Women in the Church

[tossolul]

I was wondering how Protestants and possible other religions can possible feel it is all right to have women pastors? Especially for protestants, since they hold the bible so much to its words. It never once said in the bible that women should be in high power positions in the church. In fact it says something quite the opposite- it makes it known that women should be submissive to their husbands, implying that males should be the leaders, and women the followers. How can they justify this?

Any thought?

 

[Kevan]

Many “mainline” Protestant bodies do not believe the Bible. Their heritage is sola scriptura, but now they believe that “God” (whoever he/she/it is) speaks in the heart of every person, and the way to find out what “God” wants is to look in your heart, and check with other people who look in their hearts, and see if the people you respect all seem to feel the same way. Then you know what “God” thinks, 'cause that’s what you think.

But, among those who do believe the Bible, they believe that St. Paul was only giving instructions for that day and age, instructions that do not apply in this day and culture, such as “greet one another with a holy kiss.”

Once you’ve made up your mind, one excuse is as good as another.

 

[Scout]

My aunt is going to be ordained next year. She justifies it by saying that Paul was speaking directly to that particular church and the women who were causing trouble in that church.

She also says that the reason women weren’t allowed to preach was because of the culture-women weren’t allowed to do most things at the time. She says that since the culture has changed, then it is okay for women to preach.

Personally, I find her arguements leave something to be desired. If we dismiss one subject in the Bible, saying that it’s out of date, how can we not justify doing it for other subjects in the Bible? These is how people get away with saying that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle-“because the reasons for disallowing it no longer exist”, or something like that.

What’s really sad is that most demoninations, up until recently, did not orgain women. In fact, the college my aunt is attending, wouldn’t even allow women to study homoletics until just a few years ago. It seems that most churches are giving-in to the pressure of the culture.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[O.S.Luke]

Paul made it fairly clear in one of his letters that he was speaking to two women deacons in the church.

O+

 

[tossolul]

Scout:

Personally, I find her arguements leave something to be desired. If we dismiss one subject in the Bible, saying that it’s out of date, how can we not justify doing it for other subjects in the Bible? These is how people get away with saying that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle-“because the reasons for disallowing it no longer exist”, or something like that.
Scout :tiphat:

I agree 100%. I don’t want to be uncharitable, but it many times seems to me that people feel it important to adjust or modernize the teachings of God. When did we all become too Modern for God, and how can anyone see this as a positive thing?

I’ve been dealing with trying to accept the Lutheran Church because my husband is a member of it. He’s pointed out the verse in the bible many times to me about how women should be submissive to their husbands, and the husband should be the spiritual leaders in the family (pointing out his desire for our children and I to be Lutheran also, and any trying on my part to be or raise our children Catholic is therefor being disobedient/sinning)- well I was sitting in his church today listening to the WOMAN pastor and couldn’t help but see the pink elephant in this situation. It seems quite obvious to me that either they are wrong to interperrate the bible in such a matter or they are wrong to allow women to be leaders of the church. It doesn’t seem possible to teach/allow both. The verse from the bible the way he was taught to interperate it clearly shows the woman with the submissive role and the male as being the one who is the leader. Needless to say…I am a little confused

 

[O.S.Luke]

tossolul:

I agree 100%. I don’t want to be uncharitable, but it many times seems to me that people feel it important to adjust or modernize the teachings of God. When did we all become too Modern for God, and how can anyone see this as a positive thing?

I’ve been dealing with trying to accept the Lutheran Church because my husband is a member of it. He’s pointed out the verse in the bible many times to me about how women should be submissive to their husbands, and the husband should be the spiritual leaders in the family (pointing out his desire for our children and I to be Lutheran also, and any trying on my part to be or raise our children Catholic is therefor being disobedient/sinning)- well I was sitting in his church today listening to the WOMAN pastor and couldn’t help but see the pink elephant in this situation. It seems quite obvious to me that either they are wrong to interperrate the bible in such a matter or they are wrong to allow women to be leaders of the church. It doesn’t seem possible to teach/allow both. The verse from the bible the way he was taught to interperate it clearly shows the woman with the submissive role and the male as being the one who is the leader. Needless to say…I am a little confused

Paul’s letter regarding submission is usually read 1/2 way through - it makes it pretty clear that we are to be subject to each other, to be submissive to each other.

O+

 

[Kevan]

O.S. Luke:

Paul’s letter regarding submission is usually read 1/2 way through - it makes it pretty clear that we are to be subject to each other, to be submissive to each other.

Another huge area of dispute within Protestantism.

I believe that the context supports the traditional understanding, and not the modern “mutual submission” idea.

 

[Neithan]

Regardless of what Paul wrote in his letters (even though they in no way support a female priestesshood), Jesus gave us the Divine decree and example by ordaining 12 male Apostles, even when He clearly demonstrated counter-cultural attitudes to Judaism within the context of a pagan empire where priestesses were commonplace. Jesus obviously wanted the priesthood to be male, because He Himself is Incarnated as male and they are to be His agents in the Church. We have more than just static text when we include the example of Tradition.

Catholic understanding of sacrament (means of Grace instituted by Christ) is that there is a physical substance signifying a spiritual reality–and this physical sign in the sacrament of Holy Orders is a man. For example, if a woman is ‘ordained,’ that would be like using grape juice instead of wine, or rye bread instead of wheat in the Eucharist; oil instead of water in Baptism; or two members of the same sex in Marriage: in each of these cases the proper physical substances are not present. The proper physical substance for the **valid **sacrament of Holy Orders includes specifically one *male *body. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body elaborates this whole relationship of sexual identity to our roles in the Church with enlightening clarity, and I highly recommend reading it or a summary of it (such as those written by Christopher West).

 

[O.S.Luke]

Kevan:

Another huge area of dispute within Protestantism.

I believe that the context supports the traditional understanding, and not the modern “mutual submission” idea.

I agree about dispute - but not about the context… I believe it is the basis of the Catholic belief that spouses should not refuse each other the marital duty “when reasonably asked for,” is it not?

O+

 

[Kevan]

Well, we never identified just what passage is under discussion, but when you said “be subject to one another,” I was thinking of St. Paul’s admonition "submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God (Eph. 5:21). I think that the examples which follow (through 6:9) support the traditional view rather than the "mutual submission view.

You may have had a different passage in mind, with a different context.

But I think that they want exegesis to be done in the “Scripture” forum, so I’m now going to beat a hasty retreat from this topic.

 

[Liberian]

Tossolul,

I don’t want to pry, but didn’t your husband promise that the kids would be raised in the Catholic faith when you married? I know that used to be absolutely required, and I thought it was still pretty thoroughly required.

I don’t think you are at all confused. It is a fairly common practice that the Catholic Church turns out to be more directly Biblical than even the so-called Bible churches.

• Liberian

 

[oat_soda]

Paul’s letter regarding submission is usually read 1/2 way through - it makes it pretty clear that we are to be subject to each other, to be submissive to each other.

i think JPII of blessed memory has written about this. usually you hear this expressed that the women is submisive to her husband, and the husband loves his wife. i think there is a difference but weather or not mutual submission is implied i don’t know.

i’ve read some stuff written by robert sungenis which criticizes the popes interpretation on this in his writtings on the dignity of women.

 

[tossolul]

Liberian-

He didn’t because we were married Lutheran. It wasn’t until just recently that I came back to my Catholic faith and we went to have our marraige blessed. At that time the priest mentioned the fact that we should raise our children Catholic, but He knew my husband- and he also knew how much I wanted to be in full communion with the Catholic church so he didnt’ push the issue and just looked at me and said ‘to the best of your ability’.

The thing I find to be so frustrating about all of this is that it very much seems that God went out of His way to bring me back to the Catholic faith- but now that I am here, I am meeting all of this resistence and it is hard to see how my children will be able to benefit from me coming home. I just keep praying…

I thought that bringing up the woman pastor would help my husband to see that there are things about his church that are contradictory, but all it did was cause him to dislike the catholic church more, and not want to talk to me. I’ve come to the conclusion that I have done everything humanly possible where this is concerned. The rest I need to leave up to God. It’s very hard to let go, but when I don’t I only go backwards.

 

[Liberian]

tossolul:

Liberian-

…
The thing I find to be so frustrating about all of this is that it very much seems that God went out of His way to bring me back to the Catholic faith- but now that I am here, I am meeting all of this resistence and it is hard to see how my children will be able to benefit from me coming home. I just keep praying…

I thought that bringing up the woman pastor would help my husband to see that there are things about his church that are contradictory, but all it did was cause him to dislike the catholic church more, and not want to talk to me. I’ve come to the conclusion that I have done everything humanly possible where this is concerned. The rest I need to leave up to God. It’s very hard to let go, but when I don’t I only go backwards.

Tossolul,

I feel your pain. Actually, I think letting go of her children is the hardest thing that a mother can do, bar none, hands down, and without exception. (In an earlier post on a totally different thread I had mentioned family problems of my own; in fact, they stem largely from difficulties in letting go of children.) It will take an awful lot of faith in God to let Him do His thing with your children and not to interfere, and all I can do is to encourage you in it.

St. Francis had a good saying: “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” If I may hazard a guess, based on a total ignorance of your family situation (and the possibility that my family situation may bear some analogy), I think your children will be much more impressed with what you do–and I mean what you do when you’re not trying to make a point with them–than with anything you might say.

I am sure God did bring you home to the Catholic Church for a reason, and I am also sure that you are doing absolutely the right thing when you keep on praying. I will join you in praying.

• Liberian

 

[Mystophilus]

tossolul:

I was wondering how Protestants and possible other religions can possible feel it is all right to have women pastors? Especially for protestants, since they hold the bible so much to its words. It never once said in the bible that women should be in high power positions in the church. In fact it says something quite the opposite- it makes it known that women should be submissive to their husbands, implying that males should be the leaders, and women the followers. How can they justify this?

While it is in many respects a product of its misogynistic times, the Bible goes out of its way to validate women.

“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.”

• Genesis 1:27, a verse emphasised by the fact that it is written in poetic form whilst set amidst prose, states that male and female are the same. After all, why should God, who is spirit rather than flesh (John 4:24), care what shape a person’s ephemeral body happens to be?

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

• Galatians 3:28

The Bible does show women in spiritual guidance roles: as prophetesses, the speakers of God’s will (Ex 15:20, Jdg 4 and 5, 2 Ki 22:14/ 2 Chr 34:22, Is 8:3, Lk 2:36, Ac 21:8-9). No higher position existed. When Apollos of Alexandria went to Ephesus, “Priscilla and Aquila … invited him into their home and explained to him they way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:26). Priscilla taught Apollos.

Elders (in 1 Tim 3:2) and deacons (in 1 Tim 3:11-12) are specifically mentioned as being men, but Phoebe is mentioned as being a deacon of the church in Cenchrea (Rom 16:2; while some translations alter it, the Greek text uses the term ‘diakonos’). As for pastors, the only occurrence of that term in the entire Bible (in Eph 4:11) makes no reference to gender. Most interestingly, Paul’s comment “I do not permit a woman to teach” (in 1 Tim 2:12) is delivered specifically as a statement of personal preference, quite a contrast from his usual statements of fact. In fact, all of the female-subjugating verses are the words of Paul, rather than the words of Jesus.

Despite being a mere woman, Mary Magdalene is the only person mentioned in all four Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, and the only person mentioned in all four Gospel accounts of the resurrection. She was the first person to whom the resurrected Jesus appeared (Mk 16:10).

This is not so surprising, considering that Jesus spent a lot of time with women and succeeded in scandalising his disciples by his liberal attitude towards women (John 4:27). Whom would you rather be like, them or Him?