Women Elders?

[Guest]

I think God has His reasons.

So please elaborate: What do you think those reasons are?

[Guest]

I think God has His reasons.

So please elaborate: What do you think those reasons are?

I couldn't tell ya - does it matter?

I do think something about the man's and woman's respective makeup demonstrates something about the nature of the relationship between Christ and the Church. The above materials should give further insight, but it's been a while since I've read them and don't have particular examples in my mind at present.

If you are really trying to struggle through this issue, it's really a good idea to investigate what some of the leading complementarians (and Steve) have said/written on the subject. I've heard and read a lot of these points and agree with them, but had no real incentive to keep them in mind as I didn't need "convincing" so to speak, and I've just never heard any support of the contrary positions that resonated in any way with me or scripture, so I'm sorry I have no more for you unless you want to discuss a particular criticism or application of the principle to a particular situation.

[Guest]

Danny, let's assume that you are correct, and that Paul's instructions concerning women applied to the culture of the day, but not to our culture.
How, then would you exegete the following passage? Why would Paul give such instructions concerning women even in the culture of his day?

For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. I Corinthians 14:31-35

[Guest]

Hi Darin,

I've enjoyed the dialog. I'm quite familiar with the complementarian viewpoint, having heard it almost exclusively for 20+ years. A few years ago, however, I did begin struggling with it (I believe at the Holy Spirit's prompting) and eventually emerged an egalitarian.

You've said that you can't tell me what you think God's reasons are for excluding women from authority positions within the church. That strikes me as odd. You are an intelligent and thoughtful person. I imagine you could tell me the "why" behind most of your theological positions. If I asked you why Jesus died on the cross, I'm sure you could give me a cogent answer. Yet on this position you cannot put forth a compelling reason for why God would exclude women.

Some of the early Church Fathers attempted to answer this "why" question about women. Their explanations tend to appear quaint and ludicrous at best and misogynistic and spiteful at worst. This is especially true in light of women's achievements in the modern world.

For myself, I found that I was simply and unquestioningly holding to a tradition, even though I couldn't explain it's purpose. That, coupled with the conviction that I might be participating in the marginalization of gifted female believers, spurred me to dig deeper.

[Guest]

If I asked you why Jesus died on the cross, I'm sure you could give me a cogent answer.

I'm actually not so sure I can do so -- I've been struggling intellectually with virtually every aspect of the atonement. The "what" is quite clear in Scripture and I accept it without reservation but I don't begin to understand it. None of the "systems" of understanding the how or the why satisfy me, but I'm still reading their proponents.

That, coupled with the conviction that I might be participating in the marginalization of gifted female believers, spurred me to dig deeper.

You must not understand my position then. I have a great deal of respect for female believers and do not believe it marginalizes them. Eldership and teaching authority (not all teaching mind you) is itself at the margins, and most service is well inside of that margin in my opinion. Some of the more gifted teachers I've known have been women -- some might disagree with the practice, but our church even permits women to "teach" to our bible study classes. However, they do so under a "pairing" with a male teaching leader to which they submit for authority in the classes.

Does it marginalize Christ to suggest He is subject to the Father?

I could certainly give you a more cogent explanation of your question if I were to dig back into this "dialog" but it's just not something I've looked at in a while, and as I am aging, if I learn something new it almost always pushes out something old -- unfortunately, the details of this debate is one of the areas that has made room for others. I'm sure others have comments at their fingertips, and besides -- if you have been studying this on the complementarian side for that long, you no doubt already know all of the arguments. I'd be glad to discuss any of them, but simply listing them here doesn't sound all that edifying in light of the work it would require on my part at the risk of other things I am presently studying.

If I renew that study (the Holy Spirit isn't leading me to do so at this time), I'll come back here and update, but til then I do hope someone with better recall can energize this present discussion because I do think it is an important doctrine and a definite error.

[Guest]

Does it marginalize Christ to suggest He is subject to the Father?

A huge difference is that Christ willingly submits to the Father. It is not mandated. As believers, we are to submit one to another, out of love. Mandated and non-reciprocal submission of one group to another based solely on gender (or race or some other common attribute) is quite a different story and does indeed marginalize that group.

Paidion, exegesis forthcoming...

[Guest]

One point that may or may not make a difference, at least in my church, is that the elders generally dont teach. they are responsible for making decisions regarding things, but they don't really assume teaching or preaching roles. It's more like a board of education, for lack of a better comparison.

TK

[Guest]

One point that may or may not make a difference, at least in my church, is that the elders generally dont teach. they are responsible for making decisions regarding things, but they don't really assume teaching or preaching roles. It's more like a board of education, for lack of a better comparison.
TK

When I say elder I mean that functionally by scriptural definition and not by organizational position. Our nominative "elders" are similar to yours, but our teachers are our functional "eldership."

Mort, do you think the Catholics should require their priests/bishops to be married?

Also, we don't know to what extent the Father likewise commands the Son's submission. The fact that He does so willingly doesn't prove the point.I think that women who are seeking to follow God's will similarly "willingly" surrender to their husbands.

[Guest]

One point that may or may not make a difference, at least in my church, is that the elders generally dont teach. they are responsible for making decisions regarding things, but they don't really assume teaching or preaching roles. It's more like a board of education, for lack of a better comparison.
TK

When I say elder I mean that functionally by scriptural definition and not by organizational position. Our nominative "elders" are similar to yours, but our teachers are our functional "eldership."

Mort, do you think the Catholics should require their priests/bishops to be married?

Also, we don't know to what extent the Father likewise commands the Son's submission. The fact that He does so willingly doesn't prove the point.I think that women who are seeking to follow God's will similarly "willingly" surrender to their husbands.

[Guest]

Thanks Mort. You wrote:

it was not at all unusual or scandalous for men to have sexual dalliances outside of the marriage bed.

Disgusting isn't it?

Peace, dmatic