Posted on 05/12/2011 7:46:54 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
I should think that the real problem with “modern exegesis” in this context is that we are talking about a fundamental structure of the Church.
The Church was instituted in Apostolic times. The verses written were written in those times, and dictated the function and form of that church structure.
If there was confusion on some aspect, it would necessarily have to be dealt with at that time, since the Church existed, and needed to be operated in conformance with the will of God.
It makes no logical sense to argue that Paul dictated the method of church leadership, and it was accepted and implemented as we all know it was, but that secretly Paul used language so that later the Church could “get it right”, when they were sufficiently enlightened.
In order to accept the idea that God intended females to be pastors and leaders, one has to also believe that in Apostolic times, the Apostles misunderstood what Jesus told them, what God revealed to them, and thus prevented women called by God from taking up their calling.
Then we need to believe that somehow God was ineffectual in communicating the truth of what He really wanted, so that for century after century, women He called to service were denied the ability to perform that service by the Church God supposedly was leading and directing.
If one then believes that God still reveals to us today, you have an even HARDER problem with this, because He should have been able to reveal this throughout the history of the Church. At least those who believe God’s revelation was completed can argue that we are just a lot smarter than every believer of the past 1900 years, that they all misunderstood what was written, but now we know better.
Which isn’t an entirely rediculous argument. However, given that it leads to accepting something that perfectly coincides with a modern shift in thinking on the subject that is quite detached from biblical adherance, and pushed by the same class of scholars who also believe homosexuals can be leaders, that divorce is OK, that sex outside of marriage is just fine, and that pretty much anything in the modern culture is really what God intended, one has to look very carefully to make sure we aren’t just applying our own desires to our intepretation of scripture.
Just to clarify, if the Pastor, who's office is ordained by God and set aside as a position of leadership and authority in spiritual matters, has no authority over you, what role does he serve in your Church? By what right does your Church declare missions or ministries if not by the Pastor's guidance and leadership?
Just as a point of reference, when I refer to “modern exegesis” I do not mean modern in the sense of post-modern or evolved exegesis, I simply mean modern as opposed to ancient. Correct exegesis, no matter when it’s performed, will always produce the same result thus “modern exegesis”, if done correctly will agree with the majority of exegesis throughout the ages. Exegesis which produces a different result is automatically suspect and should be subject to immediate and intense scrutiny to examine it for errors or, finding none, the reasons why the results varied from the norm.
True...and thank God for them. However when I see someone immediately wanting a reference to the church fathers I generally assume they are either Catholic or Orthodox.
It was/is no secret.
Paul used an unusual word for "authority" thus it is very possible that he had a different intent which might be because of an unusual situation.
the Apostles misunderstood what Jesus told them, what God revealed to them, and thus prevented women called by God
I don't know that they actively prevented them. Women generally didn't engage in vocation in that day. The burden for keeping a home likely didn't make it feasible for a woman to pursue much else. There are some exceptions to that but not many. A mostly agricultural society has different dynamics.
Understood and to tell you the truth, I see evidence of the "Ephesian heresy" (that women have a spiritual maturity and superiority to men) in modern-day feminism as well as the female pastoral movement.
But to extend that to say that no woman can EVER have any kind of authority over a male believer? Don't think so.
You’re good to go on the “Evangelical/Protestant Caucus.”
The goats round up their own and shout Amen
“what right does your Church declare missions or ministries if not by the Pastor’s guidance and leadership?”
I understand your point, but authority implies a “ you may now enjoy your cake (Footloose Reference)” moment. Of course I accept guidance from my church, Pastor, and those of leadership. But the term authority implies subjugation inside and outside of the church. God know’s we have more on our plate in today’s society. That is why I look to Him, as well as the church for direction and guidance.
I'll try not to sound so confrontational. The reasons you give are human reasons, cultural reasons. If being a leader is a calling from God, why would God's calling be constrained by the "burden for keeping a home"? Why would God's calling require a "pursuit" by the woman?
If you believe that being a Pastor is a career choice, then yes, I would agree with you that it would not surprising that more women would choose the profession today. But if God is choosing, it would seem odd that His choices would coincide with what we'd see if women were simply choosing their own desires.
And if the early church did not understand Paul's prohibition to be absolute, wouldn't they have encouraged women to work out their calling, just as they did the men?
But all that we read about church leadership, in multiple places in the Bible, points to men being in charge (married men -- I think the church has missed out on that one as well).
"Of course I accept guidance from my church, Pastor, and those of leadership. But the term authority implies subjugation inside and outside of the church. God know’s we have more on our plate in today’s society. That is why I look to Him, as well as the church for direction and guidance."you acknowledged that you, like most modern Christians, have been taught that your Church life and your normal life are two separate and different things and the teachings and leadership of the Church only apply to your Church life. Your normal life, on the other hand, includes things which the Church isn't equipped to deal with so you are forced to look directly to God for your answers.
While I applaud you for going directly to God for direction and guidance, I would encourage you to look to your Church leaders and elders for help as well and try to realize that this dual-lifestyle, for lack of a better word, is not how God designed us. We're designed to operate under the same "rules" both inside of the Church world as well as outside of that realm. Attempting to operate in both worlds with two different sets of guidelines will take a toll on you both emotionally and spiritually and also won't allow you to reach your full potential in Christ. Trust me on this matter, I'm speaking from personal experience here.
"why would God's calling be constrained by the "burden for keeping a home"?
For milleniums, life for women was dominated by keeping a home...dictated to her by an agricultural way of life. It was not practical for women to receive any kind of education because men and women had the understanding, and rightly so, that it was beyond the bounds of practicality for her to even consider any other vocation. Women were not encouraged to broaden their thinking or skills and most likely did not desire it, it not being even in the realm of possibility.
Paul's brought more freedom for women (Jesus' teachings did as well). by stating that there is "no male or female" in Christ. Now, we know that wasn't literal since there are obvious differences between male and female but he was pointing to equality of value in God's eyes.
Why would Paul or the Apostles at that time push the leadership of women when it would not be accepted in society for centuries? It was not practical. Indeed Paul is not an advocate for freedom for slaves either and that puzzles many, but in that culture it wouldn't have been right or proper to do so. However, Paul does single out women for commendation on more than one occasion, and many think Junia in Romans 16 seems even to have been an apostle. Priscilla is spoken of as teaching Apollos and her name is given ahead of Aquila's at one point when Paul speaks of the church meeting in their house. Some believe them to have been co-pastors and as Priscilla's name was mentioned first regarding the Roman church she may have had the dominant role there. As I mentioned earlier Deborah was raised up as an authority. Some qualify that by saying that it was "only because no man would take the role". Whatever the reason, God DID set this woman apart as a clear authority...a judge. The judges WERE the authories set up by God in the Book of Judges. This shows God is not completely averse to using women as his spiritual authorities.
Women generally were not accepted in vocations until the late 1800's - early 1900's (primarily a result of the Industrial Revolution) and although most men in the Western world would now say that it is now acceptable, such was not the case a few hundred years ago. Now some would say that women can be accepted into any vocation...even the most powerful position on earth (President of the US), but to have a woman in a spiritual leadership role over men is still anathema. However, I don't believe that God would bar ALL woman EVERYWHERE from having ANY spiritual authority over men. I completely understood the reluctance of those who will not accept it because there is a danger of women abusing authority and using "authenteo" instead of "exousia" and that is real heresy and is occurring now. But this might be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.
That would mean that just about every spiritual leader in the Middle Ages from Augustine to Aquinas was disobedient to God.
Could Paul's command have been for his time...or perhaps for specific areas, for example the particularly profligate Cretan church?
More reading here, if anyone is interested:
http://carm.org/women-in-ministry
Women being subordinate to men in church authority isn’t cultural. How that submission is expressed (veils, hat, etc) is cultural, but rejecting submission is not.
“Pastor” White seems to have no desire to be subordinate to anyone, including God. She is all “me, me, me”.
I try to tread lightly on the “leaders should be married”, out of deference to my Catholic Brethren who believe it is a requirement that pastors NOT be married, and also because I don’t really know of any churches that enforce a marriage requirement for elders and deacons.
I will say that I’ve seen more than a few cases where being unmarried caused difficulties. I also think that you can tell a lot about how a man might be able to lead the church by seeing how they lead their family.
Very true and practical. However, I'm not sure that it's a Biblical rule for every sitution. There are some who had he "gift" of celibacy that Paul speaks of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.