VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:38:47 03/19/05 Sat
Author: Mike K.
Subject: Re: Paul and women
In reply to: Anonymous 's message, "Paul and women" on 17:33:07 03/08/05 Tue

1. As you point out yourself in another post, it is Paul who says he doesn't permit women to teach, not God. Indeed.

2. In early Christian times, a rigidly patriarchal society was in place.
I doubt that. We see much rather that the teachings of Jesus Christ spawned, for the first time, an "equality" movement, i.e. women not being considered full human beings in society. It was in "the world", but not in "the Church".

Could not Paul's admonitions about women keeping silent and being "submissive" come from this, rather than from a divine principle.
Paul clearly preached that in the Church, "there cannot be male or female, greek or Scythian, freeman or slave but Christ is all and in all". As such, I doubt that Paul admonished people to bring worldly principles into the Church. Even though Paul also seemed to advocate slavery ("Slaves, be obedient to your masters"), I can most definitely tell you that he did not intend to bring worldly things into "the Church".


3. If you want to take 1 Timothy 2:12 literally and apply it to today, you should know first that Paul himself didn't take it literally (I'll explain soon.)
Who said I want to take things "literally"? Why do you think I'm talking about principles?

4. You were right when you said, "times are changing," principles aren't. But it works against your argument.
The principle has always been "men and women are both created in the image of God, and are equal in the full sphere of their spirituality and humanity."

You misunderstand the principle. This is not the principle I am talking about. Looking at Colossians or Ephesians, you would likely realize that the relationship of Christ and the Church is that of husband and wife, and as such, men and women can never be totally equal, lest you'd be implying that at any given point in time, the Church will be equal to Christ, that is: be God in life and nature, as well as an object of worship and adoration.

Such is the principle of genders. Even when the Church is "only" "The Bride" (in this age), she is nowhere near in a position of equality, though to some extent she is "the female counterpart of Christ".

This is the principle in question, not the principle of man and woman. Man and woman are something entirely of this age, something coming to pass away, yet the principle of the Church never being fully equal to Christ is eternally in place (if you want to see what comes out of saying that the Church is fully equal to Christ, just enjoy some LSM publications on how we become God).

Some people are now just coming out of the dark ages and discovering this.

Again, like I said: the principle is not man and woman, but Christ and the Church. And this principle DOES NOT CHANGE. Regardless of how liberal people are today, the Church simply is not equal to Christ.


At this point, I'll quote someone else who's done the work already, "It is generally assumed that Paul is the author of a Christianity of female subordination. But more recent studies have shown that the historical Paul in fact continued most of the assumptions and practices of early charismatic, inclusive Christianity.
I've answered this already. But it should eb noted that Christianity wasn't a charismatic movement, but a Christ-centered movement.

Indeed, most of the New Testament evidence that women functioned as local leaders, as well as traveling evangelists, is to be found in the Pauline letters. Paul addresses almost an equal number of women along with men (sixteen women and eighteen men) in his greetings to Church leaders in Romans 16.

We see that women were deacons, we see that they were in positions of caring for others, we see that they opened their houses for churches, but I lack the evidence that they were "local leaders".
I wonder why Paul said "An elder must be husband of one wife...", I guess that means he also included lesbian elders?

He mentions two women, Euodia and Syntche, as having preached the gospel "with Barnabas and me" in Philippians 4:2-3.
Which means, they didn't act independently and most of all "preaching the Gospel" isn't what many people today make out of it. We're not talking Billy Graham "Campus Crusade" here, but maybe so small things as going to your neighbour and telling them a few sentences about Christ. That is the responsibility of all Christians, not just of "leaders".


He addresses a woman name Junia by the title of "apostle,"
Interestingly, Junia is "Junias", and that's not a genitive but a man's name.


and constantly refers to the husband and wife team, Priscilla and Aquila, as "Church leaders," usually naming Priscilla first.


This is digging deeper, but Priscilla and Aquila, while being devout Christians, were not "church leaders", but they opened their house for the church. If giving your house for a meeting is the same as being a leader, then one can buy a leadership position in the church with money. I know many people who think like that, but I'm sorry, that's at best heretical.
Having a church meet in your home != you being a leader.


He also speaks of the prominent woman Phoebe by the title
of both "deacon" and "prostasis" or leader, of her community."
Romans 16 is a handful of greetings. This is the only verse mentioning Phoebe, and it only mentions "she is in the service of the church in Kenchrea", I think someone has a clergy-laity system here in mind, serving the church is by far NOT the same as church leadership, much less being a teacher. Like I said, opening your house is also a service to the Church, as is doing the dishes after the meeting. I'm not belittling the work of women, this kind of practical job is no less meaningful as any other: but it's NOT leadership!


I think the author of said article resorted to a lot of stretches and had a totally twisted concept of leadership, but that's just my opinion.

To sum it up shortly:
serving != leading.

In Christ,
Mike K.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.