|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/21/2007 6:52:43 PM
|
|
|
SD456
Posts: 362
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bterpstra
quote:
didasko is to teach. The only time I have seen that it has anything to do with "errors" is when pseudodidaskalos is used. If Paul wanted to mean "teaching error" he would have included plane into this text, which he did not.
Compare 1 Col 1:28 to Mat 15:9. Same verb in each case a form of didaskein - one used positively and one used pejoratively. Granted it's not Paul in both cases, but it seems clear to me that didaskein is interpreted both positively and pejoratively depending on context. The way joins "didaskein" and "authentein" would make it appear that you have to interpret both words positively or both words pejoratively. Given the predominantly pejorative use of the word "authentein" in the culture of the day, I think you have to assume 1 Tim 2 is talking about an improper use of authority.
I wish I could explain things the way you do. 
_____________________________
MY BLOG
http://reflectionsdeep.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/21/2007 7:12:25 PM
|
|
|
SD456
Posts: 362
Joined: 8/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bterpstra
quote:
a last thought. If gender is an intentional thing, what is the intent? Just reproduction? There are examples of asexual reproduction in creation so that's pretty weak. If gender is good, designed, with purpose, are roles aligned with gender so hard to comprehend? I don't wrestle with the "injustice" that I'm denied the role given to angels...
One would be that we bring different points of view to a problem. I've been 3 churches now that have had issues of sexual harrassment that I doubt would have gone as far as they did if a woman's voice could be heard in an authoritative position.
I would agree. There is way more about gender distinction than heirarchical authority. War, hunting, protecting, nurturing, caregiving, providing, etc. All of these characterisitics and roles are brought to the table, plus much more, by men and women; and all of these things can still be brought to the table by men and women who are equally in leadership. These are awesome traits when used together, so how awesome it would be if more churches utilized the wonderful things that women could bring to the table in leadership roles, side by side, with men. I believe that is the intent of gender differences. Gender is very good and definately designed with a purpose.
I believe that's truly what God intended and it's men, not God, who brought women backward into oppression again, after them having a short respite during Paul's time.
_____________________________
MY BLOG
http://reflectionsdeep.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/21/2007 7:37:09 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is VERY clear on what Paul was saying. Satan got at Adam THROUGH Eve. It was not the other way around. Eve even admits this fact. "The serpent deceived ME, and I ate." I wont even go into discussing the problems with people who dont know, recognize, or believe that the serpent was Satan. Because it/he was. Scripture is VERY clear that Satan worked THOROUGH Eve to get to Adam and thus all mankind.
Something that is far more apparent in the original text is that Adam was right there with Eve during her conversation with the Serpent. All of the pronouns used in that conversation were plural, and even in the English we see that Eve gave the fruit to Adam who was with her. One of the difficulties in translating this passage is that modern English no longer has a separate second person plural i.e. "you". It does exist in the KJV; however, most English readers no longer recognize it.
Maybe the reason the bible places so much weight on Adam's sin is that (as this text seems to indicate), Eve sinned because she was deceived while Adam sinned in outright rebellion, knowing full well what he was choosing to do. Regardless, it is clear that while Adam was there he did absolutely nothing to stop Eve from taking the fruit and, as the husband, he failed in his leadership role.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/21/2007 7:48:09 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
I believe that's truly what God intended and it's men, not God, who brought women backward into oppression again, after them having a short respite during Paul's time.
This is really an overstatement. Yes, the church has had failures in how it has treated women, but it is really because of the church that women in the western world enjoy the freedoms that they do have today. Compare how women are valued and the freedoms they enjoy in cultures that rejected Christianity to that of cultures that have embraced Christianity, and I think it will become very clear how great an impact Christianity has had stopping the oppression of women rather than embracing it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/21/2007 9:09:10 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 475
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bterpstra
One would be that we bring different points of view to a problem. I've been 3 churches now that have had issues of sexual harrassment that I doubt would have gone as far as they did if a woman's voice could be heard in an authoritative position.
Proper male leadership would stop it too. Female leadership is no guaranteed solution to this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/21/2007 9:42:15 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
quote:
ORIGINAL: bterpstra
One would be that we bring different points of view to a problem. I've been 3 churches now that have had issues of sexual harrassment that I doubt would have gone as far as they did if a woman's voice could be heard in an authoritative position.
Proper male leadership would stop it too. Female leadership is no guaranteed solution to this.
I agree with you! Assuming the problems of sexual harassment were known to the leadership but ignored, then the failure wasn't do to a lack of female leadership, it was do to lack of godly leadership. In a church where biblical leadership was practiced a woman's voice would be heard even though she wasn't in a position of authority.
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/23/2007 11:15:11 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2530
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
quote:
ORIGINAL: bterpstra
One would be that we bring different points of view to a problem. I've been 3 churches now that have had issues of sexual harrassment that I doubt would have gone as far as they did if a woman's voice could be heard in an authoritative position.
Proper male leadership would stop it too. Female leadership is no guaranteed solution to this.
I agree with you on both points. I also believe that because consistently proper leadership (whether male or female) is not always the most common thing, having a variety of perspectives on a problem leads to better solutions. In all three of the cases I mentioned, having only men dealing with the problem led to a significant underestimation of both the severity and significance of the issues at hand. Having historically been on the receiving end of these types of behaviors, I think women are more sensitized to this issue and less likely to downplay it.
Just one example and I certainly wouldn't want to make too much of it. I simply point it out as one example where a greater variety of perspectives creates better solutions. In the business community, the companies that have figured this out do tend to have better outcomes.
As far as whether or not women in key positions could have prevented these cases in particular, in one of the cases I don't think it would. In two of the cases, I definitely think it would have. Clearly it's no panacea. Regardless, in all three cases the odds of having had a more Christ-like outcome would have been improved.
< Message edited by bterpstra -- 11/23/2007 11:30:44 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/23/2007 11:24:10 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2530
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Something that is far more apparent in the original text is that Adam was right there with Eve during her conversation with the Serpent. All of the pronouns used in that conversation were plural, and even in the English we see that Eve gave the fruit to Adam who was with her. One of the difficulties in translating this passage is that modern English no longer has a separate second person plural i.e. "you". It does exist in the KJV; however, most English readers no longer recognize it.
Maybe the reason the bible places so much weight on Adam's sin is that (as this text seems to indicate), Eve sinned because she was deceived while Adam sinned in outright rebellion, knowing full well what he was choosing to do. Regardless, it is clear that while Adam was there he did absolutely nothing to stop Eve from taking the fruit and, as the husband, he failed in his leadership role.
You know, I'd quite forgotten that aspect of the singular/plural. One good reason to discuss things in community. You just never know who's going to have something to teach you. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/23/2007 11:45:25 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just one example and I certainly wouldn't want to make too much of it. I simply point it out as one example where a greater variety of perspectives creates better solutions. In the business community, the companies that have figured this out do intend to have better outcomes.
A company that I worked for about 15 years ago was headed by a Asian women CEO, and it had constant problems with both sexual and racial discrimination. Legal action was constantly being brought against the company, and in one case I was a direct witness to discriminatory practices against women; I was ordered to hire a man for a position in which a woman applicant was far more qualified. I raised the issue with the CEO and our local EOE office. Despite a minority woman heading the company, this was by far the most hostile environment towards both minorities and women that I have ever worked in; most of the time it wasn't right out in the open, but constantly a problem.
Because I don't know the facts pertaining to the cases you have cited, I have no way of knowing how involved the leadership was, but the main problem with this type of argument is that focuses on the possible failure of someone to adhere to godly standards, and then make the leap that a woman in the same position would have done better. It is kind of like seeing that your car engine is over heating and then making the leap that the spark plugs are the problem because they are a source of heat. I think it is better to look to the manual (the bible in this case), and see what it says about troubleshooting and fixing the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/23/2007 12:09:41 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2530
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
I like your example as well. In a backwards sort of way, it illustrates what I mean. No one sex, culture, age range or race has a monopoly on good behavior. As humans, we require checks and balances on our collective behavior. Any one group or any one person if left unchecked will usually have a negative impact on others.
People of different cultures as well as those of different sexes will view a problem differently. In your case, the impact was negative. Usually, the impact is positive.
In either case, generally speaking, a variety of individual viewpoints serves to improve the whole. In too may cases in too many churches, women who have had unfortunate circumstances in their lives that require a response at the senior level in a church have had no place to turn that was NOT male-centric.
As a man, I think that's a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/23/2007 2:14:16 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bterpstra
I like your example as well. In a backwards sort of way, it illustrates what I mean. No one sex, culture, age range or race has a monopoly on good behavior. As humans, we require checks and balances on our collective behavior. Any one group or any one person if left unchecked will usually have a negative impact on others.
People of different cultures as well as those of different sexes will view a problem differently. In your case, the impact was negative. Usually, the impact is positive.
In either case, generally speaking, a variety of individual viewpoints serves to improve the whole. In too may cases in too many churches, women who have had unfortunate circumstances in their lives that require a response at the senior level in a church have had no place to turn that was NOT male-centric.
As a man, I think that's a problem.
I too believe very strongly that diversity of opinion is a very good thing, but diversity only gets us part of the way towards making good decisions, and by itself can lead to very poor decision making; diversity is a good thing only when it is under the umbrella of belief in the absolute authority of God's truth. To try and explain what I mean, I will share my approach to dealing with very tough situations. The tougher the situation I am confronted with with, the greater the diversity of people I will look to for advise, but at the same time the smaller the circle I will be of people with whom I am willing to discuss the situation. What I look for in advisers are people who first believe in the absolute truth of God's word, those who are living their life according to God's standards,and those whose allegiance is to God (not me) and are willing to fairly hear from everyone one involved and extend the same grace and forgiveness to anyone involved. Over the years, it just happens that one of the men I have included in my expanded circle when I have been confronted some very tough decisions is an egalitarian pastor. I don't consult with him because of his egalitarian views, but because he has consistently displayed the characteristics that I had listed above. I respect the diversity of his opinion, but only because I believe that he absolutely trusts God's word as an authority for our lives; however, I still disagree with him on this point of theology.
One of the greatest difficulties I believe our culture today faces is that "diversity" has in many ways become the new idol of our culture while a belief in absolute truth has been absolutely rejected. One of the biggest difficulties with this approach to "diversity" is that it values every opinion as equally valid except for those opinions which reject the validity of "other truths", and so by its very nature rejects the truth of Christianity because it teaches the existence of absolute truth established by God. While I believe that it is possible to hold to an egalitarian position (a position that I don't hold) without compromising the truth of God's word, almost all examples of egalitarian churches with which I have had personal experiences either hold to views about the bible which are dangerously close to rejecting it as an absolute authority, or worse have completely and unabashedly rejected it as a authority for our lives. If I had to choose between a church in which I believe mis interpreted the passages about men's roles, and a church that rejected the authority of God's word, there would be no question in my mind that the choice would be to choose the prior, as the later I believe is far more dangerous.
Bterpstra, because so much can be misinterpreted in written posts because we don't get any of the non verbal information, I want to be clear that I have seen absolutely nothing in your posts that would indicate to me that you don't trust in the absolute authority of God's word, and much to the contrary. I think you have many very good points, and I greatly appreciate your insight; however, I do think you might be pushing the biblical evidence a little bit farther than is warranted, and I think the examples of failures in leadership you cited are really irrelevant to a discussion about what the bible teaches about biblical leadership in the church. Overall though, I am enjoying your input, and that is what I believe is what godly diversity is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/23/2007 6:07:27 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2530
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
I think your statements here are completely on target. I brought up the diversity issue just as a response to a question on what I thought was to be gained by maintaining an egalitarian theology. Diversity of thought is one such benefit. In a business setting, I think it's fine to have diversity as a goal in and of itself since there are different social issues at stake. I agree that it's different in a church. In a church, diversity of thought is great but it should still be subject to wisdom and a love for Christ and the church. I don't disagree with you here in the least.
Thanks for clarifying that you thought I was still maintaining a high view of the bible. You didn't need to clarify - I think your earlier posts demonstrate a fundamental fairness in that respect. I wasn't worried at all. I certainly would have given you the benefit of the doubt.
I think we also agree on the tendency of some egalitarian writers to play a bit fast and loose with scripture. I've also seen it done on the complentarian side, even by writers such as Piper and Grudem that in all other ways are beyond reproach. On the egalitarian side, while I liked many things in Sarah Sumners book on the topic, there are several places that even I think she went too far. When I read her book, it angered me a bit since the license she took wasn't always necessary to make the point. What bugs me most on the both sides is that I don't think it's necessary to push it as far as some people do. Usually you can make the point without having to rely on extreme measures. In the end, pushing it as far as some people do just adds a lot more heat and a lot less light.
My wife and I have tried to keep the focus on what can be argued from the text itself in the context of what was actually happening in that day and how it might have affected the writer of the passage. There's enough there to study & discuss without having to make some strained interpretations that are hard to justify.
We may not agree, but I suspect we could get along nicely.
Regards,
BT
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/23/2007 6:27:50 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2530
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi almost all examples of egalitarian churches with which I have had personal experiences either hold to views about the bible which are dangerously close to rejecting it as an absolute authority, or worse have completely and unabashedly rejected it as a authority for our lives. If I had to choose between a church in which I believe mis interpreted the passages about men's roles, and a church that rejected the authority of God's word, there would be no question in my mind that the choice would be to choose the prior, as the later I believe is far more dangerous.
Forgot to mention - you've got a great point here. I think I mentioned it earlier, but this is essentially why we have to travel so far to find an appropriate community with whom to worship. Local churches are either strongly complementarian or are trying so hard to be all things to all people that they are really not all that much to anyone. To be in community locally, we would have to be either a) comfortable doctrinally but uncomfortable in our abilities to exercise our gifts, of b) be able to exercise our gifts freely but be uncomfortable doctrinally. We're lucky in that we've found a community that is neither egalitarian nor complimentarian - they are completely on-the-fence-itarian. They have a woman co-pastor and but they aren't completely of one mind on whether or not that's right. We like it because you can have an honest dialogue on the issue and then sit down and have dinner together like one big family. Honestly, I like it this way. I'm finding myself more comfortable in a church that's struggling with the question gracefully as one that thinks it has it figured out but isn't very tolerant of an alternative view.
At this point, if they decided to go back to a more complimentarian viewpoint I think we would probably stay because God's grace is so visible in the way they treat each other. Like in James, "show me your faith without your works. I will show you my faith BY my works." I find faith to be abundant in this church.
BT
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/23/2007 7:06:08 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 475
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bterpstra
We're lucky in that we've found a community that is neither egalitarian nor complimentarian - they are completely on-the-fence-itarian. They have a woman co-pastor and but they aren't completely of one mind on whether or not that's right. We like it
Fascinating.
From my perspective you're not on a fence at all you recognize a woman as an elder and have made a decision.
For those in that body who don't accept women as elders are they still expected to submit to her authority?
I know a few people in this situation - eg they don't accept the Biblical interpretation that eliminates gender roles but they are in a church that has made that decision. In one case it's the church (the actual building) they grew up in and they just can't imagine leaving - and there they point to the fact that the woman who pastors is really nice and trying hard and there are so few men who will work at a small church anymore.... In the other case it's the denomination they grew up in and they aren't going to leave (though they are hoping their church won't call a woman now that it would be allowed).
I have concluded that a church can be effective even with some degree of doctrinal difference - but I had not concluded that this was one of those differences that could easily be overcome.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/23/2007 8:52:52 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
quote:
ORIGINAL: bterpstra
We're lucky in that we've found a community that is neither egalitarian nor complimentarian - they are completely on-the-fence-itarian. They have a woman co-pastor and but they aren't completely of one mind on whether or not that's right. We like it
Fascinating.
From my perspective you're not on a fence at all you recognize a woman as an elder and have made a decision.
For those in that body who don't accept women as elders are they still expected to submit to her authority?
I know a few people in this situation - eg they don't accept the Biblical interpretation that eliminates gender roles but they are in a church that has made that decision. In one case it's the church (the actual building) they grew up in and they just can't imagine leaving - and there they point to the fact that the woman who pastors is really nice and trying hard and there are so few men who will work at a small church anymore.... In the other case it's the denomination they grew up in and they aren't going to leave (though they are hoping their church won't call a woman now that it would be allowed).
I have concluded that a church can be effective even with some degree of doctrinal difference - but I had not concluded that this was one of those differences that could easily be overcome.
When we look at individual churches, I think you are right, most (but not all) churches would be ineffective if the church was struggling to agree on an egalitarian viewpoint while the church leadership had already adopted one because this is often a very divisive issue. The impact this would have on a congregation would depend heavily on how contentions of an issue this was to the members that congregation; however, in some churches this really could one of those "agree to disagree" issues, and in that case would not really cause the church to be ineffective.
For me personally, I would be very uncomfortable if my church adopted an egalitarian position, but at the same time I would be very comfortable worshiping, and fellowshipping with Christian brothers and sisters who did hold to a "biblical egalitarian" perspective, nor would I have any difficulties serving with them in ministries outside of the church. However, there are some egalitarian churches locally where I would have great difficulty fellowshipping or serving in ministry with their congregation, not because of their egalitarian views, but because of their non biblical views; some have thrown out so much of the bible that they are really Christian in name only i.e. they don't even believe in the divinity of Jesus or the necessity of the attonment.
I think the biggest difference that I see is when reading the works of "biblical egalitarians" is that they really struggle to form a systematic theology for gender roles in the bible that maintains a high view of the bible and its authority in our lives, and although I don't agree on many of their interpretive choices, I do respect the diligence of their study and the respect with which they treat the word of God. Two books I would recommend that cover a "biblical egalitarian" position are "Women in Ministry, four views" and "Discovering Biblical Equality", the first is my favorite because of its format and the real diversity of opinion; each author submitted an article conveying their position and rebuttals to articles of the other authors. The format of the book presents each argument followed by the rebuttals from the other authors and continues until all four viewpoints have been explored. The second is a very good work from "biblical egalitarians" and has many good articles from many different authors, but all of the articles are unabashedly from an egalitarian position and, unlike the first book, because the weaknesses of their position is never addressed the authors do stray much further towards unjustified speculation than they would if their speculation was going to be challenged. The two authors that present the more egalitarian views in the "Four views" book were also contributing authors in the second book.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/24/2007 12:09:45 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 475
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
When we look at individual churches, I think you are right, most (but not all) churches would be ineffective if the church was struggling to agree on an egalitarian viewpoint while the church leadership had already adopted one because this is often a very divisive issue. The impact this would have on a congregation would depend heavily on how contentions of an issue this was to the members that congregation; however, in some churches this really could one of those "agree to disagree" issues, and in that case would not really cause the church to be ineffective.
... However, there are some egalitarian churches locally where I would have great difficulty fellowshipping or serving in ministry with their congregation, not because of their egalitarian views, but because of their non biblical views; some have thrown out so much of the bible that they are really Christian in name only
I see sound Biblical interpretation as a key element in avoiding non Biblical views. I've been reading this thread for a while, trying to understand how someone can set aside a plain meaning of one scripture and NOT set aside other scriptures in the same way. Honestly THAT is a first order concern to me here - but if you believe your church has leadership that does not meet the Biblical criteria... no matter how great they seem to be - I'd feel uncomfortable.
I've been involved in debates about things like the age of the earth and predestination and apply the same evaluation. For those who disagree with me, how are they handling scripture? If that's OK, then you can look at how things work out practically. eg - for something like the age of the earth my take is "big deal" if I'm standing on young dirt, old dirt or young dirt with the appearance of age... we serve the same God in the same way.
However, with the criteria for leaders I'm not sure I can so easily set it aside. From what I've seen, many who advocate female elders do so with unacceptable hermeneutics. The most recent wave here - an appeal to re-interpretation of some words - is a bit better I must say - but it's the minority. And even if you get by the hermeneutic, now what?
In some of the compromise situations I've seen a kind of condescending attitude adopted towards people with my views who "just don't get it yet" - which is hard. Equally hard I'm sure would be a leader who is working diligently to do what she firmly believes is right, knowing I feel she should re-consider her qualifications for authority.
I have been able to do some cooperative things with people who hold a contrary view on this subject - though we were not part of the same local church. I'm curious how many others here are comfortable under the authority of leaders who don't share your view on this topic?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/24/2007 1:39:45 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
However, with the criteria for leaders I'm not sure I can so easily set it aside.
I am not so sure I could easily set aside this issue either, which is why I am part of a local church that believes that men and women have different but complementary roles in the church and the home, but this is not the only theological issue important to me; there are many Christian churches in my area that do embrace male leadership roles as biblical, yet hold to other points of theology that would make me equally uncomfortable calling those churches my home. However, even lthough I have significant theological differences with many of the churches in my area, I have absolutely no difficulty worshiping, fellowshipping, or serving in ministry with members of those churches. Those issues of theology that would make it difficult for me to call a church a home, often creates no difficulty when calling those who attend those churches my brothers and sisters in Christ.
quote:
From what I've seen, many who advocate female elders do so with unacceptable hermeneutics.
Agreed.
quote:
The most recent wave here - an appeal to re-interpretation of some words - is a bit better I must say - but it's the minority. And even if you get by the hermeneutic, now what?
Arriving at a true biblical egalitarian position requires much more than simply re-interpreting some of the words, it requires making some suppositions about the culture of the first century, and the specific events which Paul was addressing in his letter for which there is not clear evidence. The reason I don't agree with a biblical egalitarian position is not because I believe they are using a bad hermeneutic, but because I don't accept some of the suppositions on which that hermeneutic was established. Similarly I don't hold to dispensational theology because I don't accept some of its foundational suppositions.
However, that being said many of the issues raised regarding the definition of some words, and cultural issues for which we do have evidence have a great deal of validity. For instance there is great deal of agreement among scholars on all sides of the issue regarding the definition of "authentien", even scholars holding to very traditional views have difficulties with many of the modern English translations of the 2 Ti. passage. When I look at these issues of word definitions and cultural background, I still personally find the idea of male leadership inescapable in the biblical text even in the light of a new perspective. However, I do think looking at these issues can help give us a much better picture of what biblical leadership should look like.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/24/2007 6:59:37 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2530
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelindeFascinating.
From my perspective you're not on a fence at all you recognize a woman as an elder and have made a decision.
For those in that body who don't accept women as elders are they still expected to submit to her authority?
I know a few people in this situation - eg they don't accept the Biblical interpretation that eliminates gender roles but they are in a church that has made that decision. In one case it's the church (the actual building) they grew up in and they just can't imagine leaving - and there they point to the fact that the woman who pastors is really nice and trying hard and there are so few men who will work at a small church anymore.... In the other case it's the denomination they grew up in and they aren't going to leave (though they are hoping their church won't call a woman now that it would be allowed).
I have concluded that a church can be effective even with some degree of doctrinal difference - but I had not concluded that this was one of those differences that could easily be overcome.
Maybe on the fence isn't the right word. "Not of one mind on the matter" might be closer. Tough to explain. There are those that disagree with it and will consistently vote complementarian, those that disagree but whose votes on the matter are somewhat dependent on the person involved (i.e. making decisions on a case by case basis), those who don't necessarily know, and then strong egalitarians like us. Also a large contingent that I think really doesn't care one way or the other. (That's the set I have the hardest time understanding)
We have an ordained co-pastor who is equal in position to the other (male) pastor. Both report to the board of elders. We don't have a female elder (yet). It's a pretty mixed group of opinions. Overall, I'd say the position of the church is egalitarian with an asterisk or egalitarian with reservations. Maybe call it sitting on the fence but tipping over into the egalitarian side?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/24/2007 7:18:29 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2530
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
However, with the criteria for leaders I'm not sure I can so easily set it aside. From what I've seen, many who advocate female elders do so with unacceptable hermeneutics. The most recent wave here - an appeal to re-interpretation of some words - is a bit better I must say - but it's the minority. And even if you get by the hermeneutic, now what?
In some of the compromise situations I've seen a kind of condescending attitude adopted towards people with my views who "just don't get it yet" - which is hard. Equally hard I'm sure would be a leader who is working diligently to do what she firmly believes is right, knowing I feel she should re-consider her qualifications for authority.
I have been able to do some cooperative things with people who hold a contrary view on this subject - though we were not part of the same local church. I'm curious how many others here are comfortable under the authority of leaders who don't share your view on this topic?
All good questions here. Just making sure I understand the last one - I think you're asking how many complementarians would be comfortable under the authority of egalitarians as well as vice versa. Good question. For me, since I have a wife that is gifted in leadership, my responsibilities to her mean that we need to attend a church where we can at least have the dialogue.
I agree on the issue of condescension. On the egalitarian side, I think we let pride get in the way and view ourselves as "so much more progressive and in tune blah blah blah". On the complementarian side I see a similar pride issue that "we are the keepers of the true faith and all others are heretics...etc."
I for one am guilty of both attitudes plus a few others. None are of Christ.
As far as the egalitarians who argue their point with a faulty hermeneutic - we agree. One of the things that really got my blood pressure up was when writers like Sarah Sumner had good points to make and then in one fell swoop throw it all away by pushing a passage way, way too far. It bugs be because a) it's unnecessary - I think you can make the point without doing that, and b) it's not productive. If you want to pursuade someone to consider your point, you have to use the language and tools that person is comfortable and familiar with. If that person is conservative, you have to argue it FROM THE TEXT ITSELF. (caps added for the benefit of my fellow egalitarians). If that person is liberal, you probably aren't having this conversation anyway so it doesn't matter.
Actually, my wife was so annoyed with most of the books that she intends at some point to begin writing a book on the topic and stay very devoted to the idea that the original writer had something in mind that he wanted to communicate and that today's meaning should be understood in that context.
So as far as whether or not an egalitarian structure can work in a church? So far you, me, and a few others seem to be able to work to find the places where we agree and show grace where we don't. Based on that, I think it can work. That said, I don't think it can necessarily work for everyone but I do hope that the day is approaching when it can.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/24/2007 8:12:03 PM
|
|
|
sunofone
Posts: 485
Joined: 10/11/2007
Status: offline
|
This conversation has been very beneficial for me.I entered into this topic several pages ago.I hadn't really read through the arguments and just chimed in my thoughts. I admittedly was of the persuasion that anyone who held onto the view of silencing women were either ignorant,or sexist. I have since learned otherwise.
I have greatly appreciated hearing everyone present there views.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/25/2007 9:18:25 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 475
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bterpstra
Maybe on the fence isn't the right word. "Not of one mind on the matter" might be closer. ...those that disagree .. will vote
Also a large contingent that I think really doesn't care one way or the other. (That's the set I have the hardest time understanding)
We have an ordained co-pastor who is equal in position to the other (male) pastor. Both report to the board of elders. We don't have a female elder (yet).
That helped me understand a bit of the dynamics... I had actually forgotten that some places recognize leaders by putting it to a vote. I actually knew it was a very common practice - I'd just forgotten.
In my terminology a pastor, co-pastor, associate pastor are all elders, but I also understand the common meaning associated with the terms. So I'd say that you have recognized a woman (the co-pastor) as an elder already.
In the last where I served we did not allow women to vote for the elders (gasp)... :) we didn't allow the men to vote either! We went through a process of "recognizing" men qualified and willing to serve and everyone (men and women) had input if they desired.
re: people who don't care? On the one hand I find that perplexing too, but on the other hand... not everyone has a disposition to discuss nuances in meaning of greek words and wrestle with the implications of accepting someone as a Godly authority in your life. You also risk drawing criticism, sometime sharp, from both sides and BOTH genders on both sides... so there is a certain easiness in having no opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/25/2007 9:33:20 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 475
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bterpstra
All good questions here. Just making sure I understand the last one - I think you're asking how many complementarians would be comfortable under the authority of egalitarians as well as vice versa.
As far as the egalitarians who argue their point with a faulty hermeneutic - we agree. One of the things that really got my blood pressure up...
To clarify my curiosity.
If you believe that it is acceptable for women to teach and have authority over men in the role of an elder, are you OK being part of a church that believes and teaches that this is NOT OK. Would you be OK if they were silent on the subject (ie you don't know what they teach because it never comes up) but they still don't (or maybe WON'T) allow a women to be an elder (pastor).
And for the reverse situation... you believe that a woman elder (pastor) by definition is teaching and exercising authority over men and that this is wrong according to the established Biblical patterns. You are in a church that has a female elder (pastor). Do you just accept her authority? Or do you accept it as long as it is theoretical but might object to it if it impacted you in some way? (or do you actually accept that the church leadership really has authority over you?)
to the point of faulty hermeneutics... we agree on this (which actually makes me think we could work together to an extent despite other things... at a first guess at least). I had a situation with an elder once where I agreed with him in many of his doctrinal positions but I did NOT agree with the hermeneutics he used to arrive there. I was actually very much ill at ease with this - despite the fact that we came to the same conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/25/2007 12:58:56 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
In my terminology a pastor, co-pastor, associate pastor are all elders, but I also understand the common meaning associated with the terms. So I'd say that you have recognized a woman (the co-pastor) as an elder already.
The role of Pastor and Elder are really not one in the same, although many churches (including my own) often combine these roles. In most churches I think it would be very difficult for the lead pastor (or pastors) not to function as elders, but not impossible; however, I think that in most churches (including my own) an associate pastor could function quite well without fulfilling the role of an elder. In my own church, our bylaws state that all pastors will also serve as elders, but we also have a paid staff position called a "ministry leader" that is open to women, and some of our ministry leader positions are filled by women. The function of a "ministry leader" is really just the role of a pastor who is not also an elder. I personally have some mixed feelings about how my church defines these roles because in many ways it is really only semantical separation of roles; there is not biblical separation between "ministry leader" and "pastor". On the other hand does avoid a very divisive issue.
Just a side note: Many churches, that believe that women cannot teach or have authority over men in the church, often allow these same women to teach and have authority of the the Jr. High and High school boys. However, in Paul's day, a boy was considered a man on his 13th birthday (after his Bar Mitzvah). So if Paul had really intended that women should never teach or have authority over men, he certainly would never have permitted women to teach Jr. High or High school boys (whom Paul would have considered men); if this was truly prohibited by Paul, why would it be ok now for women to teach this group of "men" in churches that believe that it was Paul intention to restrict women from teaching men?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/25/2007 1:24:48 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 475
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
The role of Pastor and Elder are really not one in the same, although many churches (including my own) often combine these roles. In most churches I think it would be very difficult for the lead pastor (or pastors) not to function as elders, but not impossible; however, I think that in most churches (including my own) an associate pastor could function quite well without fulfilling the role of an elder.
Probably a complete tangent... but I would define THE church leadership role as being "elder" while "pastor" is a gift of one who watches over and gives care. I am not sure I can even imagine a situation where a person was recognized as a senior pastor and they did NOT effectively fill the (Biblical) role of elder. I'm willing to let go of the semantics, but if it walks like and elder and talks like an elder it needs to meet the qualifications of elder... making up a new thing called senior pastor does not allow an end run around 1 Timothy and Titus.
Can you explain how you differentiate (senior) pastor from elder and where you get the definitions?
I guess I could imagine a role called "associate pastor" that was neither an elder (or a pastor) but more of a deacon or minister of some sort. It could be a valid, useful role and it could be modeled after things the often referenced NT women did, and hence, open to both genders.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Men/Women roles in the church - One Stop Thread - 11/25/2007 1:32:30 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 475
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Just a side note: Many churches, that believe that women cannot teach or have authority over men in the church, often allow these same women to teach and have authority of the the Jr. High and High school boys. However, in Paul's day, a boy was considered a man on his 13th birthday (after his Bar Mitzvah). So if Paul had really intended that women should never teach or have authority over men, he certainly would never have permitted women to teach Jr. High or High school boys (whom Paul would have considered men); if this was truly prohibited by Paul, why would it be ok now for women to teach this group of "men" in churches that believe that it was Paul intention to restrict women from teaching men?
I'll go out on a limb here and say that I am OK with a cultural definition separating children from men. When can they marry? When are they expected to earn a living? When do they cease to be children instructed by mothers and others acting as their mother? I also think it's better for young boys to be taught by men, I'm just not willing to be dogmatic about it. In the last two churches I've served with men DID teach the pre-teen and teens btw.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
