Women in Christianity

[Thaddaeus]

I'm sure Jesus would have enough brains to know the difference of spending time preaching with harlots and having them bunk with him and travel for long hours with 12 other men. Its like letting your son go over to a girls house and then not letting him sleep over. Why? Because even though you trust both it's completely unethical socially. It's not totally about reputation, its about not giving other people the fuel to make a fire.

Okay, so you and I are on the same wave-length. I agree, this was the point I was trying to make.[/quote]

but we are not talking about what Jesus knows you were referring to what people would think of Him so you are saying that having a whore wash your feet would not give people fuel to make a fire . only if He had let a woman travel with them, such as mary and martha and any other of the sixty people that may have been Women that were disciples but were never giving a leadership role in the Church after He left,

 

[distinctiveministry]

Okay, so you and I are on the same wave-length. I agree, this was the point I was trying to make.

but we are not talking about what Jesus knows you were referring to what people would think of Him so you are saying that having a whore wash your feet would not give people fuel to make a fire . only if He had let a woman travel with them, such as mary and martha and any other of the sixty people that may have been Women that were disciples but were never giving a leadership role in the Church after He left,[/quote]

You mean like Phoebe the deaconess who hosted a church in Rome in her own home, or Priscilla, who, with her husband Aquila, taught Apollos, the one and the same who is among the "super apostles" mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:12? Or Junia, who is outstanding among the apostles (Rom 16:7)?

 

[MahogonySnail]

So many things here that are messed up I'm truly distressed. One, that denominations that accept women's leadership soon accept homosexuality is a horrible misrepresentation of the truth. Most pentecostal and holiness churches accept women's leadership, none that I am aware of accept homosexuality. Next time check your facts before you speak damaging words about women or any fellow believer.

The biggest churches /denominations that have accepted female priests compromise in other areas too. Uniting, Anglican, Lutheran, to name a few. It all happened about the same time. I remember the controversy over female priests. That's where it started. Then homosexuals were accepted.

Secondly, about women's periods...this is a RITUAL impurity relating only to worship in the temple, which, last I recall, no longer exists and is no longer necessary. I has nothing to do with anything else whatsoever, and hasn't been relevant in 1,940 years.

So women's periods stopped with the temple was destroyed ? I'm not sure I follow you here.

Only post-menopausal women were allowed to minister?! Where did you get THAT information? I don't know of ANY post-menopausal women who were allowed to minister in scripture. The rest of what you say after this is plain old garbage and doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response.

This came from some place I forget now, but basically in the church the only women minsitering were old , here's a verse to prove it:

Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that theybe in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

 

[MahogonySnail]

If you've ever dated a man, you'd know they also have more mood swings than a preschool swingset during recess. Men are just as easily emotionally unstable than women, and women can have the ability to have nerves of steel. Of course because you're conditioned to think that women go creepy-crazy you might not understand that biologically not everyone breaks down and cries their heart out every month or throws all good judgement out the window (shall we make other sterotypical assumptions now?) I hardly doubt that's the reason why besides the bias of a man not willing to be taught under a woman. Sometimes your responses can be so...um, out there...that I wonder if you're serious.

Of course there are tom boys. And with men there are sissies. There's always exceptions to the rule. Ideally a tom boy and a sissy should get together because it's like opposites attract you know?

 

[distinctiveministry]

Just as an FYI for anyone who wants to know...I graduated from a Fundamentalist Bible college not even 3 years ago. When I started there I was convinced that women had no place in positions of leadership in the church, and that wives were to submit to the authority of their husbands. This is how I grew up, this is what the college taught, and I had no substantial influence to the contrary. It was through conversations that forced me to look deeply into the issue for myself and from the resulting study of the Word that I became convinced of my error.
Women are not on average any weaker, stronger, smarter, dumber, more or less stable, more or less capable of leadership than men. The ONLY reason a person can fairly say that women cannot lead men and that wives must submit to husbands is if they are 100% certain that God consistently offers this model as His plan. My study showed me otherwise.

 

[Kay_Kay]

Of course there are tom boys. And with men there are sissies. There's always exceptions to the rule. Ideally a tom boy and a sissy should get together because it's like opposites attract you know?

Ha ha, I really hope I'm not expected to be submissive to a sissy, because that would be awkward for the both of us.

No offense but I find your view on this topic bizarre.

 

[MahogonySnail]

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but theyarecommanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.



As a general rule women were not allowed to preach or teach in public assemblies or give words of prophecy.

There were some exceptions to the rule in old and new testament times such as Huldah, Deborah, Anna. But they are just that, exceptions.


Anna is one of those post menopausal women I was talking about before.


Luk 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher: she was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity;

Luk 2:37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.


Modern day exceptions would include Joyce Meyer and people like her. But it doesn't mean women should be accepted to preach in average church services.

 

[distinctiveministry]

The biggest churches /denominations that have accepted female priests compromise in other areas too. Uniting, Anglican, Lutheran, to name a few. It all happened about the same time. I remember the controversy over female priests. That's where it started. Then homosexuals were accepted.



So women's periods stopped with the temple was destroyed ? I'm not sure I follow you here.



This came from some place I forget now, but basically in the church the only women minsitering were old , here's a verse to prove it:

Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that theybe in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
Tit 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

okay...SOME of the biggest churches have done so, while the AOG has not, among others. The way it was portrayed would have you believe that one leads to the other, which is patently false. That was my point.

Of course women's periods did not stop. The point is that a woman's period made her ritually unclean, meaning she could not enter the Temple grounds. In no way was her uncleanliess a sin or a matter of separation from God. Since there is no temple and no ritual/ceremonial cleanliness or uncleanliness today, the point is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. The concern with ritual cleanliness has been dead for 1,940 years.

Those verses from Titus go along with the passages about men teaching boys. This doesn't show that only older women ministered at all. It shows that they DID minister, but by no means does it demonstrate that younger women did not. The same goes for the men, since I fail to see where you have argued that only OLD men can minister. You can't have one and not the other.

 

[distinctiveministry]

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but theyarecommanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.



As a general rule women were not allowed to preach or teach in public assemblies or give words of prophecy.

There were some exceptions to the rule in old and new testament times such as Huldah, Deborah, Anna. But they are just that, exceptions.


Anna is one of those post menopausal women I was talking about before.


Luk 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher: she was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity;

Luk 2:37 And she was a widow of about fourscore and and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.


Modern day exceptions would include Joyce Meyer and people like her. But it doesn't mean women should be accepted to preach in average church services.

None of these examples even lived in the church era, but in the pre-Christian era. Unless you worship in the Temple in Jerusalem and practice sacrifices and offerings as prescribed by Leviticus, these examples don't shed much light on the current debate.

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a general rule? I concluded with a large group of scholars that it is a specific direction for a specific location in a specific time period (See post #8 in this forum).

I wouldn't jump from Joyce Meyer to average services, anyway. I'm inclined to stick to what I see in scripture to define my views on important topics.

 

[pickles]

I just wanted to share that Ive been praying and asking Jesus about this alot lately.
Then last night a peace came over me, I was filled with a knowladge of the gentlel power we women have.
Maby not up front and out there, but a sence of the streangth we have in encouraging not only children, but men and actually all in our lives.
I saw how when people want something done in the physical sence, in teaching, or making things happen, they may go to men.
But when it comes to nurturing an idea, or simply bringing it all together, or being the voice of wisdom, that is where we women have the streangth
given to us by God.
We are the soil in which everything grows and blooms.
Just pray and think about it and pray. I believe then you will see the great works we women are called to do.
God bless, pickles

I just wanted to add, I think sometmes we only see ourselves as serving in the church if others see it.
I truelly believe we women, although not always seen, do so much more in serving the Lord.
All women served in the bible, we for the most part simply did it quietly.
The good part is that most of what women do is easly stored up in heaven.
Equal in streanght and service with men, just different .
God bless, pickles

 

[MahogonySnail]

I would say that concern about ritual cleanliness being dead for 1940 years is inaccurate.

It appears I am the only one who has raised the issue of ritual impurity which is THE main reason why women were not allowed to preach and teach in churches in Roman Catholicism which carried over to protestant belief:


http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/unclean.asp
theologians in the Middle Ages.

• “Women are not allowed to visit a church during menstruation or after the birth of a child. For a woman is an animal that menstruates. Through touching her blood fruits will fail to get ripe. Mustard degenerates, grass dries up and trees lose their fruit before time. Iron gets rusted and the air becomes dark. When dogs eat it, they acquire rabies” Paucapalea, Summa, Dist. 5, pr. § 1 v.
• Women may not take communion to the sick and have to stay out of church after childbirth. Reason: “That blood is so execrable and impure, as already Julius Solinus has written in the book about the miracles of the world, that through its contacts fruits do not mature, plants wither, the grass dies, the trees lose their fruits, the air becomes dark, if dogs eat it they are afflicted with rabies..... And intercourse at the time of the monthly period is very risky. Not only because of the uncleanness of the blood has the desire to be restrained from contacting a menstruating woman: from such an intercourse a spoilt foetus could be born.” Rufinus, Summa Decretorum, passim.
• Women may not touch any sacred vessel. The birth of a child carries a double curse: “There were two commandments in the (Old) Law, one pertaining to the mother giving birth, the other to the delivery itself. With regard to the mother giving birth, when she had given birth to a male child, she was to refrain from entering the Temple for forty days as an unclean person: because the foetus, conceived in uncleanliness, is said to remain formless for forty days. But if she gave birth to a female child, the space of time was doubled, for the menstrual blood, which accompanies birth, is considered to such an extent unclean that, as Solinus states, fruits dry up and grass withers at its touch. But why was the time for a female child doubled? Solution: because a double curse lies on the feminine growth. For she carries the curse of Adam and also the (punishment) ‘you will give birth in pain’. Or, perhaps, because, as the knowledge of physicians reveals, female children remain at conception twice as long unformed as male children” Sicardus of Cremona, Mitrale V, ch. 11.

The presumed ‘ritual uncleanness’ of women entered Church Law especially through the Decretum Gratiani (1140 AD), which became official Church law in 1234 AD, a vital part of the Corpus Iuris Canonici that was in force until 1916.

• Women may not distribute communion
• Women may not teach in church
• Women may not teach or baptize
• Women may not touch sacred objects
• Women may not touch or wear sacred vestments

The ritual prohibitions against women under the Corpus Iuris Canonici (1234 - 1916 AD) can be seen in the following examples:

• Women cannot be ordained
• A woman may not normally baptize
• A woman may not touch the corporal
• Women may not receive communion during their monthly periods
• Women should receive communion in their hand on a ‘housel-towel’ or on the tongue
• Women should be veiled when receiving communion
• Women may not be singers in Church

The ridiculous prohibition for women to ‘sing in church’ was reiterated more than once by the Sacred Congregation for Liturgy. Girls or women could not be members of any church choir (decree 17 Sept. 1897). “Women should not be part of a choir; they belong to the ranks of the laity. Separate women's choirs too are totally forbidden, except for serious reasons and with permission of the bishop” (decree 22 Nov. 1907). “Any mixed choir of men and women, even if they stand far from the sanctuary, is totally forbidden” (decree 18 Dec. 1908).

 

[Thaddaeus]

oh so He was concern about His reputation this expalins why He spent time with the drunks and harlets, so if he hung around a good christain lady people would talk about Him but the harlets they were fine

Man, I'm sorry, but I've just read too many of your comments where your tone comes across as anything but pastorly/shepherding. Obviously there are two or more sides to the issue and people will disagree, but since you claim a title I would think to see less sarcasm and more godly concern and love for your brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm sorry this comes across as so personal, but you've posted things like this a few times in different forums and try how I might, I just don't see it as a loving albeit disagreeing response.[/quote]

so we just let people think what they want about God and His whys and His word, and let the blind lead the blind that they both fall into destruction, and this is fine with a God loving person, who is suppose to love GOD and one another, this lady that you defend boldy states that if God wants man as He has said from scripture, to be rule over the woman and she boldy claimed "if this is right then she don't won't to be right and she is serious about it " and she is right in your eyes and i am wrong. so your encourage her to go against the word of God and judge me for caring about what she is doing to herself and God. now I know the true meaning of in the last days right will be wrong and wrong will be right. wow unbelievable !!!!!!!
and for your information I am not your pastor or this ladies. and I am to put God first over you and this lady. I am a follower of Christ and this comes first before any pastor's duties, if this hurts your feelings then take it up with God. I have never said that any in here are on their way to hell, I have never judged anyone of never being a christian, although I have questioned a few. but you all that tell me I don't have the love of God behind every post, where I had tried to show people of their errs. or real quick to judge me. But when someone says that they don't care what God says they are going to do it their way, don't look for no compassion on my part as far as their beliefs, this is a dangerous statement for anyone to say. but go ahead encourage her with all the misguided love you can. and then get on here and tell me I have no fruits of the spirit

 

[Kay_Kay]

I would say that concern about ritual cleanliness being dead for 1940 years is inaccurate.

It appears I am the only one who has raised the issue of ritual impurity which is THE main reason why women were not allowed to preach and teach in churches in Roman Catholicism which carried over to protestant belief:


http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/unclean.asp
theologians in the Middle Ages.

• “Women are not allowed to visit a church during menstruation or after the birth of a child. For a woman is an animal that menstruates. Through touching her blood fruits will fail to get ripe. Mustard degenerates, grass dries up and trees lose their fruit before time. Iron gets rusted and the air becomes dark. When dogs eat it, they acquire rabies” Paucapalea, Summa, Dist. 5, pr. § 1 v.

How draconian.

 

[MahogonySnail]

None of these examples even lived in the church era, but in the pre-Christian era. Unless you worship in the Temple in Jerusalem and practice sacrifices and offerings as prescribed by Leviticus, these examples don't shed much light on the current debate.

As far as I remember, if we don't use these examples, we have NO new testament examples showing females in leadership/ministry positions in the church, which does no justice to the argument that women can teach. We do find women accompanying their husbands in ministry but that is not the same thing as the women actually holding some leadership position. They were there as a support to the husband in his ministry.

Also, the coming of the new testament did not mean that prophecy and teaching ceases. My point being, if females could minister in certain circumstancse (post-menopausal, aged, as I said before) under the old covenant which was only a shadow , then how much more should they minister under the new?

Also, how did you come to the conclusion that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a general rule? I concluded with a large group of scholars that it is a specific direction for a specific location in a specific time period (See post #8 in this forum).

But not to forget that Paul is giving this instruction to this particular church because they are an exception to the rule and Paul is trying to bring them into line with the practice of ALL the churches .


We find that this instruction Paul gave here, is the same as he gave to all churches because it's recorded in 1 Timothy as well:

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

To take a closer look at verse 14:

"but theyarecommanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. "

This law of obedience of the woman to the husband is found in Gen 3:16:

"and thy desire shallbe to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. "

And also Paul makes the case that woman is subject to the man because Adam was created first:

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.



Unless we believe that Adam being first formed and then Eve has changed since the new covenant, there is really no way around this reasoning of Pauls.


Given that 1 Tim is general in nature and the reasoning Paul gives is NOT because women were disreputable in the Corinthian church ( a common argument) or that it was only for Greek churches (another common argument), but that EVE WAS CREATED AFTER ADAM, I find no reason to NOT believe this instruction was general.

 

[AJ52]

its just the way it is....

 

[Kay_Kay]

Man, I'm sorry, but I've just read too many of your comments where your tone comes across as anything but pastorly/shepherding. Obviously there are two or more sides to the issue and people will disagree, but since you claim a title I would think to see less sarcasm and more godly concern and love for your brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm sorry this comes across as so personal, but you've posted things like this a few times in different forums and try how I might, I just don't see it as a loving albeit disagreeing response.

so we just let people think what they want about God and His whys and His word, and let the blind lead the blind that they both fall into destruction, and this is fine with a God loving person, who is suppose to love GOD and one another, this lady that you defend boldy states that if God wants man as He has said from scripture, to be rule over the woman and she boldy claimed "if this is right then she don't won't to be right and she is serious about it " and she is right in your eyes and i am wrong. so your encourage her to go against the word of God and judge me for caring about what she is doing to herself and God. now I know the true meaning of in the last days right will be wrong and wrong will be right. wow unbelievable !!!!!!!
and for your information I am not your pastor or this ladies. and I am to put God first over you and this lady. I am a follower of Christ and this comes first before any pastor's duties, if this hurts your feelings then take it up with God. I have never said that any in here are on their way to hell, I have never judged anyone of never being a christian, although I have questioned a few. but you all that tell me I don't have the love of God behind every post, where I had tried to show people of their errs. or real quick to judge me. But when someone says that they don't care what God says they are going to do it their way, don't look for no compassion on my part as far as their beliefs, this is a dangerous statement for anyone to say. but go ahead encourage her with all the misguided love you can. and then get on here and tell me I have no fruits of the spirit[/quote]

You come off strong. Maybe no one has told you that before, but the sarcasm, if you don't agree with me you're on ___'s side, I'm right you're wrong, "if this hurts your feelings then take it up with God" attitude doesn't reflect what people would expect out of a pastor. If you are feeling victimized it's because others feel attacked.

And I boldly claim what I feel, because saying to myself that I don't have a problem with what I feel is gender discrimination is a lie. I do feel upset about this issue. You are welcome to disagree, that is fine. I don't think you're without fruits of the spirit, or a bad person, or even a bad pastor. I just think you need to tone down the harshness a little.

 

[MahogonySnail]

How draconian.

It may seem so now but up until about 1983 or thereabouts no woman taught or preached in one of your standard denominational churches. We 've had nearly 2000 years of females being prevented to teach or preach.

 

[distinctiveministry]

As far as I remember, if we don't use these examples, we have NO new testament examples showing females in leadership/ministry positions in the church, which does no justice to the argument that women can teach. We do find women accompanying their husbands in ministry but that is not the same thing as the women actually holding some leadership position. They were there as a support to the husband in his ministry.

Also, the coming of the new testament did not mean that prophecy and teaching ceases. My point being, if females could minister in certain circumstancse (post-menopausal, aged, as I said before) under the old covenant which was only a shadow , then how much more should they minister under the new?




But not to forget that Paul is giving this instruction to this particular church because they are an exception to the rule and Paul is trying to bring them into line with the practice of ALL the churches .


We find that this instruction Paul gave here, is the same as he gave to all churches because it's recorded in 1 Timothy as well:

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

To take a closer look at verse 14:

"but theyarecommanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. "

This law of obedience of the woman to the husband is found in Gen 3:16:

"and thy desire shallbe to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. "

And also Paul makes the case that woman is subject to the man because Adam was created first:

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.



Unless we believe that Adam being first formed and then Eve has changed since the new covenant, there is really no way around this reasoning of Pauls.

I gave several examples of women ministers in the NT above. Specifically, Phoebe, Priscilla, and Junia. I'm sure there are others.

I've also discussed Gen 3:16 twice already in this forum. Those words announced the consequences of the fall, not the original plan of God for His creation. If you want to live under the rules of the fallen state, so be it. I'm ready to live under the rules of the coming kingdom of God.

 

[distinctiveministry]

It may seem so now but up until about 1983 or thereabouts no woman taught or preached in one of your standard denominational churches. We 've had nearly 2000 years of females being prevented to teach or preach.

This ignores the pentecostal and holiness movements, several of which were STARTED by women (Phobe Palmer, Amiee Sample-McPherson (sp?), and others) in the late 18 and early 1900's.

 

[MahogonySnail]

There are exceptions to the rule if those movements were of God.
But citing some pentecostal and holiness movements aren't exactly proof of God's general acceptance of female leadership.

If we get our doctrine from the bible alone, it's hard to argue against Paul's reasoning for not allowing women to teach. Paul no where gives his reason as being one of cultural reasons, or because females were second class citizens in that society, or that it was just for some. He appeals directly to the fact that Adam was created before Eve. And that's why women should not hold authority over the man. But we don't have to accept Paul's teachings of course if we don't want to.

The first ordination and full clergy rights for a woman was given in 1956. That's still fairly recent. As far as I remember it was the 80's that saw the doors open on female priests in the anglican community.