Women in Ministry

[boringoldguy]

No,  my blue string isn't about UNICEF.

I thought I might try to establish a bond of commonality with old Phoebe,  but it looks like she ain't afallin' for it.

[phoebe]

No,  my blue string isn't about UNICEF.

I thought I might try to establish a bond of commonality with old Phoebe,  but it looks like she ain't afallin' for it.

You want to bond with me, BOG?  :blush:

[boringoldguy]

I thought I might try to be friendly.

But perhaps I'll think better of it.

[phoebe]

BOG - I don't know what your problem is with me, but I offer this...

[phoebe]

My peace offering has been rejected...     :headscratch:    :confused:  :shrug:  :banghead:  :cry:

[boringoldguy]

Just mystified.

[phoebe]

Just mystified.

By what, BOG? Surely not me!

I, on the other hand, am mystified by you. Every post I make regarding "woman's role" you attack like I was the enemy. You offer nothing positive to the discussion, avoiding discussing it at all, even at my invitation to do so. But you don't hesitate to offer something that will distract from a real discussion. At times, it seems you are trying to run me off. Why? Of what are you afraid? Why reject my offer of peace? God's world is big enough for all of us, don't you think? Or, maybe you think this forum isn't big enough for the both of us?[/color]

[ConnieLard]

:eatingpopcorn:

[twd]

Perhaps it's easier to attack with sarcasm than to discuss long-held beliefs rationally?

[ConnieLard]

I'm still wondering what the blue string on the wrist means. :)

[boringoldguy]

You can pm me and I'll tell you.

[Skip]

Perhaps it's easier to attack with sarcasm than to discuss long-held beliefs rationally?

If I recall correctly, the reason I've never posted on this thread (until now) is that "discussion" led to irrational threats to ban posters into silence.

[edit]
I see that I did post on the first page that I was leaving for the weekend.
By the time I got back the thread had, shall we say, regressed a bit.[/color]

[phoebe]

"Just for fun", I went back and read this thread and the one in Theology on Fudge's piece on gender from the beginning. (It was not fun. It was rather pathetic.) It's a great study in fallacies for my kids learning to listen for, and identifying, bad reasoning and logic.

If you hang your theology on the kjv, you might be interested in knowing these things:

• kj was a known woman-hater
• kj wanted to keep women subjugated
• kj wanted a bible that promoted bishops and clergy
• kj wanted to make women invisible
• kj wanted to oppose the Quakers, who, at that time, believed women were equal to men in the church
• kj believed in the execution of women for witchcraft, with hearsay being all that was required as "proof"

Don't use a kjv? Not to worry. Every other modern translation is heavily influenced by the kjv. His sins have visited the third and fourth generations.

It was under kj that conflict and confusion with Scripture translation takes hold. Examples:

•The kjv translates hesuchia as "in silence" when the word refers to women, but "in quietness" when referring to men.

•Diakonos is translated as "deacon" or "minister" when referring to men, but when referring to Phoebe it is translated as "servant".

These are prejudicial double-standards by someone known for his blatant prejudices. Yet, we have turned a blind eye for literally hundreds of years.

We were like Eve, deceived into the sin of prejudicial subjugation and silencing. Now, our eyes are opened and we choose to sin, like Adam. We choose to subjugate, to silence. This is what 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is about. One woman messed up because she was duped - Eve. Another, unnamed woman was duped, and she was attempting to cram her agnostic female-superiority talk down the throats of Christians. How could she have been so blind? Easy. Women were not allowed to learn. Paul gives instructions for her to sit quietly at the feet of the masters and learn. (This was how young men - boys - learned.) "Let her learn!" was his cry.

She was duped because of ignorance. As were we. We have been duped by king james.

The "silencing" of women as traditionally held does not hold up under scrutiny. It is in conflict with other passages. That means that there has been something wrong with our interpretation, understanding, and application.

The question is, are we an Eve - sinning out of ignorance, or an Adam - consciously choosing to do wrong?

[Skip]

Certainly you've convinced me that Protestants are misogynists!
Or that King James was...
Or may have been.

And that all Bibles are corrupt!
Protestant ones, anyway...
God is big enough, it would seem, until it comes to protecting His Word...?

Tell me -- do you know if this dastardly conspiracy has extended to the Bibles of the Catholics and Orthodox?

[phoebe]

Certainly you've convinced me that Protestants are misogynists!
Or that King James was...
Or may have been.

And that all Bibles are corrupt!
Protestant ones, anyway...
God is big enough, it would seem, until it comes to protecting His Word...?

Tell me -- do you know if this dastardly conspiracy has extended to the Bibles of the Catholics and Orthodox?

Hardly.

What I am saying is that we foolishly trusted our theology to someone known to have prejudices and agendas.

I am not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[boringoldguy]

If you hang your theology on the kjv, you might be interested in knowing these things:

• kj wanted to oppose the Quakers, who, at that time, believed women were equal to men in the church

I was fascinated to hear this.  

Especially since:

James I died in 1625;
George Fox,  founder of the Quakers,  wasn't born until 1624; and
Fox's public ministry didn't begin until 1647 - 48.

I guess James really didn't like the Quakers,  being that he opposed them after he was dead.    

I always thought that old saying about somebody "turning over in his grave" was figurative.

[spurly]

Perhaps it's easier to attack with sarcasm than to discuss long-held beliefs rationally?

If I recall correctly, the reason I've never posted on this thread (until now) is that "discussion" led to irrational threats to ban posters into silence.

[edit]
I see that I did post on the first page that I was leaving for the weekend.
By the time I got back the thread had, shall we say, regressed a bit.[/color]

Have people really been threatened with banishment for their views on women?

[spurly]

Certainly you've convinced me that Protestants are misogynists!
Or that King James was...
Or may have been.

And that all Bibles are corrupt!
Protestant ones, anyway...
God is big enough, it would seem, until it comes to protecting His Word...?

Tell me -- do you know if this dastardly conspiracy has extended to the Bibles of the Catholics and Orthodox?

If you have convinced Skip, your are talented!

[boringoldguy]

Perhaps it's easier to attack with sarcasm than to discuss long-held beliefs rationally?

If I recall correctly, the reason I've never posted on this thread (until now) is that "discussion" led to irrational threats to ban posters into silence.

[edit]
I see that I did post on the first page that I was leaving for the weekend.
By the time I got back the thread had, shall we say, regressed a bit.

Have people really been threatened with banishment for their views on women?[/color]

Yes,  but not by the person who had the authority to do it.

The threatened banishee has since had a life-altering experience and has changed his views on everything else he formerly believed.   I'd be astonished to learn that he hasn't also repented of his former beliefs about women's roles.

[spurly]

Perhaps it's easier to attack with sarcasm than to discuss long-held beliefs rationally?

If I recall correctly, the reason I've never posted on this thread (until now) is that "discussion" led to irrational threats to ban posters into silence.

[edit]
I see that I did post on the first page that I was leaving for the weekend.
By the time I got back the thread had, shall we say, regressed a bit.

Have people really been threatened with banishment for their views on women?

Yes,  but not by the person who had the authority to do it.

The threatened banishee has since had a life-altering experience and has changed his views on everything else he formerly believed.   I'd be astonished to learn that he hasn't also repented of his former beliefs about women's roles.[/color]

We all grow in our knowledge as we mature in our relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ.

[Barry H. Manners]

Make sure the vice president doesn't visit these boards.  He might see your dove and shoot at it with his shotgun.

[phoebe]

If you hang your theology on the kjv, you might be interested in knowing these things:

• kj wanted to oppose the Quakers, who, at that time, believed women were equal to men in the church

I was fascinated to hear this.  

Especially since:

James I died in 1625;
George Fox,  founder of the Quakers,  wasn't born until 1624; and
Fox's public ministry didn't begin until 1647 - 48.

I guess James really didn't like the Quakers,  being that he opposed them after he was dead.    

I always thought that old saying about somebody "turning over in his grave" was figurative.

BOG - Just want you to know that your observation was correct re: the conflict in dates with king james and George Fox. I have contacted the source for my info seeking further clarification and support for his statement. I will respond as soon as I hear from him. It is possible it was a typo, or he was referring to a group of people who had not formally named themselves.

It does still stand as fact that king james, along with a host of other "men" of history, despised and killed women simply for their gender. A gender genocide occured, if you remember. All that I can document, and at great length for you, if you'd like.[/color]

[boringoldguy]

I'll be fascinated to see your documentation of King James' genocide against women.

[Skip]

There is a bit of irony in all of this for me, since I've studied Bible history (that is, the history of the English Bible) to some degree.

The KJV is more properly an Anglican version; the Protestant version was the Geneva Bible, translated in 1560 and revised in 1599, and not associated with King James. The KJV was actually to compete against the Geneva Bible.

The Geneva Bible online, so you can compare your favorite woman-bashing passages:
http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html

Anyway, it turns out that the KJV translators ended up about 95% the same as the Geneva Bible in the end (probably would have seen a copyright lawsuit in this day-and-age).

I think that you will find that King James Psychogenetic Fallacy is an empty argument.
For the unassociated Protestant Geneva Bible translates things the same way and predates the KJV by 50 years...

[edited for clarity]

[rlbaty]

I don't know that I've posted on this thread before.  If I have, my apologies for probably being redundant and a bit on the practical application side of things.

I think one measure of how well women may be incorporated "into the ministry" will be their ability to obtain designated housing allowances for their work at private schools like ACU, Harding, etc.

Or, maybe even at local churches.

Maybe that is already going on and has been addressed.

If so, I would appreciate a reference.

In any case, it would be nice if some here who might have experience and knowledge of such things might give their "testimony" as to how (church of Christ) women in ministry are claiming the same tax status as their male counterparts; either in local churches or private schools or similar institutions.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

[CDHealy]

I don't know that I've posted on this thread before.  If I have, my apologies for probably being redundant and a bit on the practical application side of things.

I think one measure of how well women may be incorporated "into the ministry" will be their ability to obtain designated housing allowances for their work at private schools like ACU, Harding, etc.

Or, maybe even at local churches.

Maybe that is already going on and has been addressed.

If so, I would appreciate a reference.

In any case, it would be nice if some here who might have experience and knowledge of such things might give their "testimony" as to how (church of Christ) women in ministry are claiming the same tax status as their male counterparts; either in local churches or private schools or similar institutions.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

:alert:  Warning!  Thread Hijack Alert!  :alert:

C'mon, Robert.  Keep your tax conspiracies over on your tax thread.

[janine]

Doesn't need to be a tax conspiracy for the problem to exist.

Seems to me if you can prove you do XYZ work for a church, it doesn't matter if lots of churches -- or even if your very own church -- will back you.  YOu makes your claims and you pays your taxes.

[SkyDancer]

I feel that women can be in the ministry-But what I'm confuses about is,Can they teach or preach over man. and I was told to day that a women can not pray over a man??? Not even there husband.
HUMMM
show me in the bible please

[spurly]

Sky dancer, you will not find that in the Bible.

[WileyClarkson]

Skydancer,

When understood in the historical context of what and why Paul was writing what he did instread of the 21st century black and white print on the page, it becomes a limiting factor only to the women who were false teachers and who were going against the standards of of a totally male controlled society that could not accept women in leadership at any level.

The Bible does not limit women in ministry or the teaching of men by women in the church.  In fact, it gives several examples of just the opposit.  What it does do is limit anyone who would teach heretical doctrin as some of the women in Ephesus were doing.

For a better understanding of this, read "I suffer Not a Woman" by Richard Clark Kruger and Katherine Clark Kruger.  It is a hermeneutical study of 1 Tim 2:11-15.  It is available through Amazon.com.