I’ve just heard on the radio that 42 out of 42 dioceses in the Church of England voted for the ordination of women bishops, but it was the small number of laity within the Synod who stopped this going forward.
To me, it’s very clear that this forward step of progress will come shortly in the future, but meanwhile I thought some might be interested in reading some of the early Christian history regarding women. This is an archive link from BibleTexts.com - the link I have for it is down as I write, but it'll jump to the next one:
http://www.bibletexts.com/women.ht m">
Q&A #78 - Women's roles in early church -- real history, revisionism, and making things right
The main argument against the ordination of women bishops seems to be the apostolic succession and the fact that Jesus only had male disciples. Well, in those days, if he’d traveled around with women as well, they would have been considered to be prostitutes!
But let’s remember that Jesus never discriminated against women. He spoke to a Samaritan woman (a race considered inferior by Judaism in those days and Jews were supposed to have no dealings with them). Thus Jesus showed that he not only had no gender prejudice, but no racial prejudice either! More importantly, Jesus showed himself first to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection and she went on to become an important Christian leader.
This was a startling fact I found out a few years ago: Women were declared human by one vote! Tradition has it that in the year 584 C.E., a council was held in Lyon, France, where the question of women's humanity was debated by church leaders. Sixty-three delegates were reportedly present; 32 voted yes and 31 voted no.
"...Jesus associated with women freely and welcomed them as followers..........
In the years following Jesus' ministry, Christian churches were more inclusive than other associations in the Roman world, appealing to men and women of all races and classes. So, what could have led to this debate over the humanity of women?"
I'm not Eve" -- women's place in theology redefined
[url]I'm not Eve[/url]
Mary Baker Eddy, who, nearly 140 years ago founded a new Christian denomination, in which men and women are fully equal, wrote:
[COLOR="Blue"]"Let it not be heard ... that woman, "last at the cross and first at the sepulchre," has no rights which man is bound to respect. In natural law and in religion the right of woman to fill the highest measure of enlightened understanding and the highest places in government, is inalienable, and these rights are ably vindicated by the noblest of both sexes. This is woman's hour, with all its sweet amenities and its moral and religious reforms." (No and Yes p 45)
Love and peace,
Judy
Seems we girls have always had a bad press - in one Middle Eastern country it was possible to register the birth of a baby boy and your camel, but not a baby girl. Things might have changed, but I haven't heard different.
Equality of the sexes is very slowly improving - 100 years ago they were fighting for the right for women to vote in elections. It seems culturally men prefer to have the upper hand - then this extends into all sorts of spheres, including religion. Some would prefer to keep it that way, it seems.
Ah well, let's look forward to seeing all people as people and not graded according to their sex or even sexual orientation!
For anyone interested in the Early Church, Barbara Thiering's book is excellent.
And just for a bit of fun - in response to the arguments that women are spiritually, biologically, and/or socially unsuited to leadership - here are...
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]TEN REASONS
ACCORDING TO THE NATURAL ORDER OF THE WORLD, SOCIAL CUSTOM, AND THEOLOGY
WHY MEN SHOULD NOT BE ORDAINED
[COLOR="Blue"]1. The male physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as picking turnips or de-horning cattle. It would be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work. How can we argue with nature?
2. For men who have children, their duties as ministers might detract from their responsibilities as parents. Instead of teaching their children important life skills like how to make a wiener-roasting stick, they would be off at some committee meeting or preparing a sermon. Thus these unfortunate children of ordained men would almost certainly receive less attention from their male parent.
3. According to the Genesis account, men were created before women, presumably as a prototype. It is thus obvious that men represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
4. Men are overly prone to violence. They are responsible for the vast majority of crime in our country, especially violent crime. Thus they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
5. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. His lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinate position that all men should take. It is expected that even ordained men would be unable to withstand the natural male tendency to buckle under pressure.
6. Jesus didn't ordain men. He didn't ordain any women either, but two wrongs don't make a right.
7. Men are simply too emotional to be ordained. Their conduct at football matches, in the army, at political conventions and especially at Promise Keepers Rallies amply demonstrates this tendency.
8. Many men are simply too handsome to lead public worship. They could prove to be a distraction to the women in the congregation!
9. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture and strengthen a whole congregation. But these are not traditional male roles. Throughout the history of Christianity, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. If men try to fit into this nurturing role, our young people might grow up with severe gender role confusion.
10. If the Church is the Bride of Christ, then it goes without saying that all ordained leaders should be female. It just makes theological sense!
(source: )
😀
Yay they've done it! 😀
[url]Church of England General Synod backs women bishops[/url]
Love and peace,
Judy
Wonderful news 🙂
I know that Stephen 100 has gone from here and I have been reading the views with great interest. I agree with Judy, Giles, etc that The Bible was written by man at a time when little of the world was understood and at a time when males predominated over females. This was done mainly to counteract the pagan religions, where woman was dominant over man or at least, equal. The misogynistic Bishop Cyril in the 3rd century AD arranged The Bible books 'in his own image', picking and choosing those works, which left out woman and the female principle in nature and in Christianity. Judy's followings are the right ones: Jesus's teachings was inclusive off all, including women and homosexual people.
The ordination of firstly women as Vicars and now Bishops is simply going back to how things were originally, how Jesus intended them to be.
Good post Mrs S!
I heard/read somewhere that with original Christianity, which was of course house churches, that 1 in 4 of them were started by women.
I think Mary of Magdala (or Mary Magdalen) was probably done the greatest dis-service when Pope Gregory named her as the prostitute in Luke 7, who washes Jesus feet with her tears and dries them with her hair.
in the first centuries of Christianity, some Church Fathers wondered, here and there, if the named Mary Magdalene might be the same person as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, as well as the repentant woman who comes to Jesus at the end of Luke 7, just before Mary Magdalene is first mentioned by name in Luke 8.
In 591, Pope Gregory I preached a homily in which he explicitly associated all of these women, and identified Mary Magdalene as the sinful woman of Luke 7. From that point on, this was an important part of her identity for medieval Christians.
Note, however, that neither Gregory nor any subsequent preacher or writer "demonized" or maligned Mary Magdalene. It was quite the opposite. She was held up as a model and figure of hope. Her story was told and expanded over and over again, with the focus not being sinfulness, but rather redemption. Throughout the Middle Ages, other aspects entered into the story, as well – her evangelizing in Provence, her supposed decades of contemplative life, and so on. She inspired numerous saints, she was present in art mostly as a faithful disciple at the foot of the cross, either mourning or supporting Mary, the Mother of Jesus, but she was never demonized. She's a saint! Her feast day is July 22!
The Vatican did nothing about this slur on her character until 1969. there was no apology, but the Second Vatican Council simply altered the reading for Mary's feast day from Luke 7 to the Gospel of John, Chapter 10, verses 1-2 and 11-18.' Sadly, so many people still associate her with the prostitute.
Nothing wrong with prostitutes I hasten to add - just not fair to call her one if she was not. In fact, when I think of Jesus' gracious treatment of the prostitute who washed his feet with her tears and then of how he rescued the woman caught in adultery with his "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8) He simply was not judgmental with people's human weaknesses (or financial necessities) What he had no patience with though, was the hypocrisy among the religious leaders.
Good post Mrs S!
I heard/read somewhere that with original Christianity, which was of course house churches, that 1 in 4 of them were started by women.
I think Mary of Magdala (or Mary Magdalen) was probably done the greatest dis-service when Pope Gregory named her as the prostitute in Luke 7, who washes Jesus feet with her tears and dries them with her hair.
The Vatican did nothing about this slur on her character until 1969. there was no apology, but the Second Vatican Council simply altered the reading for Mary's feast day from Luke 7 to the Gospel of John, Chapter 10, verses 1-2 and 11-18.' Sadly, so many people still associate her with the prostitute.
Nothing wrong with prostitutes I hasten to add - just not fair to call her one if she was not. In fact, when I think of Jesus' gracious treatment of the prostitute who washed his feet with her tears and then of how he rescued the woman caught in adultery with his "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8) He simply was not judgmental with people's human weaknesses (or financial necessities) What he had no patience with though, was the hypocrisy among the religious leaders.
Good post Mrs S!
I heard/read somewhere that with original Christianity, which was of course house churches, that 1 in 4 of them were started by women.
I think Mary of Magdala (or Mary Magdalen) was probably done the greatest dis-service when Pope Gregory named her as the prostitute in Luke 7, who washes Jesus feet with her tears and dries them with her hair.
The Vatican did nothing about this slur on her character until 1969. there was no apology, but the Second Vatican Council simply altered the reading for Mary's feast day from Luke 7 to the Gospel of John, Chapter 10, verses 1-2 and 11-18.' Sadly, so many people still associate her with the prostitute.
Nothing wrong with prostitutes I hasten to add - just not fair to call her one if she was not. In fact, when I think of Jesus' gracious treatment of the prostitute who washed his feet with her tears and then of how he rescued the woman caught in adultery with his "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8) He simply was not judgmental with people's human weaknesses (or financial necessities) What he had no patience with though, was the hypocrisy among the religious leaders.
Hi Judy,
You have hit the spot! Between Pope Gregory and Bishop Cyril, all references to women's involvement as preachers of Christianity were excised from The Bible. These two went even further and erased God's wife Asherah from the books too, threatening anyone who still worshipped her with excommunication. So she had to go too. It was as if the men in those days were scared of women and the supposed power they had in the early Church, and how Jesus liked women. They wanted to keep him celebate and apart. What they didn't mention was, that Jesus's early years were spent in Kashmir, France and some say Cornwall and South Wales. Therefore he was worldly, knowledgeable and informed.
Love,
Patsy.
xxxxx
Hi Patsy, that was quick!
Yes, I have heard all the tales of Jesus' uncle who was a trader - anything is possible as there was a big gap in the NT from when he was 12 to when he started his mission at age 30. No definite evidence though.
With the god/goddess. To me, God is Spirit itself, is Love itself, is Life itself, is Truth itself (plus much more). I see God as the intelligence, divine Mind, behind all ideas, as the Principle behind all spiritual laws, and as the one Soul, expressed through individuality, beauty, harmony. I don't see God as being an anthropomorphic deity, with or without a wife! :confused: To me that is humans making God in our image and likeness, rather than understanding that we are made in the image and likeness of Spirit, therefore our true identity is spiritual and holy - one with our Creator.
But yes, among the early peoples of that region, there certainly were many gods and goddesses (or idols as they are called in the Bible) that were worshipped until the Children of Israel gradually embraced a higher understanding.
Love and peace,
Judy
And the last one from me today:
To add a bit more. There are fragments of a Gospel of Mary and I love the last chapter.
The disciples, especially Peter, were not pleased when the learnt that Jesus had revealed things to her that he hadn't to them. Uh oh! 😳
3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.
4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?
5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?
6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.
7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.
8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.
10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.
I apologise if I'd already shared that earlier in this thread. I really can't bear to go back and read all those arguments with Stephen 100. I felt really sorry for him. I'm sure he felt we were all ganging up on him but we were simply trying to reason, but it was a closed mind.
Love and peace,
Judy
But yes, among the early peoples of that region, there certainly were many gods and goddesses (or idols as they are called in the Bible) that were worshipped until the Children of Israel gradually embraced a higher understanding.
Judy is right here. Yahweh, Asherah and others were all originally anthropomorphic, tribal gods and goddesses worshipped by the people of the ancient Middle East, including the Hebrews. The shift from polytheism through henotheism (worshipping one god but not denying the existence of others) to pure monotheism only happened very gradually and with plenty of setbacks along the way. You only have to read almost anywhere in the historical parts of the Old Testament to find the prophets rebuking those who have gone back to worshipping humanoid gods and goddesses (Asherah's name is included in a number of modern Bible translations).
But certainly well before Jesus' time, the Jews had left these earlier practices and were adamant in their belief in ONE all-encompassing God, who simply could not be represented in or by any physical form - male or female. Asherah was not "erased" from the Bible by medieval Christians. She had ceased to be believed in or worshipped by the Jews centuries earlier. :rolleyes:
I can understand the impulse, especially for us in the modern world, to see the abolition of a goddess figure as a setback for women's rights in religion. But is it really? To me as a woman, it seems far more freeing to worship a God who (as the New Testament reveals) is Spirit, is divine Love itself - so far above and beyond any physical representation or our human concepts of gender and all the baggage that goes with them - than to revert to worshipping a humanoid god and goddess who (like all anthropomorphic deities) are really just imaginary magnified mortals. o_O
a humanoid god and goddess who (like all anthropomorphic deities) are really just imaginary magnified mortals. o_O
I know this is the Christianity forum, so I'm in no way arguing - but you do know that there are many people who still have multiple (humanoid or not) deities, don't you?
Yes, Crowan, I do. And I'm in no way arguing either. 🙂
Judy is right here. Yahweh, Asherah and others were all originally anthropomorphic, tribal gods and goddesses worshipped by the people of the ancient Middle East, including the Hebrews. The shift from polytheism through henotheism (worshipping one god but not denying the existence of others) to pure monotheism only happened very gradually and with plenty of setbacks along the way. You only have to read almost anywhere in the historical parts of the Old Testament to find the prophets rebuking those who have gone back to worshipping humanoid gods and goddesses (Asherah's name is included in a number of modern Bible translations).
But certainly well before Jesus' time, the Jews had left these earlier practices and were adamant in their belief in ONE all-encompassing God, who simply could not be represented in or by any physical form - male or female. Asherah was not "erased" from the Bible by medieval Christians. She had ceased to be believed in or worshipped by the Jews centuries earlier. :rolleyes:
I can understand the impulse, especially for us in the modern world, to see the abolition of a goddess figure as a setback for women's rights in religion. But is it really? To me as a woman, it seems far more freeing to worship a God who (as the New Testament reveals) is Spirit, is divine Love itself - so far above and beyond any physical representation or our human concepts of gender and all the baggage that goes with them - than to revert to worshipping a humanoid god and goddess who (like all anthropomorphic deities) are really just imaginary magnified mortals. o_O
Hi Charis,
You are right about the freedom to worship a divine Spirit, a Spirit of Love, Compassion and Understanding and also, to have an understanding of that Spirit as a manifestation of nature/the whole/Universe. Our ancient ancestors used images to try and understand the male and female principles in Nature, Yes, Asherah had been excised by the medieval period - I am sorry if I led you to think I meant that. It was just that when it came to choosing what to include in The Bible, references to her were to be kept to a minimum or not at all.
I personally do not reconcile female deities with women's rights at all. They are/were representations of the female principle in nature, nothing more.
Love,
Patsy.
And the last one from me today:
To add a bit more. There are fragments of a Gospel of Mary and I love the last chapter.
The disciples, especially Peter, were not pleased when the learnt that Jesus had revealed things to her that he hadn't to them. Uh oh! 😳
I apologise if I'd already shared that earlier in this thread. I really can't bear to go back and read all those arguments with Stephen 100. I felt really sorry for him. I'm sure he felt we were all ganging up on him but we were simply trying to reason, but it was a closed mind.
Love and peace,
Judy
Hi Judy,
This is absolutely correct. This passage only reinforces the notion that Jesus had women disciples as well as men, that the Gospels of the women were deliberately kept out of The Bible and that maybe, there was more to Jesus than we have been led to think i.e. that not only did he encourage women in his entourage, but that he actually loved them.
Love,
Patsy.
xxx
I personally do not reconcile female deities with women's rights at all. They are/were representations of the female principle in nature, nothing more.
.
Hi Patsy,
I know you've addressed this to Charis, but I just wanted to say that I agree!
We are told in Genesis 1 that God made man (mankind) in His image and likeness, male and female. If God's image and likeness is male and female, then God must be male and female, but not in a gender way, as after all God is Spirit and therefore our real identity is spiritual. The way I read Genesis 1 is that God made us male AND female (not men and women) That we each embody both the fatherhood qualities and the motherhood qualities of God which brings completeness.
I’m sure that most of us struggle with the “gender” of God as using “He” or “She” gives it an anthropomorphism, but using "It" sounds cold and impersonal.
However, this explanation by Mary Baker Eddy works for me:
Do I believe in a personal God?
I believe in God as the Supreme Being. I know not what the person of omnipotence and omnipresence is, or what the infinite includes; therefore, I worship that of which I can conceive, first, as a loving Father and Mother; then, as thought ascends the scale of being to diviner consciousness, God becomes to me, as to the apostle who declared it, "God is Love,"--divine Principle,--which I worship; and "after the manner of my fathers, so worship I God." (Miscellaneous Writings 96)
Regarding those feminine attributes of God, why the Bible is full of them! In fact, in Hebrew, one of the names for God is El Shaddai, as below:
El-Shaddai means God Almighty. El points to the power of God Himself. Shaddai seems to be derived from another word meaning breast, which implies that Shaddai signifies one who nourishes, supplies, and satisfies. It is God as El who helps, but it is God as Shaddai who abundantly blesses with all manner of blessings.
One of the passages in the Hebrew Scriptures where El Shaddai is used is Psalm 91. I love the idea that it can be read:
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty breasted-one, who nurtures, supplies, nourishes and satisfies." 🙂
There are several passages in the Hebrew Scriptures in particular where God is pictured through feminine imagery, like these:
Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her: That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory. For thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees. As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem. (Isa 66)
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me. (Isa 49)
For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him. (Duet 32)
So all this dogmatic insistence that God is a wrathful, punishing male doesn't wash with me! :p
Cont below
Julian of Norwich, a 15th century anchoress, had a series of revelations, which included seeing God as Mother. This troubled her as it conflicted with the teachings of the "Holy (Catholic) Church" of her time, so she explained it away through the Virgin Mary, but this is part of her revelation and it's so beautiful:
"...and so I saw that God rejoices that he is our father and God rejoices that he is our mother and God rejoices that he is our true husband and our soul his beloved wife."
and ".....I saw that he is to us everything which is good and comforting for our help. He is our clothing, who wraps and enfolds us for love, embraces us and shelters us, surrounds us for his love, which is so tender that he may never desert us. And so in this sight I saw that he is everything which is good, as I understand.
And in this he showed me something small, no bigger than a hazelnut, lying in the palm of my hand, as it seemed to me, and it was round as a ball. I looked at it with the eye of my understanding and thought: What can this be? I was amazed that it would suddenly have fallen in to nothing. And I was answered in my understanding: It lasts and always will, because God loves it: and thus everything has being through the love of God." ("The Revelation of divine Love")
Mary Baker Eddy called God Father-Mother and said this:
"In divine Science, we have not as much authority for considering God masculine, as we have for considering Him feminine, for Love imparts the clearest idea of Deity."(Science and Health p 517)
and I thought you'd also be uplifted by how just substituting one word in the Bible for the feminine sense gives it a deeper understanding of the nature of God as Mother:
PSALM XXIII
[DIVINE LOVE] is my shepherd; I shall not want.
[LOVE] maketh me to lie down in green pastures: [LOVE] leadeth me beside the still waters.
[LOVE] restoreth my soul [spiritual sense]: [LOVE] leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for [LOVE] is with me; [LOVE'S] rod and [LOVE'S] staff they comfort me.
[LOVE] prepareth a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: [LOVE] anointeth my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house [the consciousness] of [LOVE] for ever. (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures p. 578)
Love and peace,
Judy
Julian of Norwich, a 15th century anchoress, had a series of revelations, which included seeing God as Mother. This troubled her as it conflicted with the teachings of the "Holy (Catholic) Church" of her time, so she explained it away through the Virgin Mary, but this is part of her revelation and it's so beautiful:
"...and so I saw that God rejoices that he is our father and God rejoices that he is our mother and God rejoices that he is our true husband and our soul his beloved wife."
and ".....I saw that he is to us everything which is good and comforting for our help. He is our clothing, who wraps and enfolds us for love, embraces us and shelters us, surrounds us for his love, which is so tender that he may never desert us. And so in this sight I saw that he is everything which is good, as I understand.
And in this he showed me something small, no bigger than a hazelnut, lying in the palm of my hand, as it seemed to me, and it was round as a ball. I looked at it with the eye of my understanding and thought: What can this be? I was amazed that it would suddenly have fallen in to nothing. And I was answered in my understanding: It lasts and always will, because God loves it: and thus everything has being through the love of God." ("The Revelation of divine Love")Mary Baker Eddy called God Father-Mother and said this:
"In divine Science, we have not as much authority for considering God masculine, as we have for considering Him feminine, for Love imparts the clearest idea of Deity."(Science and Health p 517)
and I thought you'd also be uplifted by how just substituting one word in the Bible for the feminine sense gives it a deeper understanding of the nature of God as Mother:
PSALM XXIII
[DIVINE LOVE] is my shepherd; I shall not want.
[LOVE] maketh me to lie down in green pastures: [LOVE] leadeth me beside the still waters.
[LOVE] restoreth my soul [spiritual sense]: [LOVE] leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for [LOVE] is with me; [LOVE'S] rod and [LOVE'S] staff they comfort me.
[LOVE] prepareth a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: [LOVE] anointeth my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house [the consciousness] of [LOVE] for ever. (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures p. 578)Love and peace,
Judy
Well here I am, two years on, replying to myself.
On Tuesday night there was a very interesting programme on BBC 4, about Julian of Norwich. Hers' was the first book written by a woman in English - and what a book and what bravery to share the revelations she had which so directly contradicted the teachings of the church. It's available for another month on iPlayer.
[url]BBC Four - The Search for the Lost Manuscript: Julian of Norwich[/url]
I would have liked more about Julian and her writings which so challenged the church's version of theology and God and rather less of Dr Ramirez, but it's still well worth watching.
Love and peace,
Judy
There was also this the other day on the BBC:
There was also this the other day on the BBC:
Thanks Giles - I hadn't seen that. It'll take a long time for the Catholic Church to admit, but women were deliberately air brushed out of church history.
I agree with Steve, no woman was appointed to be an ordained pastor in the early church.
But woman may teach other women and children at Sunday school of ladies meeting and make messages for kids club and do pastoral counselling care for other women and children.
This is my experience. I don't believe that the Lord would call a women to be an ordained pastor, to plant and lead a church and to be an under head of Christ in the church family.
I agree with Steve, no woman was appointed to be an ordained pastor in the early church.
But woman may teach other women and children at Sunday school of ladies meeting and make messages for kids club and do pastoral counselling care for other women and children.
This is my experience. I don't believe that the Lord would call a women to be an ordained pastor, to plant and lead a church and to be an under head of Christ in the church family.
Pah, what a load of sexist rubbish.
You weren't there in the 'early church' so how would you know that no woman was appointed. You only believe what you've been told.
Why wouldn't the Lord call a woman to lead a church. Is the Lord judgementally sexist too?
Thankfully, Jesus was not a misogynist, like so many of his followers are! He traveled with women, they supported him financially, (Luke 8:1-3; Mark 7:24-30; Matthew 15:21-28); he spoke to them freely though it was against the rules of Judaism, women were last at the cross, and most important, he chose to show himself after the resurrection, first to a woman.
I found this Christian website looking at 5 books about the role of women in the early church:
Paul’s early letters were not misogynistic either.(Some Bible scholars feel that the anti-women bits were added by others at a later date for political reasons)
He wrote, for example: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28:
In his letters, he often greeted the many women who were involved in spreading the Word and in running the house churches (which is how the early Christian church started). See Romans 16:1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 15; Philippians 4:2-3; Philemon 2; I Corinthians 16:19; Acts 16:15; Colossians 4:15; I Corinthians 11
Paul’s letters mentioned several women who were the leaders of house churches - Apphia, Prisca, Lydia of Thyatira and Nympha of Laodicea and from the article I’ve linked to above:
"Paul also mentions Phoebe in Romans 16, “a deacon of the church at Cenchreae.” He calls her a prostatis or overseer. This term in its masculine form, prostates, was used later by the Apostolic Fathers to designate the one presiding over the Eucharist. And Paul uses the same verb, the passive of ginomai (to be or become), as he uses in Colossians 1:23: “I was made a minister.” In the passive, the verb sometimes indicated ordination or appointment to an office. Thus one might legitimately translate Paul’s statement about Phoebe: “For she has been appointed, actually by my own action, an officer presiding over many.” The church in Rome is asked to welcome her and assist her in the church’s business."
And Chavah, have a look at Genesis 1 and the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God. If God’s image and likeness (reflection) is male AND female, doesn’t that make God male and female too? 😉
Love and peace,
Judy
Pah, what a load of sexist rubbish.
You weren't there in the 'early church' so how would you know that no woman was appointed. You only believe what you've been told.
Why wouldn't the Lord call a woman to lead a church. Is the Lord judgementally sexist too?
Haha . You made me laugh. I am a woman too. I would never answer a call to be a lady pastor because I know what we are like. It's really too much of a responsibility for a woman to take on. And ruine the marriage as well. I belive, everybody must know their place in the body of Christ where God wants them to be.
Leading a church as an ordained pastor is not measured out for a woman. Until the Lord Jesus Christ himself convince me otherwise, I stick with what I have been taught so far for the last 21 years.
You do a disservice to women around the world by putting yourself down so much. (and yes, women can be sexist about women too, so the fact you're a woman makes no difference)
You have chosen to be subservient to men because of what you have been taught, though women worldwide have proven that women are just as capable of doing most of the things that men can do (there will always be some things men can do that women can't and visa versa), so you would rather believe what some sexist men have taught you than what is truly shown throughout the world by woman who have shown that genders are equal.
I would never answer a call to be a lady pastor because I know what we are like.
So, what are you like?
If you're going to wait for Jesus Christ to convince you otherwise, I suspect you'll be waiting a long time; the dead are not very talkative.
This is my experience. I don't believe that the Lord would call a women to be an ordained pastor, to plant and lead a church and to be an under head of Christ in the church family.
I would never answer a call to be a lady pastor because I know what we are like. It's really too much of a responsibility for a woman to take on. And ruine the marriage as well....
Leading a church as an ordained pastor is not measured out for a woman.
Dear Chavah,
Your convictions are deep and sincere and you have every right to feel that way about yourself — that you couldn't and wouldn't be a female pastor and that God would not call you to do this. But please remember there are and have been many other women, throughout history and today, who have been just as deeply and sincerely convinced that God HAS called them to be an ordained pastor or leader within the church and that this truly is His will for them. You do not speak for all women — none of us do — and you cannot say on someone else's behalf (nor can I or anyone else) what God has or has not called that person to do, even if you personally don't agree with their conviction.
I shared earlier in this thread how a deeper look into history can reveal facts about women's leadership in Christianity that have long been deliberately buried or written out of history books — including early Christian groups who held female prophets as equal to male ones, and women being ordained in the medieval church: It's a topic worth thinking about.
Love to all,
Charis
Haha . You made me laugh. I am a woman too. I would never answer a call to be a lady pastor because I know what we are like. It's really too much of a responsibility for a woman to take on. And ruine the marriage as well. I belive, everybody must know their place in the body of Christ where God wants them to be.
Leading a church as an ordained pastor is not measured out for a woman. Until the Lord Jesus Christ himself convince me otherwise, I stick with what I have been taught so far for the last 21 years.
You do a disservice to women around the world by putting yourself down so much. (and yes, women can be sexist about women too, so the fact you're a woman makes no difference)
You have chosen to be subservient to men because of what you have been taught, though women worldwide have proven that women are just as capable of doing most of the things that men can do (there will always be some things men can do that women can't and visa versa), so you would rather believe what some sexist men have taught you than what is truly shown throughout the world by woman who have shown that genders are equal.So, what are you like?
If you're going to wait for Jesus Christ to convince you otherwise, I suspect you'll be waiting a long time; the dead are not very talkative.
Hi again...
Thank you for your characteristic answers and strong opinions alone this topic.
I hear new names about myself, like sexist, and feel rather uneasy expressing my thought here.
I think, it's feels like, I just got smacked by a stranger, who thinks, men convinced and taught me to mind traditional things, originally prescribed from the beginning for woman. Well, this is not true. It was God the Holy Spirit gave some good life lesson and taught me.
Sin came into the world because the woman got deceived and the man willfully followed her, after his own heart. That is why God said, man is the first one who was made to rule. And the woman was formed from man for him.
God is the creator of order and stability. Women was not meant to be the first under Christ to give an account or lead as a pastor directly under the head of Christ.
God wanted to protect the woman, by saying to Eva, that your desire will be your husband and he will rule over you.
Men is accountable to Christ and God directly about their life, call ect. Woman is protected by the men's responsible action in discretely instructing, correcting, teaching woman and as per say the church, so men would not put to shame again like in the garden at the beginning.
It's for protection against God's judgment that women is called to mind things that is safer for them to be engaged in and not to get deceived again and ruin things.
God also knew, what men, Adam was capable of. Remember, he was so intelligent, he named all of the animals. How many we can memorise by name. Did Eva ever asked to look after the field or name the animals, or had her name called by the Lord in the garden?
She was made for her husband. So what Adam liked Eva to do around the field or in the garden, that was she supposed to be busy with. I don't think anything is wrong, to have Godly fear obeying God's solutions for mankind.
Obedience is the very best way to show that you believe the person and authority and almighty God, who set up the universal laws according to His wisdom and placed men and women into rolls to serve Him and bring glory to Him.
I don't think women misses out or unequal in anyway to men in responsibility or duties of leadership capacities.
But the Lord God walked in the garden and called Adam...
Please ,remeber, I didn't 'name call' you in my answers nor ridiculed your views neither used sarcasm. You are free to obey God according to your own wisdom.
Please, show respect by writing your answers to everyone in a polite manner as you were taught once in kindergarten. Thank you.
Chavah,
I am not calling you names. Being sexist is an attitude, not a name, and in this day and age, saying that women are a lesser gender than men, or that men are somehow superior, is a sexist attitude. The words you speak of men ruling over women IS a sexist attitude, whether you want to believe it or not; so it's not about what you ARE, it's about the attitude you are sharing. And, for the record, I do discuss things in a polite manner, but topics are allows to be debated with strong words if they are justified. I cannot help if people misinterpret such things as 'name calling' when they are not.
God and spirit did not teach you these things (unless you really are talking directly to God, in which case many people would probably like to get in touch with you), the teachings come from teachers who supposedly pass on these things, yet those teacher are influenced down the line by their teachers etc. and along those lines society has passed through many periods where men have suppressed women, so it is inevitable that the teachings are influenced by those sexist attitudes.
I don't think women misses out or unequal in anyway to men in responsibility or duties of leadership capacities.
I think history tells another story. If woman haven't been missing out, why has there been so much in history where women have had to fight for their rights to equality.
It is the same religious attitude that has, terribly, led to some religious groups believing that woman should be suppressed to the point that they are just object to be abused. This is never right, and certainly would not be the way of a God who purports to love all of humanity and all creatures. All of the 'justifications' you give, are just man created biased teachings.
As a man, I would never choose to treat a woman as a lesser being.
The Old testament talks very often about women being in positions of authority. Read Judges. And there is good evidence that women had equal authority in the early church. (Although probably not evidence that you would accept) I do not believe a loving God would create two unequal sexes. I do not see myself subservient to men in any way, and have happily received the sacrament at the hands of a female member of the clergy.