Women's Role

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think it's funny how everyone is arguing for a prescriptive reading of the bible when we discuss the matter of the church in the city, but on the matter of females in the church all of the descriptive examples come out.

The verse about Deborah is descriptive and it is unclear whether that Old Testament example can be overlayed onto the New Testament church. I say not, because Paul's commands regarding women are prescriptive commands, and using the prescriptive versus descriptive rules that people on this forum seem to like, Paul's New Testament commands take precedence over any descriptive examples you could come up with from the Old Testament.

The reason is that when you look at this one example, you find reasons for restraint on women leading. A culture of domination by women apparently infiltrating the church.

Paul's goal was not domination by men, but the end of domination. Yet in that environment, leadership by women lead to domination by women.

But in other places it was not so. So the examples stand unhindered by the declaration to Timothy. The examples make it clear that there is not a simple prescriptive position. Rather there was a prescription provided for a location that was sick because of a problem that needed help.

Even with prescriptions, they are not always required by everyone. Only the sick. But no matter whether the prescription is universal (more like a vaccine) or case-specific, it is prescribed. But what is never prescribed cannot be turned into a universally-required prescription. Therefore your complaint about dismissing the claim of a city-church rule is pointless since you cannot find such a prescription. That means no basis to claim bias no matter what you think about how to treat this other apparent prescription.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The reason is that when you look at this one example, you find reasons for restraint on women leading. A culture of domination by women apparently infiltrating the church.

Paul's goal was not domination by men, but the end of domination. Yet in that environment, leadership by women lead to domination by women.

But in other places it was not so. So the examples stand unhindered by the declaration to Timothy. The examples make it clear that there is not a simple prescriptive position. Rather there was a prescription provided for a location that was sick because of a problem that needed help.

Even with prescriptions, they are not always required by everyone. Only the sick. But no matter whether the prescription is universal (more like a vaccine) or case-specific, it is prescribed. But what is never prescribed cannot be turned into a universally-required prescription. Therefore your complaint about dismissing the claim of a city-church rule is pointless since you cannot find such a prescription. That means no basis to claim bias no matter what you think about how to treat this other apparent prescription.

This approach of descriptive vs prescriptive falls short when we consider that there are numerous descriptive passages which are considered good and praiseworthy to follow. There are Old Testament commands which were prescriptive to the Old Testament people but which are treated in a descriptive way by Christians, taking hold of their spiritual intent. There are role models in the old and new testament who we treat as examples for us to follow.

When we see how things were done and we include Christ's prayer for oneness and see his intention, then what is described can be considered prescriptive. The bible is not a book of rules but a narrative and simply paying attention only to the prescriptive parts will mean we follow only a part of God's will and desires.

We are inspired by and attempt to follow the descriptive examples of leaders in the faith such as Abraham, Noah etc. No one would say it is wrong to follow in the example of Abraham, yet there is no prescriptive passage that says we must.

Similarly, we look to the way the New Testament church was arranged, as a good example for us to follow. We consider the descriptive aspects with Christ's prayer for oneness. Whatever Christ prayed becomes almost prescriptive for us.

[Nell]

I must admit that I find volume after volume after volume of "Evangelical wisdom" (including his peeps) quite annoying, and that's all I have to say about that.

Here's a question: Do you understand that the indisputable male domination of church "leadership" has single handedly led the church into the mess it's in today? The church is fractured endlessly under male leadership. The church embraces sin of all kinds under male leadership. But don't you nasty ol' deceived women dare to presume that you can come in and take our leadership role away from us. That's OUR job. We can run this thing into the ground all by ourselves, thank you very much.

Then there's this little "Evangelical jewel": "Yet even though willful sin is apparently worse than deception, in church leadership deception is worse than willful sin." I feel better already.

This forum is full of Evangelical tirades about the mess that male church leadership has produced and this "Women's Role" topic is the kicker.

Whose church is it anyway? He is the head, we are his body, the church. Maybe the male dominant leaders should resign and let the Head, Jesus Christ, take over.

Romans 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
1 Corinthians 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Most arguments for female leadership are pragmatic rather than exegetical. I've presented the exegetical side. The pragmatic side is worth discussing.
If you can present any evidence that women could have or would have done a better job at church leadership than men, then please present it.
I can imagine that female leadership would be better in a number of ways besides not being as political as men. One thought, is that pedophilia would be reduced in the Catholic church if they allowed female leadership. However a percentage of Catholic nuns perpetrated or were complicit in sexual crimes committed by men.

[Nell]

I guess you missed the part where I said:
"Whose church is it anyway? He is the head, we are his body, the church. Maybe the male dominant leaders should resign and let the Head, Jesus Christ, take over. "

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

Here's a question: Do you understand that the indisputable male domination of church "leadership" has single handedly led the church into the mess it's in today? The church is fractured endlessly under male leadership. The church embraces sin of all kinds under male leadership. But don't you nasty ol' deceived women dare to presume that you can come in and take our leadership role away from us. That's OUR job. We can run this thing into the ground all by ourselves, thank you very much.

Many good questions. But I'll stick to this one for now.

I cannot say that the leadership is not responsible for the current situation. But there is nothing that makes the situation what it is because the leadership was male. That is a presumption that you cannot establish because there is nothing to support it other than a desire to change things up and see what happens.

And it could work.

But it could be little more than correlation. People do what people do. They do not always see the best way to do things. Do we have any evidence that it would be different if the whole thing had been reversed and it was the women who had lead to where were would be today under their leadership. I would agree that the current state might be different in specific outcome, but are you sure that it would be different in overall outcome? Different problems but overall similar?

There is no doubt that the arguments for strictly subservient roles for women has been detrimental to both the women and society in general. Just as arguing for other positions, like slavery, has resulted in much trouble over the centuries and is still with us today.

But is it simply a "male" thing? Will including women in leadership fix the problems? Could be. And it could be that the nature of the problems just changes. Problem is that women are human too. we all have a propensity for sin.

But beyond that, you are correct. We are all the church, the body of Christ. And that church is affected by the people who are part of it. Both male and female.

Surely there are some women who should not lead. Just as there as some men that should not lead. For the men, a problem is that the ones that really want to lead are too often the ones that should not. And while the outcomes could be very different with women, it could be that the same thing applies there as well. But for both, there are hopefully some who are willing to lead if called to it.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

Many good questions. But I'll stick to this one for now.

I cannot say that the leadership is not responsible for the current situation. But there is nothing that makes the situation what it is because the leadership was male. That is a presumption that you cannot establish because there is nothing to support it other than a desire to change things up and see what happens.

And it could work.

But it could be little more than correlation. People do what people do. They do not always see the best way to do things. Do we have any evidence that it would be different if the whole thing had been reversed and it was the women who had lead to where were would be today under their leadership. I would agree that the current state might be different in specific outcome, but are you sure that it would be different in overall outcome? Different problems but overall similar?

There is no doubt that the arguments for strictly subservient roles for women has been detrimental to both the women and society in general. Just as arguing for other positions, like slavery, has resulted in much trouble over the centuries and is still with us today.

But is it simply a "male" thing? Will including women in leadership fix the problems? And it could be that the nature of the problems just changes. Problem is that women are human too. we all have a propensity for sin.

But beyond that, you are correct. We are all the church, the body of Christ. And that church is affected by the people who are part of it. Both male and female.

Surely there are some women who should not lead. Just as there as some men that should not lead. For the men, a problem is that the ones that really want to lead are too often the ones that should not. And while the outcomes could be very different with women, it could be that the same thing applies there as well. But for both, there are hopefully some who are willing to lead if called to it.

OBW,

I don't disagree with any of your points. Are the problems in today's church because the leaders are male? I doubt it's a "male thing" per se.

Again, I just don't think a misogynist has the moral high ground to point his long crooked finger at women as not qualified for church leadership when males haven't done themselves proud in a leadership role. Can women do better? Over time, probably not. I don't think the real problem is "who's in charge, male or female."

To me, the real problem is both a male AND female problem. That is, the church is divided. It's divided not only by denominations, but within denominations the church is divided by male and female factions. Neither men nor women will "do better" until this division is dealt with.

Is Christ divided? NO. Division is sin. Nothing seems to be as destructive as division. If men and women cared less about "whose in charge" and more about the headship of Christ, the church would have fewer spots and wrinkles. This is the change that I desire.

Nell