Welcome to Gaia! ::

*~Let the Fire Fall ~* A Christian Guild

Back to Guilds

 

 

Reply Debate and Discussion
Women in the Pulpit. Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 ... 4 5 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Should women be in the pulpit?
Yes
50%
 50%  [ 32 ]
No
31%
 31%  [ 20 ]
Depends
17%
 17%  [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 63


marie66-may90

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:31 pm
I think that women should be able to stand behind the pulpet. its not like men can preach better or women preach better. I have a women preacher, mainly because the is only 4 men in my church and our male preacher retired. heart I feel we are all equal and there is no reason a women can't preach.  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:02 pm
tarah_titan
i keep things short and too the point. woman was made from man. so i think what they mean is that we all need to shut-up and listen.
i agree with this point of view.  

rftkfan


dragonlove_48

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:15 pm
You have a wonderful tendency to go for the nerves don't you Holman? *commends you*
Now, according to what I understand to be Your point, I'm sinning just by writing this. Weather you see it this way or not, I see this Guild as a type of congregational church-type community, and therefore, I should just sit back and "be in submission" etc... learning from the men as they debate. It's a good thing I don't agree with your point, don't you think? I'd let Cometh argue with you, but I have an entirely different reason for choosing to do as I do, then Cometh has so far articulated.

I have struggled with this very issue for a long time. Raised in a Baptist church (on the liberal side of the spectrum) I'd rarely seen Women preaching, but there were ordained women in the church. They were just as wise and often taught me just as much valuable information as any of the men. As a child I didn't understand why Women were not allowed to preach. (No one really was allowed to speak in the congregation) I just left it alone until I was old enough to read the Bible, and the passages mentioned above, for myself. (I was always taught to come to my own conclusions about things, and never to accept something simply because it was accepted. I'm doing the same thing here, because by no means are my views solidified, I'm just pointing out fallibilities that I've seen in the Views expressed by Holman) which was in Gr 3, since then, I've been thinking it over, asking others their opinions, why they had that opinion, etc... comparing, contrasting... basically coming to my own conclusions.

Which are:
Women should be allowed to preach, as I believe a preacher is divinely inspired to bring the word of God and his Message into the minds of the congregation, clarifying or looking at "the same old thing" in a new way. If God inspires a person in this way, be it Woman or Man, said person should be allowed to speak since that means God himself is allowing it. The inspiration of a message is measured or seen by it's effect on the minds of the congregation. I've Seen and heard of many women preaching amazingly inspired sermons from a pulpit, which to me proves that God works through Humans, broken as we all are.

Women are naturally going to submit to men, because that is how we are Made. (you won't believe how bad I got when I figured that out) Most Women I've met feel at least on some level that they need the approval and guidance of a Man in their life, either a father or significant other. (which is why Fathers MUST show affection and love for their daughters, like, hugs, and mean it, through All ages, if you stop and I find out about it, I Will ream you out.) I am that way too, but that also means that in a way, I would like to serve men, as well as women, by telling them what God has been telling me, it seems to me that to keep silent would be a far greater sin.

Men these days are NOT holding up their end of the bargain, I'd be absolutely happy to sit quietly and listen if more then 5% of the men I know were descent people I respected and admired. Since I don't see even Christian Men doing as they should, (not to say the women are either) I don't really trust their opinions all the time. In fact, I usually trust about as many Women as Men for their insight and reason. Since that is the case, I see no objective reason to discriminate. Another belief I hold happens to be that every "law" or "rule" given in both the Old AND New testaments has a reason behind it, for example, Lying breaks trust and relationships with everyone around you, causing the repercussions of even a simple white lie to be not worth the effort. (there are other reasons, but that's the simplest)  
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:33 pm
Even given the reasons above I was willing to obey the laws and sit quietly simply on faith that there WAS a reason that would sweep all my objections aside. Only thing was, no one seemed sure of weather what was said about women was meant to be a law, or meant to be a suggestion based on the culture.

So I delved, There are many verses in the bible that are God's concessions to the follibles of man. One such is the Law of Moses saying that Divorce was allowed, which Jesus later rescinded saying it was a concession. Paul too, on numerous occasions did so again, eg: when he said circumcision was not needful in order to be Christian. Seems like a concession to me, and a good one, If I were male, and had to be circumcised to be Christian, It might have kept me from becoming Christian in the first place.

There's also another instance where our Culture seems to have deviated from something Paul wrote. In 1 Timothy 6:1-2 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them." And yet... I don't miss slavery, nor do I condemn those "Good Christians" who eventually abolished the slave trade in the Americas. I think slavery is horrid. It was explained to me once that Paul wrote this so that Christians would not be fought because they were going to abolish slavery. It is possible that the majority of people would refuse to even consider Christianity, if it meant they had to give up their slaves. They would have tried to kill all the Christians not just because they weren't Jewish, but because they were abolishing slavery. So it seems to me that the injunction to slaves to serve their masters, and their masters to teach them to do so... was a cultural thing, not a law.

Which opens the door for the Women thing to be so as well. There is ample evidence in Pauls letters that he help women in the highest respect, and I got the feeling (when I really didn't expect it) that in the Early church, Women were held on a level with men. Jesus himself certainly treated women with the same respect and love as he did men, and allowed them to do the same things the men did. As Cometh has said, Paul lists women, and commends them for both their faith and ability to debate. It seems to me that Saying Women should submit (in the public eye at least) was a function of the Culture of the day, for the exact same reason he called for the slaves to submit, and for circumscision to not be required. Because it would drive people away from the truth.

Now though, Culture has changed so much so that if either the slave thing, or the Woman thing were to stay, it would drive people away. We have a Purpose here, a clearly and oft stated purpose, and that is something called the Great Commission. If you can tell me why Women being submissive supersedes the Great Commission, by all Means, do so, but that's where we're at right now. I've seen women driven away from Christianity, the WHOLE thing, because someone told them they would not be allowed to express themselves in the same way men were allowed to.  

dragonlove_48


ioioouiouiouio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:44 pm
What about Galatians 3:28?

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor
Now, admittedly, I don't believe in the inerrancy of any English translations of the Bible, so I did some research on just what the Koine word used for 'to permit' and came up with this:
"When the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing" (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men”', furthering my assertion that it is a cultural command.

Oh no! Now, your turning argument against English translators. I see nothing in the Greek manuscripts and context that would indicate a cultural command. I would like to see you pull out any commentary or translation available that would support your "new" translation of 1 Cor. 14:34. I'm not expert at Greek and I'm pretty sure you are not either.

Cometh The Inquisitor
You're actually telling me that these women were debating with other women? If we follow your line of thinking, then women aren't allowed to speak in church and, therefore, must not have argued alongside Paul at all (as we consistently see Paul going to the temple courts to debate, we can readily assume that this is what he did).

There can be many possibilities, its quite pointless debating this issue. They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father.

Cometh The Inquisitor
The bolded is the first (and largest) hint that it is cultural. If, as you have stated, we are not bound by the Law, than any and all commandments involving the Law (save the Ten Commandments, which, I might point out, aren't even Levitical Law) are spiritually null and void. Paul would know this, and so one must question why he would use such defunct arguments. This leads me to believe that it was done for the benefit of the Church. If they were persecuted for pointless reasons (women's rights) then it would not be good. Plus, Paul lived in a time when women were thought to be physically and mentally inferior to men. They were hardly considered the same species, as far as capacities go.


The Law is not cultural. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8 ), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). Nonetheless, the law was meant to lead us to Christ (Ga 3:24). It makes the sinner conscious of sin (Rom 3:20; 7:7; 1 John 3:4).

Cometh The Inquisitor
As well, in that time, churches were sexually segregated. Women sat on one side and men sat on another. Women were not allowed to speak to anyone other than their husbands in church (this was a cultural thing, carried over from secular traditions and mannerisms). Thus, when a woman wanted to ask a question, she would shout over to her husband for him to ask the question. This was causing quite a disturbance, so Paul simply banned women from speaking at all in church.


Your whole argument is based on eisegesis.

1 Timothy 2:12-14
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."


This is why women are not permitted to exercise authority over men. Immediately by God, out of the dust of the earth; and the breath of life was breathed into Adam, and he became a living soul; thus wonderfully and fearfully was he made; after this he was put into the garden of Eden, to dress it, and all creatures were brought to him, to give them names; and still an help meet or a companion was not found for him. All this while Eve was not as yet formed, but after this, She was formed out of him, was made out of one of his ribs; and was formed for him, for his use, service, help and comfort; and here lies the strength of the apostle's reason, why the woman should be in subjection to the man; not so much because he was made before her; for so were the beasts of the field before Adam; and yet this gave them no superiority to him; but because she was made out of him, and made for him. So that the woman's subjection to the man is according to the laws of nature and creation; and was antecedent to the fall; and would have been, if that had never been; though that brought her into a lower, and meaner, and more depressed estate; which the apostle next mentions. The words may be rendered, "the first Adam", or "Adam the first was formed, and then Eve"  

Monergism


ioioouiouiouio

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:35 pm
Baptist Holman

Oh no! Now, your turning argument against English translators.

Attacking? No. They did a fine job. Affirming their human (imperfect) nature? Yes.

Quote:
I see nothing in the Greek manuscripts and context that would indicate a cultural command.

And you aren't an expert in Greek.

Quote:
I would like to see you pull out any commentary or translation available that would support your "new" translation of 1 Cor. 14:34. I'm not expert at Greek and I'm pretty sure you are not either.

Nothing 'new' about a several thousand year old infinitive and it's definitions. Not my problem that it hasn't been historically looked at this way (by fallable humans, I might add)

Quote:

There can be many possibilities, its quite pointless debating this issue. They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father.

You're just ignoring my arguements. They taught with Paul, and Paul always went to the synagogues and religious places of learning to teach. Put two and two together.

Quote:
The Law is not cultural. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20).
Yeah, but the Law is dead to us, so says Romans 7:4.

Quote:
The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8 ), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). Nonetheless, the law was meant to lead us to Christ (Ga 3:24). It makes the sinner conscious of sin (Rom 3:20; 7:7; 1 John 3:4).

This is irrelavent. Taking a verse out of any context it might be in (whether cultural or otherwise) is pretty much like taking a single sentence from a play and then trying to discern the scene. Sometimes you can get lucky and guess it right, but most of the time it's rather off.

Quote:
Your whole argument is based on eisegesis.

argumentum ad logicam. Look it up.

Quote:

This is why women are not permitted to exercise authority over men. Immediately by God, out of the dust of the earth; and the breath of life was breathed into Adam, and he became a living soul; thus wonderfully and fearfully was he made; after this he was put into the garden of Eden, to dress it, and all creatures were brought to him, to give them names; and still an help meet or a companion was not found for him. All this while Eve was not as yet formed, but after this, She was formed out of him, was made out of one of his ribs; and was formed for him, for his use, service, help and comfort; and here lies the strength of the apostle's reason, why the woman should be in subjection to the man; not so much because he was made before her; for so were the beasts of the field before Adam; and yet this gave them no superiority to him; but because she was made out of him, and made for him. So that the woman's subjection to the man is according to the laws of nature and creation; and was antecedent to the fall; and would have been, if that had never been; though that brought her into a lower, and meaner, and more depressed estate; which the apostle next mentions. The words may be rendered, "the first Adam", or "Adam the first was formed, and then Eve"

What about Galations 3:28? No male nore female in Christ.  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:45 pm
Cometh The Inquisitor
Baptist Holman
I see nothing in the Greek manuscripts and context that would indicate a cultural command.

And you aren't an expert in Greek.

I may not be a professional at Greek but I have enough knowledge and resources to test your arguments.

Cometh The Inquisitor
Baptist Holman
I would like to see you pull out any commentary or translation available that would support your "new" translation of 1 Cor. 14:34. I'm not expert at Greek and I'm pretty sure you are not either.

Nothing 'new' about a several thousand year old infinitive and it's definitions. Not my problem that it hasn't been historically looked at this way (by fallable humans, I might add)

Not to mention, you also are a fallible human who has to ability to create errors. Look, I did my research on your argument because I questioned your creditability. I have compared and studied; translations, manuscripts, and definitions (that do have creditability). So far, I seen nothing supporting your argument.

Cometh The Inquisitor
Baptist Holman
There can be many possibilities, its quite pointless debating this issue. They may teach in private, in their own houses and families; they are to be teachers of good things, Tit 2:3. They are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; nor is the law or doctrine of a mother to be forsaken, any more than the instruction of a father.

You're just ignoring my arguements. They taught with Paul, and Paul always went to the synagogues and religious places of learning to teach. Put two and two together.

I'm not ignoring your argument. I question your assumptions and interpretation of Scripture because I see nothing about women preaching in the Church to men. You can have your theories but I see nothing based on the text.

Cometh The Inquisitor
Baptist Holman
The Law is not cultural. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20).
Yeah, but the Law is dead to us, so says Romans 7:4

Also in Rom 7:6, and can have no more power over them than a law can have over dead persons, or a dead abrogated law can have over living ones. They are represented as "dead to sin", and "dead with Christ", Rom 6:2; and here, "dead to the law", as in Gal 2:19, and consequently cannot be under it; are out of the reach of its power and government, since that only has dominion over a man as long as be lives the law is dead to them; it has no power over them, to threaten and terrify them into obedience to it; nor even rigorously to exact it, or command it in a compulsory way; nor is there any need of all this, since believers delight in it after the inward man, and serve it with their minds freely and willingly; the love of Christ, and not the terrors of the law, constrains them to yield a cheerful obedience to it; it has no power to charge and accuse them, curse or condemn them, or minister death unto them, no, not a corporeal one, as a penal evil, and much less an eternal one. And the way and means by which they become dead to the law.


Cometh The Inquisitor
Baptist Holman
The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8 ), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). Nonetheless, the law was meant to lead us to Christ (Ga 3:24). It makes the sinner conscious of sin (Rom 3:20; 7:7; 1 John 3:4).

This is irrelavent. Taking a verse out of any context it might be in (whether cultural or otherwise) is pretty much like taking a single sentence from a play and then trying to discern the scene. Sometimes you can get lucky and guess it right, but most of the time it's rather off.

I see nothing wrong as long it supports the context. I'm not saying, "Take my word for it." Please test them.

Cometh The Inquisitor
Baptist Holman
Your whole argument is based on eisegesis.

argumentum ad logicam. Look it up.

Eisegesis is the best term to describe what you are doing as an interpretation strategy.

Cometh The Inquisitor
Baptist Holman
This is why women are not permitted to exercise authority over men. Immediately by God, out of the dust of the earth; and the breath of life was breathed into Adam, and he became a living soul; thus wonderfully and fearfully was he made; after this he was put into the garden of Eden, to dress it, and all creatures were brought to him, to give them names; and still an help meet or a companion was not found for him. All this while Eve was not as yet formed, but after this, She was formed out of him, was made out of one of his ribs; and was formed for him, for his use, service, help and comfort; and here lies the strength of the apostle's reason, why the woman should be in subjection to the man; not so much because he was made before her; for so were the beasts of the field before Adam; and yet this gave them no superiority to him; but because she was made out of him, and made for him. So that the woman's subjection to the man is according to the laws of nature and creation; and was antecedent to the fall; and would have been, if that had never been; though that brought her into a lower, and meaner, and more depressed estate; which the apostle next mentions. The words may be rendered, "the first Adam", or "Adam the first was formed, and then Eve"

What about Galations 3:28? No male nore female in Christ.

The apostle's design is to show the common right of believers, of every nation, condition, and sex, and to encourage the Gentiles, and demolish the pride, vanity, and boasting of the Jews, their men especially, who valued themselves upon these "three" very things which the apostle here makes no account of; as that they were Israelites and not Gentiles, freemen and not servants, men and not women; and in their public prayers they give thanks to God. All one in Christ Jesus; being alike chosen in him, united to him, redeemed by his blood, justified by his righteousness, regenerated by his Spirit, the children of God by faith in him, and heirs of the same grace and glory, they make, both Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, male and female, as it were but one new man in him; one body, of which he is the head, one spiritual seed of Abraham and of Christ.  

Monergism


Battousai Akuma

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:38 pm
I believe that women should not have a position of power over men, not because men should be dominative per say but there are different needs that have to be meant when it come to discipleship and things of that nature. If its a womens retreat or bible study I do not see the problem in women preaching then. The only wy I do see a women pastoring however is if there is no suitable male leader who can take the spot until there is a suitable male to take over.  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:17 pm
stressed Tried to follow the debate, but the words are too big. Could someone explain briefly and in simple terms what both points of views are? Examples would be nice too, but aren't neccesary.  

Act of Random Kindness

1,300 Points
  • Member 100
  • Gaian 50
  • Dressed Up 200

promised_child

PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:10 am
i am a woman.
i am a preacher as all christians are
paul when he said women are to learn in submission meant they had to stop yelling at their husbands across the temple when they had a question.
is every one missing the parts where paul sais "it is me saying this not the Lord"
the bible says that if man will not step to his call then He will call a woman, and if she will not step up then the very rocks will cry out. if women didnt preach when men wouldnt, we would have tons of screaming rocks all proclaiming the message of Christ.

all christians are told "go into all the world and preach the gospel." thats our job men women and children, possibly we should stop argueing about womens place in the church and start doing our jobs.  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:15 am
i believe a woman should only teach other women not all the time but men can also teach women but i dont believe a woman should teach a man as for from the pulpit  

theskyiscrying


promised_child

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:10 pm
this discussion is very 18th cetury. when i was attending RBTC(pm me if you want to know.) we were told that because of the beliefs of the scribes responsible for translating from Greek to English purposely mis translated words according to their personall beliefs. one such incident, i dont remember where, but Paul greets a house church, and he says in greek : greet so-and-so and the church at HER house. i said so and so because it was a difficult name and now i cant remember. king james scribes translated it his house. my teacher was informed by a greek-orthodox priest that it was mistranslated.  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
promised_child
i am a woman.
i am a preacher as all christians are
paul when he said women are to learn in submission meant they had to stop yelling at their husbands across the temple when they had a question.
is every one missing the parts where paul sais "it is me saying this not the Lord"
the bible says that if man will not step to his call then He will call a woman, and if she will not step up then the very rocks will cry out. if women didnt preach when men wouldnt, we would have tons of screaming rocks all proclaiming the message of Christ.

all christians are told "go into all the world and preach the gospel." thats our job men women and children, possibly we should stop argueing about womens place in the church and start doing our jobs.

Baptist Holman has already refuted the liberal position on this matter but you have not listen or read Holman's arguments. Its clear that it is God's will to have men in the pulpit. Please read the pages. This discussion is not about evangelism, its about who has the right in the pulpit.  

Metanoeo


Tarrou

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:59 pm
Forgive me for my presumption in questioning God's Word as related by Timothy, but it seems patently absurd that you can consider a two-thousand-years-dead ex-Jew's opinions on gender roles as being at all relevant to modern Christianity, much less the modern world. While I'm sure that the good bishop's injunction for women to know their place was perfectly normal for his time, only the most retrograde of thinkers could seriously believe that such an outmoded model was a good fit for a society nearly two millennia more evolved than Timothy's own. You know, there's actually a worthwhile religion buried there beneath all your stupid legalism, and it's a shame that I'm forced to watch as it goes ignored in favor of sexist, patronizing idiocy. Mercifully, there are better Christians in the world, else I would have given up and condemned the whole of the religion long ago.  
Reply
Debate and Discussion

Goto Page: [] [<] 1 2 3 ... 4 5 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum

Customize your own avatar now!

Have an account? Login Now!