Women Leaders

[Amie]

Interested in knowing how we women are coming along in the new emergent churches? check it out (http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/EmergingWomen.pdf)

:) Amie

[christyG]

very interesting.

thanks Amie:)

Christy

[Amie]

We're having an interesting discussion in the comment section along these lines here: http://planetpreterist.com/news-2853.html#cmnts

I'm interested in any thoughts out there :)

Amie

[Paige]

Here is what I posted there:


"Your supporting arguments seem to stem largely from the fact that women are mentioned prominently in the new Church, and that they would prophesy. Very simply: how does the acknowledgment of these facts force us to conclude that women can teach men (even when the inspired writers of scripture specifically taught the opposites AND GAVE THEIR REASON?) This is very, very hard for me to understand."

Brad,

It is very hard for me to understand your stance that a woman couldn't teach but she could prophecy. In every catalog of spiritual gifts found in Paul's writings in Rom.12, 1 Cor.12, and Eph.4, the ministry of teaching is ranked subsequent to the ministry of prophecy. In the numerically graded list in 1 Cor. 12:28, teacher appears in 3rd position, AFTER prophets and apostles. Because women were allowed to prophecy (1 Cor. 11:5), the comparative value of prophecy and teaching in terms of their authority-intensiveness has momentous implications for the interpretation of the prohibition in 1 Tim. 2:12. Since apostles and prophets provided the foundation of the church (Eph. 3:5), their ministry is by necessity more authoritative than the 3rd ranked teachers whose ministry is not described as being foundational to the church or revelatory as is that of prophets. To interpret 1 Tim. 2:12 as you would have us presents a dilemma. How is it that women are forbidden to teach or exercise authority over men, while they otherwise have access to the most authoritative ministry in the church after that of the apostles? Here is a modern equivalent. You would be prohibiting women in the military to accede to the lesser rank of captain, while allowing them to be promoted to the superior rank of colonel!

Col.3:16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom TEACHING and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to the Lord."
Did the apostle Paul write Colossians to men only? I think not. Here Paul tells the members (male and female) of Christ's body to teach and admonish one another. He makes no exception for females.

Paige

Lets see where it goes...(Thank you Gilbert Bilezikian!)

[kevinbeck]

Amai and Paige,
The best definition of a leader I ever heard came from Steve Farrar (at least I think it was him). Anyway, it goes, "A leader is someone who leads." Anybody can call any position anything they like. But from where I sit you both look like leaders to me regardless of holding any "title" or not.

[Amie]

As per me, I'm not sure whether it's leadership, or stubbornness, lol! That's an "aw shucks" thank you Kevin.

[backtothefuture]

Hi Hi,
Since I have been reading a book called The Womans Torah Commentary, it really opened my eyes to the Jewish Woman and their struggles also to be heard in a male dominated world. I just always thought that it was in the Christian circles that Woman have had to work their way up so to speak. It never even dawned on me, that other woman in other faiths are and have faced the same struggles as those under most Christian religions, or in the world in general.
In the Christian faith, most of us know that woman preachers are still practically a no no. Although, there have been some break throughs.
Well, in the Jewish faith, its not been that many years that there are now some Woman Rabbi's. They are having the same struggles being heard.
Of course, this is my own opinion for years. And that is I feel God is raising up woman!!:clap2:
Nancy

[kevinbeck]

All too many years ago, we had a "major contrversy" in our little church. Can women stand at the communion table and pass the trays of bread and grape juice. (God forbid using wine!)

Anyway, after going through all of the Biblical apporaches to the matter (are there any?) I just couldn't take the nonsense anymore. So I settled the subject once and for all. I said, "My wife brings me my supper at home? Why can't she do the same at church?"

That got a few laughs, and everyone got the point. That pretty much ended the conversation. How ironic is male chauvinism? You can bring me my supper by not the Lord's Supper. Some of the stuff religious people argue over is amazing!


PS:
Just in case you're wondering, Alisa usually does fix supper in our house...even if I am a better cook! :D

[Amie]

Kevin,

It's good that they got your point, and that there's men like you out there making points like that. In my experience, I am rarely taken seriously by religious men. I can't imagine how people could view other human beings as less (rather than just different - like we are!).

Amie

[christyG]

Another great discussion!

Good story Kevin! I am still a part of a church in my area and honestly, I can't imagine my church even bothering to have the discussion. It would just be the unanimous decision that women CANNOT serve communion. I would imagine that this would be the case in many traditional churches. Maybe that accounts for the rise in non-traditional churches. People are seeing that the traditional way of doing things is out-dated and hindering our growth as a collection of people. Even hindering our growth as Christians.

You go Amie!

It IS sad that many still cannot accept women.

For now, I am remaining a part of my church, and I hope to affect change within it. I really do hope to be more vocal in this respect. Even though it would be easier to just leave the "old has beens" and go it on my own or look for something more progressive, but then I think -- Jesus did not have that attitude. He wasn't satisfied to "just leave the old has beens" alone and start a new. His was an attitude of change. He acknowledged that some would just not get it, but it didn't keep him from affecting the ones he could from inside the framework of which they were familiar.

Christy

[Truthseeker]

Hi All,

I don't see that anyone "leads" at all. Jesus said, "Call no man your leader, for you have one Leader, the Christ, and you are all brothers." Titles, positions--I see no place for them today, but that's just my opinion. :)

All stand equal before God. In Paul's writings, being the transitory Apostle he was (living in the now but not yet; getting a physical people ready for a Spiritual Life) in the flesh, a woman was in subjection to her husband and of course, this was all symbolic and needed for a physical people who were transitioning into being Spiritual people once all was fulfilled, and the symbol pointed to Christ as head of the Bride (the Church.) But in the Spirit, Paul testified that women were equal to men, heirs with them. So once the Old (the Physical passed away) then all (both male and female) stood in the Spirit before God as equals, and that's where we stand today, I believe. This is why in Scripture, women were in subjection--the Woman was the Symbol God chose to represent the Church. Physical people need physical experience before understanding Spiritual things.

But "leader", "teacher"--titles--what need is there for them? --rhonda

[Tam]

Rhonda, Like what you said.

IMO the whole male authority thing started as a part of the curse(so we've been taught). I say if I'm going to work at anything...it'll be against the curse. A curse is suppose to be a BAD thing. So why pamper it and have seminars on how to do it better? Nike says "just do it" and I say "just don't do it" :D

Tami

[Paige]

But "leader", "teacher"--titles--what need is there for them? --rhonda

I agree. I think so much of it comes down to puffing ourselves up at the root of it. Its like we're all clamoring for the 'best' place at the table.

Paige

[Barry]

Rhonda,
Your post was imho very insightful. :clap2:
There is imho a "role play" in the genders ("in Christ") in the transition of the ages. That ended in AD 70 (1 Cor. 7:29-31) IMHO. The term "role play" is what I use to describe what you are speaking of. Don't know if it is a very good term but anyway LOL...

Your spiritual vs physical is insightful IMHO. I have tweaked my own thoughts on spiritual vs physical to "human possibility vs God possibility" (Matt. 19:26). This way a "barrier" is not automatically formed separating physical from the essence of life. This seems also to follow Paul's thinking in his covenantal language concerning "in the flesh" and "confidence in the flesh" which was a confidence in the old mode of existence.
That "creation" being one where human potential was accountable as if it were God's possibility. This IMHO is what Adam brought in and what defines "sin" that the Bible speaks of. Sin (noun) therefore spoke of the "status" of humanity in that mode of existence and therefore the behavior and shortcoming within that mode as sins (verb).
Behold the Lamb of God who take away the sin (noun) of the world (old covenant mode of existence typified in Israel), therefore meant that sin (verb) is no more.
Now then IMHO we must look toward our behavior in terms of responsibility and consequence. Which is what Adam had to deal with in his freedom to eat any of the fruit in the Garden (except one).
Now with the "marriage" of the "bride" God's possibility can work with humanity and bless humanity as we grow in responsibility and understanding.
It's just my view :)

Sorry to ramble sis. And I'm in the girl talk section. :eek: Somebody call a moderator!!! Get this guy out of here! :1231: :rofl::rofl:
What a blessing that you are with us here at TG. As are all the Ladies here and the new comers. Can't say enough! Guess you noticed :rofl::rofl:.
Love Barry

[Tam]

Barry,

Funny you mention "role play". That phrase is even in the headers in our bibles yet nowhere to be found in the "actual bible". But then when I think about the word "role"...it's really play acting...being what you're not. I think that's why alot of these sorts of techniques didn't work very well in my own marriage. When we finally decided to bag the "play acting" doing what we're "suppose" to do, and finally just let each other be who we are...it made an absolutely positive affect on our marriage. So I agree with alot of the teachings that "role" is the appropriate word....just not for the same reasons!:D

So I like the way you phrase it "play acting". And I agree with your take on it. :)

Tami

[Barry]

I have moved my reply to the men's voices to allow this thread to stay on track. Please join me there if you like in "because of the angels"

But on topic with what you are saying Tami, I think you are right on target. Finding ourselves is great. Being honest an genuine is where we want to be IMO.
Still finding ourselves may be a process. We may be way off and then make steps forward. But then there may be other steps to take as we go.
What do you think sis?
Barry

[Amie]

Hi all :)

I wonder though, has "leader" been taken out of context by those who see themselves (other others see) as "authorities" and "heads".

A leader is someone who takes the initiative. Though no one could initiate the fulfillment of all things but Christ, and no one can initiate what has already been fulfilled, certainly there are those who "go first" so to speak.

Some women are still uncomfortable speaking in a Christian atmosphere and may feel inspired by others who lead the way.

As per the male authority beginning in the garden - Adam is still head over the wife. Adam after all is identified as Jesus himself.

Just some thoughts..

Amie

[Tam]

Yep Barry, I'd agree on that. :) Tami