All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Should women represent top-rank positions in churches?
Please respond to this in kindness. I'm obviously a woman and do not subscribe to chauvinistic ideology. However, I DO believe the Bible reveals a natural order that signifies God's original intention and purpose for His created.
Happy discussing! ;)
Views: 1624
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
Glenda,
Cop Out? Cop Out? (LOL) Come on now. Do you realize how hard it is for me to be silent? Don't encourage me too much ... LOL
Lord Bless,
LT
-
Permalink Reply by Ginnybee on
-
he he he... I know you can't stay silent. You're a bundle of great insight :) We need your input, or at very least, I hope for it.
bless you, brother
Glenda
-
-
I'm lead to clear something up here. In my statement, "Im obviously a woman and do not subscribe to chauvinistic ideology," I didn't mean to imply that I think women should not resume submissive to men as clearly directed in the bible. Rather, the statement was more for purpose of letting all know that even though I believe women are supposed to take a submissive role regarding the man/woman positional issue, it doesn't mean that I accept absurd reasoning for women's appropriate state of submission, such as an idea that women are less equipped as leaders intellectually or that women should be restricted from attaining equal knowledge for some ridiculous reason. Hope that helps clarify my stance.
-
Permalink Reply by Rod Askew on
-
Hi Glenda,
I have to agree with Linda on this one ( cower, hide, run)
It is fine for women to teach, however preferrable if they teach the women and children.
Church is a reflection of God's family and God set man as head of the family.
Blessings
Rod
-
Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on
-
The article is about seven pages long and it can be found here: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/008_exploring.cfm.
I cut and pasted here only a portion of it.
The article was written by George O. Wood, D.Th.P. Who is general secretary of the Assemblies of God, Springfield, Missouri.
One of the most heated debates in the church today is the issue of women serving as pastor/preachers.
This is not an issue of men versus woman. There are plenty of women who believe women should not serve as pastors and they back it up with scripture and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers, so this is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation. Many try to make it an issue of discrimination and for some it may be true, but not for most scholars and theologians of today.
The Old Testament was the Old Testament, so it can be debatable until we are blue in the face if Deborah’s example of the only female Judge among 13 male judges can be use in the New Testament context. However I personally believe we have the example of Deborah, Ruth etc… strategically in the history of the Judeo Christians, so in due season we could reflect back to it, in reference to this issue.
“As Pentecostals, we intuitively approach the biblical text in a manner different from most of our evangelical brothers and yes, sisters. We factor in the element of experience as a lens through which we look at Scripture. We are criticized for that. But our evangelical compatriots essentially do the same thing, except they interpret the text from their nonexperience, which is an experience of sorts.
[Wood, goes on to encourage the reader to look at the Jerusalem church for his grounds to decipher how we should deal with issues such as this one – I will let him explained it]
Look next at Peter’s explanation to the Jerusalem church on the coming of salvation and the Spirit to Cornelius’ house. Peter is up against a traditional interpretation of the Old Testament text as he explained to Cornelius, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him" (Acts 10:28). Why then did he come? "But God has shown me…."
Had the Lord left it to the Early Church to engage in theological debate concerning whether or not the Old Testament text permitted an observant Jew to visit a Gentile’s house–or the inclusion of Gentiles into the family of God without circumcision or maintenance of the ritual law–the issue would have been argued until today. We tend to be that silly at times. This provides for us a clue concerning how to adjudicate an issue such as women in the ministry. Is it possible that, in addition to looking at the biblical text, we should survey what the Holy Spirit is doing within the experience of His people?
Let me be clear that I am not suggesting we forsake the objective grounds of Scripture for the murky dangers of ascertaining truth by subjective experience. We must never forget the prescient statement of former General Superintendent Thomas F. Zimmerman: "A river is designed to flow within banks. For Pentecostals, experience is the river, but that river must stay within the God-ordained banks of Scripture."
Had it been left to the Jerusalem church to debate from the Old Testament on whether Peter should be given permission to go to Cornelius’ house, and whether these Gentiles should be received into the community of faith and baptized without being circumcised, I don’t think there would be too many who would deny that the Jerusalem church would have banned the visit. The Holy Spirit, though, acted unilaterally in taking the initiative, in keeping with the Lord’s promise that when the Spirit came, He would lead into all truth (John 16:13).
-
-
How do you resolve an issue when both groups have a very high view of Scripture? Does the Assemblies of God have any less high a view of Scripture than the Southern Baptists? No. Our Statement of Fundamental Truths begins by affirming, "The Bible is our all-sufficient rule for faith and practice." The first article relates to the Scriptures inspired: "The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Timothy 3:15—17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21)."
The Jerusalem Council provides a paradigm for resolving a textual dispute among believers over doctrine. First, there is a full-scale discussion of the issue. The Judaizers led with their thesis, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). In the "much discussion" that followed (verse 7), the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees probably quoted volumes from the Old Testament text supporting their position.
The "much discussion" of Acts 15:7 dealt first with the question, What does the text of Scripture say? The Judaizers answered one way; Paul and Barnabas the other. How do you affirm truth when believers are throwing texts at each other?
Here is where the Jerusalem Council has a most important lesson for us–and it’s the same lesson discussed above regarding Peter’s going to Cornelius. We must listen to the experience of seasoned leadership who give testimony to being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Following the textual debate, Peter stood and recounted his testimony of years earlier with Cornelius at Caesarea. His clinching line is, "God, who knows the heart showed (italics mine) that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us" (verse 8). Peter quoted no Scripture; he simply restated his experience.Then Paul and Barnabas stepped to the microphone. They too spoke of their experience. "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them" (verse 12).
The Judaizers have no testimony to share. Their arguments are based solely on proof texts, and they totally ignore what the Spirit has done.
-
-
Why is this discussion on the inclusion of the Gentiles relevant to the issue of women in the ministry? Because we learn from the New Testament itself the process by which the Early Church resolved issues when texts appeared to collide. Their understanding of the text was impacted by their experience in the Spirit.
This is the same pattern we find when dealing with the Gentile inclusion question. Had the issue been presented for debate prior to Peter’s going to Cornelius’ home or prior to Paul’s Gentile mission, the Jerusalem church would have voted against both endeavors of bringing in the Gentiles without prior observance to Jewish law and culture. But the debate took place after the endeavors of Peter and Paul–and their experience helped the Early Church reach an appropriate understanding of the text.
In Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost, he announced that God had launched the fulfillment of that promise. It’s not surprising, therefore, that the Pentecostal church has always embraced women in ministry–since to do such is Pentecostal. It’s what the Spirit promised to do in the age before the coming of the Lord.
ok that is all. What say you?
-
-
I'm gonna have to give this some thought and get back to ya ;) mainly cuz it's pretty late here. Till tomorrow, bless you all.
-
-
Dave, are you saying scripture is negotiable? What sign would possibly indicate that God has decided to revoke the clear dictation, "1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection... [and] 1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence?" What spiritual sign would convince you that God now desires women to teach a congregation (preach)? Or, what might prove God's approval of women preaching?
17 ‘And in the last days it will be,’ God says, ‘that I will pour out my Spirit on all people, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
The particular aspect of what Peter was saying here that always causes me to pause is the use of the word prophesy. Peter doesn't say that women will preach, he says they will prophesy. Now, I was confused over the dual use of the word for a while. It seems many will apply the word prophesy interchangably with the word preach, which had thrown me off track. I realize now after reading the article Linda Ruth linked us to earlier that I'm not the only one thrown off by the dual use of the word. The problem is, should the term prophesy be used interchangably with the term preach? I don't think so. They have totally different meanings. What say you?
blessings
GB
-
-
Glenda-
Dave, are you saying scripture is negotiable?
May it never be? And if I ever do - you have my permission to shoot me hahaahaha Cause that would mean I am posses or something hehe
I was presenting both cases. The argument up above is the most convincing one I have study from those that believe that is ok for woman to be Pastors and Elders. But I do not agree with it. Though I understand and agree with them that the church has been given authority to implement practices that do not contradict scripture, but help us do the work of God.
:)
-
-
ok, but.. as shown, women preaching does sort of cross the line of scripture.
ps. do I need your permission, sir? ;-)
-
-
Linda Ruth,
Your posted article said:
The Apostle Paul’s teachings about the woman’s place in the church are not based upon cultural considerations, but upon man’s priority in Creation and woman’s priority in the Fall. Neither are Paul’s teachings on this subject just his personal opinion, but they are God’s Word (Mk. 10:4; I Cor. 14:34).
I would like to add something. A friend of mine, whom I trust, has an animal skin from the 2nd century with writting in Aramaic on it (author unknown). Now I stated a trusted friend becuse I do not read Aramiac, but he both reads and speaks it fluently. This is a paraphrase of what the writing says (I don't remember the exact wording, but the gist is there):
"The hand that reached out and touched the fruit in the garden shall not reach out and serve cup."
Food for thought,
LT
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
