So mention of a particular arrangement equals God condoning or even promoting such activities? There are many things that happen in the Bible that are NOT examples of things for us to follow because they go against God's commandments (Abraham and Jacob lying, David committing adultery and murder, Samson committing suicide, Solomon marrying hundreds of wives, etc). Just because there were a few female "leaders" (and you forgot Huldah the prophetess in your list) doesn't mean that that's God's plan for the church.
Sure, but there was generally fairly unsavory consequences for those folks. I don't seen any sort of condemnation in any of the cases that I mentioned about their roles within the early church.
Well I'm not one to turn to Greek really...ever. But is this the same Greek word used in Timothy in the quotes that I mentioned? If so then Phoebe was in violation of those verses because, as a female, it's not possible for her to be the "husband of one wife".
Interesting...why not? That was the original text of the New Testament authors, not the KJV.
😉 As Paul seemed on very good terms with Phoebe and Priscilla (and likely many others), I hear no condemnation of her service in Paul's works of those women.
Again, existence doesn't equal God's approval. Equally true today as 2000 years ago.
In the New Testament in Luke/Acts, God made it pretty clear he wasn't real happy with Ananias and Sapphira. I don't recall Anna, Deborah, Phoebe or Priscilla being rebuked by either Paul, the other apostles, Jesus, or God Himself in the texts. Indeed, I don't think Deborah and Anna would have had too much luck as prophetesses if God didn't approve...kinda hard to be a prophet if the conversation is only going one way!
😉
If you look at the Bible as a whole God Himself appears far more "misogynist" than Paul ever was. Setting up the man as the head in Genesis 3, establishing a line of patriarchs, establishing male kings, only men wrote the books of the Bible, Jesus himself selected 12 male apostles, male leaders of the churches mentioned in the epistles, 144000 male virgins selected in the Tribulation, etc. You're right in that there is mention of a few rare instances of female "leadership" in the Bible but it's hardly the norm, in fact it's quite the deviation from the rest of the leadership of the Bible.
But no where are those examples cited as being wrong. If a woman feels called to pastoral, deaconal, or teaching leadership positions by the Holy Spirit, she should be able to as there is both scriptural and historical precedent.
🙂 I don't recall either Jesus or Paul calling out Anna or Phoebe or Priscilla, etc and saying their great work and witness was wrong or inappropriate. Not something I'd personally do as it's not God's call on my life (though I am a good teacher, if I don't say so myself
), but to say that women who in leadership are being disobedient to scripture is not correct. JMHO.
Ahhhh...I see. If it says "Timothy" at the top of the page it only applies to THOSE churches and THOSE people at THAT time. Well how about :
-There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:1) - What a GREAT promise of God!! But nope...that was for the Romans. Not me. Bummer.
-There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (I Corinthians 10:13) - How wonderful to know that God has everything in my life under control!! Nahhhh...that was for the Corinthians. Not me. Too bad.
How about this:
- All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (II Timothy 3:16). But that is in one of the letters to Timothy, so maybe that doesn't apply either...
Yes, realistically, you have to remember the context of which Paul was writing his letters, which it is unclear as far as I know that he thought "hmmm...while I'm sitting in prison, I think I'll write me some scripture!" There's a reason his undisputed letters like Corinthians are addressed to...the Corinthians. It's not to say they are not true with a capital T or spiritually useful, it's just the context of them as scripture must be taken into context, as all scripture must.
We still are now. That doesn't mean women should be in leadership.
One of my favs from Paul:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.--Galatians 3:28
Ahhh I see. I shouldn't trust the Bible. I should trust these "scholars" and let them educate me out of my belief in God and the Bible and trust what they say about what actually belongs in the Bible and what doesn't. Sorry, no thanks. I prefer to have God and the Bible as my final authority, not professors and scholars - mere mortal men.
No, just that they're not inspired of God and that God's a liar because He said in the Bible that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God.
Not at all. I likewise roll my eyes at some of the New Testament scholars out there.
😛 But the Bible is a very diverse group of writings and a good number of books were almost not considered canonical, this much is historical fact. Not that I fall over myself drooling over non-canonical gospels or letters like some, though I find them interesting, but it is noteworthy to realize that some of the Pauline letters in canon may have been written on behalf of Paul and not written by Paul himself. Indeed, the book of Hebrews may perhaps have been written by Paul, but it is unclear. Looking at sentence structure, eschatology, subject matter, when the letter was written gives us a lot of clues which are quite helpful, just like sorting out the synoptic gospels and what internal consistency is in them is helpful for history and context.
And as it was Paul who wrote that particular part you quoted, was he saying his letters to his associates were God breathed? Or the gospels (which technically were written after Paul likely wrote most of his earlier undisputed letters), unless there's an earlier source gospel earlier than ~60 CE? Or books that almost didn't make the canon like Revelations or that were written well after when Paul wrote around 50-60ish CE? Or the Hebrew Bible? Or all of it? I'm not saying it's not, just something to think about.
🙂
Power is not evidenced just by standing behind a pulpit. Christ himself stated that whoever should be the greatest should make himself/herself the least. I believe the most powerful people in churches today are the people who are spending the most time, money, effort, prayer and love in the service of Christ. Being a "pastor" should NOT be about power.
Absolutely, but as above, the scriptures have clear evidence and precedent for women in leadership, even in times when it was certainly not at all usual in the culture they lived.
That depends on how one defines "educated". I don't have a religious studies degree. I didn't go to an ivy league school or to seminary. But I have the Holy Spirit living inside of me to help me understand, I read my Bible, I pray and I go to church. Really that's all one needs. I will admit that I get a little riled up at the use of degrees and school names and titles to set people apart as being an "authority" on the Bible. It smacks of elitism and reminds me of Roman Catholicism from the Middle Ages - only the priests and rich people spoke or understood Latin and therefore only they could truly understand the Bible and God. That's NOT the way God or the Bible works. The Bible teaches that anyone that is saved has the same access to the same knowledge and wisdom if they will pray and seek God and read their Bible.
As this was more or less addressed to me, I see it like this...God gave us these brains to use. He's a god of knowledge and light, and so if He gifted us with being somewhat intelligent, there is no need to get defensive or riled if someone questions what you belive. If it is the Truth, God doesn't need defending.
😉 Besides, it's almost elitism in reverse by saying you know more than those who have been Christians and have studied the scriptures for decades when you yourself have been on the path for three years. Not that they can't be wrong, mind you, but might I gently suggest a little humility with what the scripture says is or is not true with a capital T. I say this as nicely as possible, but spiritual discipline is a journey, not a destination of how you (in theory with the help of the Holy Spirit) now have it all figured out. They've been pondering these things waaay before you or I!
😀
What you articulated is probably unintentionally offensive to many incredibly intelligent apologists and scholars who work tirelessly on Biblical and theological scholarship, who are in their own way modern day Pauls. No wonder many non-Christians see us being sheltered and being scared of intellectualism and education.
🙁 Yes, Jesus came so all could be saved and all can be by following what it outlines in the Bible, but he also said the first of the TWO MOST IMPORTANT COMMANDMENTS was to love God with all your heart, soul, MIND, and strength (Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27). He does not want us to be scared little sheep bleating what they say in Sunday school because we should, but people who know their faith for something more than "the Bible in this translation of choice with a literal (albeit 21st century) reading with no context says so, so it
must be true." After all, if that's really how it works, that's a pretty sad state of affairs. Christians have long been patrons of great creative works of art, literature, architecture, scholarship, and science and it's unfortunate that there has been trend against such things as something to be feared within evangelical Christianity.
Anyways, I'm more or less rambling now, but if I may suggest a book, probably one of my favorite Christian non-fiction books of the year has been UnChristian by David Kinnamen and Gabe Lyons. You can read a free excerpt here:
http://www.unchristian.com/
