistles, we conclude that women ought not to be ordained ministers.


(Tom Kazansky) Those societies had different needs. Paul was not writing the letters for the Bible, he was writing the letter to instruct Churches of various societies. You guys have to look at everything when trying to interpret the Bible, because often there is a reason that passages have been constructed the way they have.

(Me) I agree that our hermeneutic must try to take into account intended meaning as best we can. However, Paul's justification was an appeal to the Garden of Eden -- which is certainly universally applicable -- rather than to a local, particular case.


(Tom Kazansky) In todays modern society, women have the same opportunities for religious eductation as men do, so why shouldn't they be ministers?

(Me) The Scripture's opposing words (though I realize that this is what you're contesing) ;-)

Sola Scriptura
Soli Deo Gloria,
John
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Oh come on man! Women and minorities have had plenty of time to "catch up" with white males. You want a job, you want higher pay, than work for it. Any smart business will promote their employees based upon merit, and if they don't they'll be in a lot of trouble. They don't need the PC-police controlling their decisions for them. Affirmitive action is so racist that it makes me sick. Think about it. Quotas deny qualified members of society based upon their race; tell me that's not racism! Anyone who thinks it isn't is either an idiot or a moron, one of the two.
Click to expand...

So since they've had all this time to catch up, and they are still by no means equal statistically, I can conclude from your post that you think women and ethnic minorities are just too lazy to make it happen. Non white people are just lazy slobs, Pat Buchanon was right after all, thanks Tom.
You might want to double check just who is racist here, the Affirmative action proponents or the opponents? I don't think you are conciously or purposly this way, but please wake up and see what you are saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top