So I have a question for all of my readers. A doosey of a question.
What are women's roles in the church?
The reason this came up is that we had a woman in our congregation guest "preach" on Sunday. As this was the week that we had Emily dedicated, we had some friends and Mike's mom in attendance. At lunch afterwards, Mike's mom brought up that it "grieved" her that a woman taught at church that day. It turns out that that is why our very traditional Christian friends did not stay to hear the sermon.
We have had women at our church share before. A mom talked about motherhood on Mother's Day, for example. I did wonder about this the first time it happened as it does say in the Bible that women can't teach men in church (only children). More specifically it says in I Timothy 2: 11-13 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Does this hold true today? Should women be silent and submissive in the church? Or was this relevant to the time like wearing head coverings?
I know that we shouldn't pick and choose which verses to accept in the Bible. That our theology should not be based on what makes us feel best, but what God intends. Yet I can't help but feel somewhat slighted if women have to keep their mouthes shut at church. We have insight and intelligence to offer, too.
I fully expect an answer from a certain seminary graduate (you know who you are).
17 comments:
This IS a doosy of a question. I'll write a response, I promise. Just not tonight.
Happy Thanksgiving, friend. We need a phone date.
I don't know what the actual answer is at this point in time, but I do think that it is a marginal issue.
Of course it's important to do our very best to model Christian churches as God's word specifies. But some issues hold greater weight than others. For example, I know of a church that doesn't have any elders, as the Bible specifies. Can they still be effective at spreading God's message to others? Of course! Should it perhaps be pointed out to them and corrected if possible? Sure, of course.
I personally believe that Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists are both whacked out with many of the details of their practices, beliefs, etc. I wouldn't attend their churches because of it, but I recognize they can still be effective at preaching and spreading God's message.
As God's people, we should definitely strive for perfection. But we should also recognize that we will never achieve it, nor will the church. That's why we need grace and so do church leaders, the church body, the general organization as a whole, etc.
"Grieving" over it, or even choosing not to attend a church because they have one little detail different than what your Biblical understanding of an issue is seems kind of ridiculous to me, especially if it's only once in a great while that it occurs (mother's day, etc.).
But I would still like to know the correct answer to the question. And I would still ask the pastor about it to get his interpretation, especially if ultimately I thought he was wrong.
Yeah, the apostles that set up the Catholic Church must've been "whacked out." Practicing what Jesus' apostles practiced is "whacked out." You can "personally disagree" with Jesus' disciples, but I'll choose to agree with them...
I agree with Mike that this is a marginal issue. However, I think it is really up to the person as to if they would attend the church or not. I personally would not attend a church that would allow a women to teach, preach, or speak in front of the congregation. Heck, I even have a problem with a woman singing (other than a whole choir) in front of a congregation.
I do feel that if a person believes that a women in front of a congregation is not right then they should strongly consider a different church. Satan will use anything to keep your eyes off of God, don't let a legalistic issue be one of them. It is similiar to the KJV vs. NIV issue.
For starters, in my original comment, I meant to say "wouldn't become a member", instead of "wouldn't attend" in regards to Catholic and SDA churches. I've been to plenty of both and I wouldn't mind going back, but just to visit though.
So then, how exactly did the apostles start the Catholic church again? Because I didn't realize that the churches at Corinth, Galatia , Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, and Thessalonia were Catholic. You know, the churches that are mentioned in the Bible? What about the church in Rome that's mentioned in the Bible? If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic church was first established in the middle of the fifth century, which was well after all of the books of the Bible had already been written and all of the apostles had passed away.
The Catholic church may have been the first one to have been officially recognized by the authority of Rome. But that religious authority was established only because Leo, the bishop of Rome at the time, commanded it. And that claim has been widely disputed, even from the beginning. So the “true church” is only described as such by the Catholic church itself. That's like North Korea calling itself the world's most powerful nation. It may be true to North Korea itself, but most everyone else in the world has a different opinion, and the facts don't seem to support the claim.
What about the apostles, did they really practice or proclaim all of the things that the Catholic church does, because I haven't been able to find anything in the Bible about purgatory. Nor can I find anything about salvation through infant baptism. I think the Bible does say something though about praying to other people who have passed away though (the so-called saints) - it's call idolatry. Gee, I can't find any mention of the authority of the pope in the Bible either, but maybe we can just go ahead and categorize that under idolatry too. Did the Biblical disciples mention or require indulgences? And requiring confession to a priest instead of directly to God, places ordinary men in positions that are reserved for only Jesus or God himself – since only they can actually offer the forgiveness and grace. Think about it – who is it that you sinned against, the priest or God?
I'm not saying that Catholics aren't Christians, and I don't have a problem with recognizing the Catholic church as a valid Christian sect, because for the most part it is. But there are many “whacked out” aspects of it that just aren't Biblical, and the traditions and theological additions (aside from what's in the Bible) are very different from what Jesus and the apostles taught. To be fair, I've been to some whacked out Protestant churches too, but the general Protestant concept is to follow the Bible and only the Bible, thus avoiding as many theological mistakes, unnecessary and distracting traditions, and human corruption as possible.
Anyway, the whole point that I was trying to make in my first comment was not to attack or degrade other religions. It was to state that all Christian churches (aside from the cults – another issue altogether) are making mistakes, since we are all flawed humans. What is of primary importance is a common belief in a heavenly creator, that we humans have sinned and are therefore separated from God, and that there is salvation offered through Christ’s sacrifice. Then for the rest of it we try our best to get it right and then thank God for His grace when we don’t.
I must chime in, mainly with my strong voice in saying that the catholic church has many practices that are clearly, NOT biblical, but have been handed down as a set of practices that have come from humans, not God. Everything Mike mentioned, as well as praying to Mary, who was NOT perfect (find it for me in the bible). Being a virgin does not make one perfect. Otherwise there are humans that would remain perfect until death. Mary does NOT deserve any sort of worship, only God and Christ. Also, the Catholic church does not encourage the reading of the bible by its patrons, which all Christians should seek God's word daily. Should they do so, with study they would realize all the things mentioned in this post. I also have to say that I respect Catholics as fellow Christians, but "whacked out" is a pretty good description. See next post.
SDAs (seventh day adventists).
Ok, so given what I know about them (mainly from talking to Demel) I wouldn't lump them in with Catholics. This is what is questionable to me:
1. Saturday is the sabath. Make it Thursday for all I care, just pick a day man. Who cares. I would not call his unbiblical, just a strange thing to found a church on.
2. No pigs, geese, shrimp... old testiment stuff, etc. Well, this one is rather silly too. Two comments: everything commanded by God is commanded because doing otherwise is not good for us. Well, eating pig these days is no longer bad for you. Also, Christ (metaphorically, but still) said he made these animals clean, so eat your bacon, and shut up. It doesn't hurt anything, and really could not be called unbiblical.
3. There is no hell, or hell is when people are "vaporized" upon entry. This is pretty bunk. I would call this unbiblical. I found it hard to find any perfect denouncement in the bible about this concept, but there are plenty of scriptures that seem to indicate that it is eternal. It is folly to assume that God is so merciful to the non-redeemed that he would just will them out of existance, and not have them face eternal damnation.
4. Drinking alcohol is a sin: bullshat. Show me where! There are actually 238 references to wine in the bible, and none of them say don't drink, they just say don't drink too much. 1 Tim 5:23 Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. And don't give me any crap about wine being the only thing to drink back in that day as it take a LOT of water to make wine. Also it WAS as strong, and that is shown in the bible by people getting drunk. Drink wine and be merry, just not too much.
5. New revelation: the chick that started it was said to be a "prophet". Well, she didn't do too much outside of scripture, but I personally think she was delusional.
Anything I missed?
Oh yeah, right. Chicks in church. Ok, I have to say that, yes, it says that, but what I can't see is why. Nobody can seem to explain it to me. I have a hard time finding anything in the bible that doesn't make sense if you look at it in the right way. Now, I don't agree with women pastors, but Sunday school teachers, or just speaking is ok with me. I don't have the final say though. It does seem rather pointless to say they can't speak doesn't it? What would it be?
Here's the answer we've all been looking for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU
Where is Karin's response?
That's what I want to know, Susan. Karin, my friend who graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary is my source for theological questions. I would really love to hear her thoughts or perhaps what she learned on the subject.
Thanks to all who responded, but I still don't think that I really know the answer.
I haven't forgotten! I WILL post. I promise.
Reformed as in Calvinist? Yikes, I've spent way too much time arguing with Calvinists. I have a hard time respecting a belief that states pretty simply that God predestines people to heaving or hell. How could a God that claims to be love create so many billions of people just to send them to hell for his jollies?
Seriously dentist guy? Are you really going to attack a person based on where she went to school? Without even knowing her or her thoughts?
No, I just got beat up by a reformist when I was a kid. :)
Although my response has been less-than-speedy, know that the issue of women’s roles in the church is near to my heart. My delay in writing is largely because I am still struggling to find my place as a woman. So these are my thoughts on the journey.
When Paul writes to Timothy in this letter, he’s writing about the problems that are creeping up in the church at Ephesus, particularly through false teaching. People are being led astray and Paul writes to bring order. He sets up a structure for church organization and gives guidelines for propriety in worship. What is important is that Paul is not writing merely for the church at Ephesus, however. He directs his letter to that church, but it applies to the church universal. He is an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and his words are as binding as if they came from the mouth of God. What you and I read is God’s holy word. As much as it makes me uncomfortable and even outraged at times, it is my duty to honor it.
At the same time, there is a lot of wisdom in what Mike said. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that women’s ordination (because that’s ultimately what we’re talking about) is a marginal issue, I wouldn’t cut off a relationship with someone because of it. I have a close friend whose mom is an ordained minister in the Methodist church and I went to school with several women who will be getting ordained in various denominations. Personally, I don’t believe women’s ordination is biblical and neither does the denomination I belong to. But I can stand in good faith with these sisters and truly call them sisters. Any person who says they believe the truths captured in the Apostles Creed, I will call sister or brother. Period. No mention of women’s roles, baby baptism, predestination, or tithing. The battles I will die for are very few. But for those few, I will gladly die.
As Paul sets up the structure for church order, he doesn’t make it up out of the blue. Much of it was grounded in Jewish custom of the Old Testament (OT). And there is ample biblical evidence that the office (or position) of church elder is limited to men. In the OT, elders were primarily the heads of families and in this letter, Paul writes that the elder must be the husband of only one wife, obviously then limited only to married males. I think of these requirements much like our requirements for President. Our Constitution says you must be a certain age and a natural born US citizen. These requirements necessarily exclude a certain percentage of people. For this purpose, the office of elder excludes women.
The elders are responsible for the overall care of the church. This is where you get pastors or shepherds – those who care for, lead, and teach the people. By being ordained, they are given a special level of authority not given to others. Again, I think it’s helpful to look at this relationship much like we view our US government. We’re focusing not on the person, but on the position. So how does this relate to women “not being permitted to teach or have authority over a man” ? I see it as a role-oriented statement within a context of the worship service setting. It doesn’t mean a woman can’t be a CEO or teach a Bible class or an adult Sunday school class. But I think it does mean that she shouldn’t give the sermon. Now, are you ready for the kicker? I think Paul’s intention is for ordained men to preach from God’s word during a worship service. So, to me, this excludes non-ordained men. In other words, it puts most men and all women on equal playing field. The responsibility of the sermon within an organized church worship setting should go to the few, not the half (any man). And are you ready for this? I think women can teach men, as long as it’s not the organized, scheduled, worship service. I think there is something sacred about God’s holy Sabbath day and that day and the worship we do on that day ought to be unique and set apart from the way we gather at other times, say, as a Campus Crusade chapel service or something like that.
This reply is already ridiculously long, but I don’t have enough time to write a short response. The short of it is that women have enormous opportunity for church leadership that I see as fully within the bounds of scripture. You’re right, Amanda. We have insight and intelligence to offer and it is to the church’s detriment not to hear our voice. But there are times to speak and times not to speak.
Dear I Eat Dentists,
"I have a hard time respecting a belief that states pretty simply that God predestines people to heaving or hell. How could a God that claims to be love create so many billions of people just to send them to hell for his jollies?"
You bring up a common argument. Now I have a question for you: How do you decide what to believe? The unfortunate thing with the Bible is that it is true. So if we choose to believe something that is contrary to scripture, even if it sounds better or is more comfortable, we're actually believing a lie.
Scripture has to be the ultimate authority. Otherwise, it's not God's word. There is nothing higher, truer, or wiser than God. And if there were, THAT would be God.
Romans 9 makes it clear that God gives mercy to some and not to others and somehow, beyond my understanding to be sure, it pleases God to do this. I assume this is what you mean by "send them to hell for his jollies."
No one deserves Heaven. Justice says that when you break God's law, you get eternal separation from God. But then to some, God shows mercy. He shows mercy to those who choose Him, so there is free will involved, but He is the one who causes you to choose him in the first place. If God wasn't sovereign over even one detail in the universe (such as who will choose to believe in His Son), then He wouldn't be sovereign at all. And if God isn't sovereign, if He doesn't have the power and authority to control all things, then my faith is in an object i can't trust. I need to know that nothing escapes His watchful eye.
But the point of all of this is not for me to say become a Calvinist, or Reformed or whatever brand of theology happens to be the catch-phrase of the decade. Rather, it's to encourage you and others to make Scripture your ultimate authority. It needs to govern what we believe, rather we like it or not. I'm reading II Kings right now and I have to say, I am not happy with the way God is acting. In fact, I'm downright embarrassed at times to know that i actually believe I talk to the SAME God. I think He is cruel and rash and most un-loving. But it is not for me to judge God. It is for God to judge me. He is the creator; I am the creature, and I must never forget that. What doesn't make sense to me, makes sense to God. And he always acts in accord with his nature, which is slow to anger, abounding in love, kind, forgiving, patient, and enormously gracious.
Post a Comment