View Full Version : Views on women in the ministry?



Patrick
02-02-2005, 08:44 PM
This isn't meant to be an attack on a certain gender, just a look at a controversial doctrine in many denominations and the Catholic church. Should women be priests/pastors?

mranderson
02-02-2005, 08:49 PM
Not Priests. However, in other denominations yes.

Patrick
02-02-2005, 08:49 PM
Personally, I'm opposed to women being senior pastors/priests of a church. Not because I'm sexist, but just because the Bible states that men should serve in that role and that women should remain silent in the church.

Patrick
02-02-2005, 08:55 PM
Just FYI, because I thought I might be asked for the facts:

1 Corinthians 14:
"As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

2 Timothy 2:
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Patrick
02-02-2005, 08:57 PM
I don't really think this is a big issue though. I'm actually pretty open, so I don't want people to take me the wrong way. I'm just presenting one side. I suppose it would probably be easy to support the other side as well. Any thoughts guys?

Midtowner
02-02-2005, 10:42 PM
It's an interesting debate. I think it's more rooted in tradition for the sake of tradition than anything else. I do see it being something that will change. In the early church, women served as priests and even Bishops.

Patrick
02-02-2005, 10:57 PM
Re: the statement you made about women being bishops and priests in the early church

Have any facts to back that up Midtowner?

Midtowner
02-03-2005, 07:02 AM
Early Women Priests

Those opposing the ordination of women deny any historical precedent. However, the presence of women in the priestly ministry of the early church has been ignored or denied. Giorgio Otranto, director of the Institute of Classical and Christian Studies, University of Bari, Italy believes evidence of women priests is found in an epistle of Pope Gelasius I (late 5th c). His epistle was sent to bishops in three regions in southern Italy. One of his decrees in this epistle states,

"Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance that divine affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong."

This Pope condemns very harshly the conduct of bishops who went against certain church canons by conferring priestly ordination on some women. He is probably referring to canons from four councils which took place within a 100 year span starting in the second half of the 4th century; the councils of Nicaea, Laodicea, Nimes and the first council of Orange (441). These church councils prohibited women from participating in the liturgical service in any way, or from being members of the clergy.

Professor Otranto thinks these prohibitions prove just the opposite. "If the church councils banned the ordination of women as priests or deacons that must imply that they really were ordained." Otherwise, why ban them? As Otranto says, "A law is only created to prohibit a practice if that practice is actually taking place - if only in a few communities."

He points to the presence of women priests (presbyterae) in the area of Tropea, in Calabria where there is an inscription from a sepulchre referring to Leta presbytera. It is dated 40 years before Gelasius’ letter, a date and location that indicate she probably was one of the women to whom Gelasius was referring. In the term ‘presbytera’ one should see, Otranto believes, "a true and proper female priest, and not the wife of a male priest, as other scholars have held on the impulse of a Catholic historiographic tradition that has never made any concession to the female priesthood."

Another presbytera is recorded in an inscription on a sarcophagus in Dalmatia and bears the date of 425. The inscription reads that a plot in the cemetery of Salona was purchased from the presbytera Flavia Vitalia. Here a presbytera (female priest) has been invested with an official duty, which from a certain period on was appropriate to a presbyter.

So far fifteen archeological inscriptions have been found that indicate ordained women. Rome maintains these women were ordained by heretical groups.

However, it is known that all of the geographical regions where these inscriptions are found were places with only orthodox Christian communities. None of the heretical groups existed in these areas.

Dorothy Irvin, a theology professor with a doctorate in Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern archaeology, believes she also has found evidence that women were priests and bishops in the early Christianity.


One site she refers to is a mosaic in an ancient church, Santa Praxedis, where four women are depicted, two saints, Mary and a fourth woman with the inscription Theodora Episcopa (Bishop [feminine] Theodora). The pastor of the church says the church was built by Pope Pascal I who was honoring his mother, who was named Theodora, with the title Episcopa because she was the mother of a pope. However, Professor Irvin points out that she is clearly wearing a coif, indicating that she is not married.

http://www.womensordination.org/pages/why.html

(that's just an excerpt, and one of many articles I could have published).

I actually learned about this originally in a Church History class that I took as a sophomore at Bishop McGuinness.

Floating_adrift
02-03-2005, 07:35 AM
So is this an example of something that, in the past, would have been re-written in the bible to correspond with man's (or women's) idea of the way the bible should read?

Keith
02-03-2005, 07:40 AM
"Personally, I'm opposed to women being senior pastors/priests of a church. Not because I'm sexist, but just because the Bible states that men should serve in that role and that women should remain silent in the church."

:iagree:

I Timothy 3:2, 12

2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
12: Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


Women are very important in the church. We have lots of women at our church that teach Sunday School, and there are many outreach programs and ministries that they are involved in. However, the women do not take up the offering, nor do they lead in prayer during a worship service. The funny thing is, about a month ago we broke tradition in our church, when the pastor asked a lady to lead in the dismissal prayer. It came as a surprise to many in the congregation, however, it was rather refreshing, and nobody complained.

Floating_adrift
02-03-2005, 08:12 AM
So does the church simply decide to disregard what it says in the bible about women not speaking/teaching in the church? How is it justified?

Midtowner
02-03-2005, 08:14 AM
So is this an example of something that, in the past, would have been re-written in the bible to correspond with man's (or women's) idea of the way the bible should read?

I absolutely believe that the Bible has been rewritten to accomodate this view. Well.. we'll just call it a hunch.

Floating_adrift
02-03-2005, 08:22 AM
So I suppose I could rewrite it to suit my needs too! cool! :D

Midtowner
02-03-2005, 08:52 AM
So I suppose I could rewrite it to suit my needs too! cool! :D

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Here's a very interesting article on it.

Floating_adrift
02-03-2005, 09:03 AM
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Here's a very interesting article on it.

lol - interesting site...

Floating_adrift
02-03-2005, 12:09 PM
Awfully quiet in here...

Midtowner
02-03-2005, 01:53 PM
My new favorite quote at the top of the article:

"If the truth is that ugly -- which it is -- then we do have to be careful about the way that we tell the truth. But to somehow say that telling the truth should be avoided because people may respond badly to the truth seems bizarre to me." --Chuck Skoro, Deacon, St. Paul's Catholic Church

Rev. Bob
02-03-2005, 09:21 PM
I absolutely believe that the Bible has been rewritten to accomodate this view. Well.. we'll just call it a hunch.

This is absurd. If this were true the Bible would've been rewritten to match 21st Century changes in society. In today's society, women are viewed as equals. Thus, many churches have gone away from the traditional Bible and started ordaining women pastors. If the Bible changes with society, why hasn't it been rewritten to match today's culture?

The Bible reflects the culture of the time it was written. During that time, women had few rights.

Rev. Bob
02-03-2005, 09:23 PM
So is this an example of something that, in the past, would have been re-written in the bible to correspond with man's (or women's) idea of the way the bible should read?

It reflects the culture at the time it was written, so no it was NOT rewritten.

The reference Midtowner makes isn't the Bible but an example from a religious faith.

Rev. Bob
02-03-2005, 09:24 PM
So does the church simply decide to disregard what it says in the bible about women not speaking/teaching in the church? How is it justified?

Some churches do disregard what the Bible says. That's why we have so many women in the ministry today. The church uses the excuse that society has changed. No, they don't rewrite the Bible, they just change their interpretation of how the Bible relates to today's society.

Floating_adrift
02-03-2005, 10:14 PM
Some churches do disregard what the Bible says. That's why we have so many women in the ministry today. The church uses the excuse that society has changed. No, they don't rewrite the Bible, they just change their interpretation of how the Bible relates to today's society.

It would seem to me that christians should stick with the word of God regardless of the way society changes. If you let the course of society direct the path of the church, who is ultimately making that decision if it isn't the God you worship?

Rev. Bob
02-03-2005, 11:19 PM
It would seem to me that christians should stick with the word of God regardless of the way society changes. If you let the course of society direct the path of the church, who is ultimately making that decision if it isn't the God you worship?

I agree with you Floating_adrift. That's why we don't have women pastors in our church or denomination.

SoundMind
02-04-2005, 01:39 AM
My sound mind tells me this is a very controversial topic.

Midtowner
02-04-2005, 07:15 AM
This is absurd. If this were true the Bible would've been rewritten to match 21st Century changes in society. In today's society, women are viewed as equals. Thus, many churches have gone away from the traditional Bible and started ordaining women pastors. If the Bible changes with society, why hasn't it been rewritten to match today's culture?

The Bible reflects the culture of the time it was written. During that time, women had few rights.

Well, it would be a LOT more difficult to do it today when the lay person is capable of reading and memorizing the Bible. In the middle ages, dark ages, and in the days of the late Roman Empire, this was not the case at all. The logical premises in your question are faulty.

Floating_adrift
02-04-2005, 08:03 AM
My sound mind tells me this is a very controversial topic.

Which makes it more important to discuss. ;)

Floating_adrift
02-04-2005, 08:07 AM
Well, it would be a LOT more difficult to do it today when the lay person is capable of reading and memorizing the Bible. In the middle ages, dark ages, and in the days of the late Roman Empire, this was not the case at all. The logical premises in your question are faulty.

Hmmm, that's a really good point that I hadn't considered before. The religious leaders of the time would have been able to pull out whatever parts they wanted to teach and leave the rest alone. Not many would have known the difference.

Midtowner
02-04-2005, 12:47 PM
2. How was the Canon of the Bible formed?

a. The formation of the Old Testament Canon.

The formation of the Old Testament canon was gradual, and was composed of the writings which spread over many centuries.

Moses commanded that the books of the law be placed in the ark. This--with the addition of the book of Joshua--was done, and the sacred books were kept there during the wilderness journey, and also were in the ark during its permanent residence in Jerusalem. (Deuteronomy 31:9,26, cf. 2 Kings 22:8; Joshua 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25.)

Then were gathered and placed in the temple the historical and prophetical books from Joshua to David's time. On the construction of the temple Solomon deposited in it the earlier books (2 Kings 22:8, Isaiah 34:16), and enriched the collection with inspired writings from his own pen, and also some prophetic writings. So we find Daniel (9:2, R.V.) referring to "the books," Isaiah to "the book of the Lord" (29:18, 34:16).

After Solomon's day a succession of prophets arose, Jonah, Amos, Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Obadiah, and Habakkuk. These all flourished before the destruction of the temple, and enlarged the collection of existing sacred books by valuable additions.

After the Babylonian capture, when the temple was rebuilt and worship re-established, then doubtless were added the writings of Haggai and Zechariah.

About fifty years after the temple was rebuilt Ezra made a collection of the sacred writings (Neh. 8:2,3,14). To this collection were added the writings of Nehemiah, Malachi, and Ezra. It is a fact of history that Nehemiah gathered the "Acts of the Kings and the Prophets, and those of David," when founding a library for the second temple, 432 B.C. (See 2 Maccabees 2:13).

The canon of the Old Testament in the form we now have it, was the work of Ezra and the Great Synagogue. This fact is borne witness to in the most ancient Jewish writings. The Great Synagogue was composed of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. There is no doubt but that such a collection of books existed in the time of our Lord and the apostles (Luke 24:27,44).

b. The New Testament Canon

The New Testament canon was gradually added to that of the Old Testament. But it was some considerable time after our Lord's ascension before any of the books contained in it were actually written.

The first and most important work of the apostles was to deliver a personal testimony to the chief facts of the Gospel history (Mark 16:15; Acts 1:21,22). Their teaching was at first oral, and it was no part of their intention to create a permanent literature. A cycle of selected representative facts sufficed to form the groundwork of their oral Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-10).

But in the course of time many endeavored to commit to writing this oral Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). So long as the apostles were still living, the necessity for written records of the words and actions of our Lord was not so pressing. But when the time came for their removal from this world, it became extremely important the authoritative records should be put forth. Thus the Gospels came into existence, two by apostles themselves, and two by friends and close companions of the apostles.

But already had arisen another kind of composition. Founders of churches, often unable to visit them personally, desired to communicate with their converts for purposes of counsel, reproof, and instruction. Thus arose the Epistles, which were put forth from time to time to meet special needs and emergencies.

The persecution of Diocletian (302 A.D.) brought to the front the question of the sacred literature of the church. The persecutors demanded that the Scriptures should be given up. This the Christians refused to do. Hence the question became urgent--What books are apostolic? The answer lies in our New Testament. There were at that time many false and spurious gospels and epistles. Careful, prayerful, and deliberate examination, however, proved which were genuine and which were false. The genuine were received by the church as the inspired writings of the apostles and others whose names the books bear. Thus arose the New Testament canon.

http://www.anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.html

****

If anyone doubts that the Bible is the product of history's longest game of telephone, here's your proof :D

The Bible wasn't even canonized (made official by someone) until 367 A.D.

367 years is a long time -- especially when the average life expectancy is 35-40. Before we can even get into the Bible being changed on purpose to promote someone's agendas, how about being changed due to differences in understanding, etc. over a 300 year period? Especially when your group has been persecuted and hunted for almost that entire period. But hey... some of y'all believe that the Earth was created in 7 days and that the sun revolves around the Earth, etc... so I guess this isn't much of a stretch.