Women in Ministry (and in the home)

[Homer]

Hey,
Dwight, Darin, and Homer agree on something! Well, probably many things.

[darinhouston]

Hey,
Dwight, Darin, and Homer agree on something! Well, probably many things.

Yes, many things.

[dwight92070]

Some additional points about Ben Witherington's article: Ben implies that if Adam had properly instructed Eve, that she would not have been so easily deceived. What if Adam had told Eve, "It's okay to touch the tree and it's fruit - God just said to not eat it."? Would that have stopped Eve from being deceived by the serpent's suggestion that she eat it? I don't think so! That most likely would have encouraged her to eat it! That's like saying to a man, "It's okay for you to touch another man's wife - but just don't have sex with her." The fact that Eve thought that she should not even touch the tree, should have been a safeguard for her, from even thinking about eating it's fruit. No, her deception came, apparently, when she believed the serpent's lie more than she trusted God and His character.

There is no scriptural proof that Adam was standing right there with Eve, when she was speaking with the serpent. In fact, God does not rebuke Adam for not stopping Eve "in her tracks", when she listened to the serpent. In fact, isn't that just like the devil, to catch us "alone", away from a brother or sister who might warn us? Rather, God rebukes Adam for listening to Eve's voice, after she had already been deceived. God is saying, "You should not have listened to that deceived woman, your wife, to do something that I already told you not to do." We are not to listen to deceived women, who are already disobedient to God by even becoming "pastors" or "teachers" of both men and women.

Did you notice the fact that Ben completely ignores the fact that Paul is saying that the problem of women being deceived has a history that goes all the way back BEFORE the fall in the garden? Ben also is incorrect in his thinking that "the man is the head of A woman (his wife ONLY" 1 Corinthians 11:3),
is part of God's punishment on Eve for her disobedience. In Genesis 3:16, God does say to Eve that her husband "will rule over you", but whatever that means cannot be the same as he being her head. If that were not true, then Christ being the head of every man and God being the head of Christ would also be a part of the consequences of the fall - which we know is not the case.

[dizerner]

Paul freely admitted some things he wrote were his personal preference, it's important to factor that in.

[darinhouston]

Paul freely admitted some things he wrote were his personal preference, it's important to factor that in.

Paul was pretty clear when he was stating his personal preference. But even if he was, he was in a much better position as an apostle of Jesus, filled with the Spirit than us to discern what was more in line with what Jesus would preach even when speaking of his own initiative. He was influenced by Jesus like we can only hope to be. I'll take Paul's personal preference over the world's any day of the week.

[Homer]

Darin wrote:

Paul was pretty clear when he was stating his personal preference. But even if he was, he was in a much better position as an apostle of Jesus, filled with the Spirit than us to discern what was more in line with what Jesus would preach even when speaking of his own initiative. He was influenced by Jesus like we can only hope to be. I'll take Paul's personal preference over the world's any day of the week.

Amen and amen!!

We must remember that Jesus spoke of things that would be brought to them after He was gone; they weren't ready to hear them yet.

[dizerner]

Paul was just a man, even with his grace and revelation.

To make him sinless is a grave mistake in my opinion, but it's your choice to do so.

The problem with what's "clear" is, actually, people just think things are clear that agree with their view already.

[darinhouston]

Paul was just a man, even with his grace and revelation.

To make him sinless is a grave mistake in my opinion, but it's your choice to do so.

The problem with what's "clear" is, actually, people just think things are clear that agree with their view already.

Who said sinless?

[dwight92070]

If Jesus wanted to show us that women should have leadership roles in His church, then why did He not choose JUST ONE woman to be among the chosen twelve? Or if He had wanted to show us that women should have EQUAL leadership roles in His church, He could have chosen SIX WOMEN and SIX MEN. Does Jesus hate women or do we? Of course not, rather we acknowledge that we each have our proper roles in His church.

I think Jesus was also showing us the ideal size of a local church as well. Twelve men with their families. If the Son of God Himself was a shepherd of only twelve men, why does any man now think that they can properly shepherd hundreds of men and their families? Isn't He "saying" to us that those twelve men, aside from being church leaders, should also shepherd their own families?

[darinhouston]

I heard a sermon today on women in ministry - the pastor turned to Ephesians 5 (among others) ("Wives, submit..."). It was a good example on how hard they have to try to twist scripture. After reading v22, he stopped and said but look what it just said immediately prior - it says "submit one to another" -- see? no subordination. Of course, that was written to the church at large and the general instruction to all believers (not specifically husbands and wives). But, then he specifically said "Wives..." submit. More important, however, in that same passage directed specifically to wives re: their husbands, it says "why." We don't have to make it up from prior passages - it's clearly stated. "because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

The entire sermon was a good example of a traditional pastor who is offended that many churches are taking liberties with the Word to support their positions on homosexuality - but their hermeneutic/exegesis (if you can call it that) on this issue is all but indistinguishable from the progressive views on human sexuality. There are just some topics that people can't be exegetically consistent and rational about.

Turning to 1 Corinthians 14:34ff,

34the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. 35If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home...

he then quoted the above and went on the typical contextualization about the temple problems in Corinth and that this was what Paul was speaking into - just a message for their particular situation and not a general principle. But, he specifically left out the introductory phrase and (again) the concluding phrase saying "why" he was saying this, thusly.

As in all the churches of the saints,

and

..., because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. 36Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone?

And later in the paragraph... to make clear this wasn't a personal preference...

37If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, he should acknowledge that what I write to you is the Lord’s command.

I can affirm their sentiment that women are of equal value, but I cannot affirm the exegesis.