Women in Leadership

[Guest]

No. That is not convincing. I believe I have read other of Carlson's work and it runs in my mind that she quickly moves away from scripture and as quickly toward 2nd and 3rd century writings as well as recent writings to prove her points. I am unable to access my reference at this time but can do so on the upcoming weekend. I have studied this subject and do not agree with her position. But, until Les gets an answer from Steve, I will not divert his thread.

regards,

livingink

[Guest]

Livingink, that link I gave is not Sues writings it is study By John Schoenhiet, and it is thorough. The culture of the time it was written, is imperative I believe or we can not hope to understand what is written. By dismissing something without thorough investigation may not be a thorough study of the subject.

[Guest]

Jesusfollower,

Regarding the article by John Schoenheit you said:

never forget to follow along in your Bible, otherwise it is just another mans opinion.

You are correct. It is just another man's opinion, nothing more. It is rare to read a piece so arrogant and condescending. Note his repeated references to "STUPID doctrines" (his capitals). Also his claim that certain words have been mistranslated and "We are going to translate them properly" while admitting that the Greek word authentane is uniformly translated "have authority over" in "every version he has looked at". Trust him, he found somehere that it might mean something else so therefore it does!

The whole argument is based on a false premise, that the role of women should be exactly the same as that of men or else their service in the Lord's kingdom is of less value than that of men. Is the role of pitcher any more important than that of catcher on a baseball team? Are they the same? The answer is obvious.

Schoenheit says "God designed women for a role. God designed women to participate." He is correct. That to do so, they must serve in the same roles as men is false. God made men and women different in more ways than one, contrary to the women's lib movement. That is why it is so advantageous for children to have both a mother and father.

He has a quarrel with the translation of several words. He says that diakonia is wrongly, or prejudicially, translated "servant" regarding Phoebe in Romans 16:1. The word does mean servant. We are informed in 16:2 "she he has been a helper of many". How does he know Pheobe was filling the office of deaconess? Or that there were any official deaconesses? Interestingly Paul gives qualifications for the office of deacon but not so for an office of deaconess. Did Paul forget? And did Paul forget to appoint women when he appointed elders in all the churches? If women's roles are the same, why did he not do so?

Regarding the role of servant in the Church, Jesus informed us that is the highest status a person can have, the one who is greatest in His kingdom. And this is somehow putting down women because they are not given an official title?

He also depends on the unproven assertion that in 1 Tim. 2:11-15 Paul is responding only to a false teaching that the Creator was a woman. This is little more than speculation and proves nothing.

I am not saying by this that there are no circumstances where a woman can teach, nor that it is forbidden that a woman be called a deaconness. However, I do not believe it to be proper for women to be elders or pastors, which is, I believe, the original question Les brought up.

I hope you will respond personally so we can dialog rather than referring us to another article, I do not have time for them.

[Guest]

I reread the article and my apologies for getting the author incorrect. However, the substance and rewriting of scripture are essentially the same as other authors who advocate the idea that scripture somehow denigrates women. Re: 1 Timothy 2:12, I notice that the author never really got around to defining teach from the Greek didasko. Personally, I see Paul's statement as a very narrow one and does not include preaching, prophesying or evangelizing if I adhere strictly to the word he used. But, as you say, we must go back to the Greek to understand those terms as they were used in Paul's time as opposed to the way we have defined them.

regards,

livingink

[Guest]

Homer the word used is Deacon, in the masculine even. Check it out. And I also agree that men and women are different, as a matter of fact put three women in a room and within fifteen minutes they know all about each others lives, do the same with men and I doubt they will know each others names. I think that tuning in by women shows they may be more inclined toward pastors and prophets, you think? It is pretty plain you are not seeing what I am, so go with it, man.

[Guest]

Homer the word used is Deacon, in the masculine even. Check it out. And I also agree that men and women are different, as a matter of fact put three women in a room and within fifteen minutes they know all about each others lives, do the same with men and I doubt they will know each others names. I think that tuning in by women shows they may be more inclined toward pastors and prophets, you think? It is pretty plain you are not seeing what I am, so go with it, man.

Hi Jesusfollower, I don't understand what you mean by the bolded sentence. Could you clarify? Do you think women would be better suited to be pastors and prophets because they are interested in each other? Why would that be? Or... did I misunderstand you and you meant something else?

[_Steve]

I am sorry not to have answered Les' post yet. It contains quite a few very separate questions, and will require a lengthy bit of free time for me to address them individually. Nor am I able to do so right now. I think most of what Les was inquiring about is covered at other threads, but I will endeavor to give a separate answer here soon.

In the meantime, I would like to echo Homer's complaint about Jesusfollower's simply cutting and pasting another man's opinions, rather than dialoging personally with those here. It is all right to post the web sites for those who wish to do further reading (like Homer, I have little time to read these longer treatments).

I would also advise Jesusfollower to be cautious about following the teachings of men, like those speculations and the pseudo scholarship presented on the referenced web sites. The word deacon, in Greek, is a generic word for servant. Only in Philippians 1:1 & 1 Timothy 3 does it appear to refer to a titled official in the church. The rest of the many times it is used in the New Testament, it means simply "servant."

I do not believe that Jesusfollower knows enough about the Greek to be making heterodox statements based upon his claims of what the Greek means. As for 1 Tim.2:9-15—I recommend a book-length treatment of that single passage, over 300 pages by three reputable scholars, who analyze that passage from every angle and reach very different conclusions from those represented by Jesusfollower's posts. That book is entitled, "Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of I Timothy 2:9-15," by Koestenberger, Schreiner and Baldwin (1995, Baker Book House).

[Guest]

Michelle, I simply mean that by their nature Women are tuned into be suited for certain ministries. Nothing is 100% across the board.
And Steve I don't need to be a Greek scholar in order to understand the word of God. One other thing when it comes to experts their are none. John Shoenhiet teaches in many seminaries in the US, is highly educated and is probably more educated that you or me in Greek but that doesn't make him an expert either. As far as mens teachings I think you all follow plenty of those. By the response I'm getting I would say that bumping up against your tradition is very hard to come to grips with.

2 Corinthians 10:42 Corinthians 10:4
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,

And then you refer me to some more mans opinions, wild.

[Guest]

Steve,

I'm considering buying the book you recommended, and I was wondering if it addresses what the article that Jesusfollower posted said about the beliefs of the Gnostics.

I have to admit that I found the article that Jesusfollower posted very interesting, and, if the facts and portrayal of what the Gnostics believed is accurate, somewhat convincing.

I have been needing to look more into this issue for a while and just haven't taken the time to really do my research.

Thanks!

[_Steve]

The book deals with the theory that Paul was reacting to pagan ideas about women, but not specifically the view that woman created man, as I recall. The idea that Paul has in mind the Gnostic beliefs referenced by Jesusfollower seems to me speculative in the extreme.