Successful Women
by Ted Slater on 07/08/2008 at 10:42 AM
When you hear that term, what comes to mind?
A couple of days ago I was flipping through some old copies of my grad school alumni magazine. They featured current and former students who'd done well, who had gone on to write books, make waves in government, take on pastorates, receive teaching awards, produce prize-winning films, head up inner city missions, and so on.
And that was just the women.
The message is that "successful women," those whom we should honor for their leadership skills, are those who influence people on a large scale. The more people affected by the alumna, the more successful.
But what about those women who went on to influence a small group of people, and more deeply? What about those women who, with master's degrees in hand, chose to forgo acclaim and take on the humble responsibility of being mere mothers? Who exchanged the inch-deep significance of a sterile board room for the eternal significance of the family room?
It's enough that my alumni magazine promotes women pastors, a vocation with no biblical precedence. But by remaining silent about the influential role of full-time mother, they imply that such women may not be counted among the "successful."
I know it's a cliche, but perhaps it is so because it's so true: In their last moments, women will likely not regret having spent so few hours working for The Man. They'll regret not having spent as much time as they could with the ones they love. In the case of married women, that's likely to include their children.
It's fine to recognize the success of women outside the home. Let's also recognize the too-overlooked success of those who, as the saying goes, rock the cradle.
Um, did I mention that we're expecting our third daughter to be born this Friday? Not sure that's relevant.... ;-)
1. Ronnica said the following at 11:17 AM on Jul 8:
I'll be receiving my M Div this December, and I truly appreciate this post. So many times I'm asked what I'm going to do with my degree. Tough I'm not married nor a mother, I don't plan on conquering the world, either. I love the opportunity I have to serve in my church as a laywoman, and that's very fulfilling to me. I see no reason why I need to attempt to gain prestige in the ministry or any other field.
2. Bethany said the following at 11:50 AM on Jul 8:
I come from a small conservative Bible college that treats ministry the same way, you're only a "successful" alumni if you have a big ministry reaching many and come back and visit all the time to share your "ministry joys". What about all the men and women that go out and get full-time jobs in the "secular" world and raise children to love the Lord. These women (and men) truly have the higher calling that doesn't get the recognition it should from Christian "culture". Ever since graduating early and getting married young I've had to fight the feelings of "settling" I get from my friends at college. Frankly, I think serving God in the local church especially behind the scenes is what Paul called good in the New Testament. Thanks for bringing that out!
3. Tami said the following at 11:52 AM on Jul 8:
Since you asked ;)
Per the Lord's definition:
"This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success." (Joshua 1:8)
So I hold that success is in the achievement of what God calls you to do; living with integrity within His will (both His revealed will in His Word, and the specific things He wills for your life).
"Success" for me is in fulfilling whatever He's asked (whether it's completing a particular class, or serving at church, or developing healthy relationships), at whatever point in my life I'm at.
I'll be praying for your forthcoming child. :)
4. Jo said the following at 12:18 PM on Jul 8:
1) Congratulations on the soon-to-be-born new Miss Slater. :)
2) I get what you're saying, but to be fair, articles on successful men would be unlikely to include the teachers, the builders, even the doctors - they too would focus on men who have influenced the world in some more obvious large-scale way. So I agree with you that what the world deems successful and what God deems successful are often two different things. But I'd be wary of turning the whole thing on its head and going to the opposite extreme. In the end, success is doing what God asks you to do, and that is different for every man, and every woman.
5. farmer Tom said the following at 12:20 PM on Jul 8:
I wish I had time to again write out the story of my grandmothers life. Her life is an example of a woman who chose the role of wife and mother, and has had a spiritual impact on the lives of literally thousands of people.
In summary she felt called to China as a missionary, but chose to remain here as a farmers wife. She made it her goal to raise Godly children who were willing to serve the Lord. Five of her six children ended up in full time Christian service, one as a pastors wife, one as a missionary wife, and the other three as full time missionaries. Counting the first and second generation there are 19 couples with a decendent of my grandmother in full time Christian service. There are now some third generation missionaries as well although I don't know who many.
The number of lives affected by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the teaching of Scriptural truth count into the thousands.
My grandmother realized that she would have a far greater impact as a servant of Jesus Christ raising Godly children, than she ever could personally have as a single woman missionary.
6. Tami said the following at 12:36 PM on Jul 8:
I also thought...
Not to be *too* presumptuous about your alma mater's reasons for promoting certain "successes" over others, but so, so often the choice of who to "promote" has to do with creating a certain impression for past and future students (...and funders). Someone I went to college with (at a public university) is now a famous musician. I just searched to see if he'd been in the alumni magazine, and sure enough he was on the cover of the most recent issue. (And, somewhat ironically as it relates to this discussion -- the article talks a lot about his wife and kids.)
So while featuring high achievers/those who have been successful on a more "global" scale makes for interesting copy, I think it's also a function of making a certain impression or proving a point -- "see, we make more of a mark on women than simply granting them an MRS!" I think it can be good to celebrate those types of successes, but not to the exclusion of the more supposedly "mundane" ones.
And if family formation is part of the university's mission (as some Christian universities hold it to be), then it most certainly should celebrate familial achievements! I think it would be cool and instructive for them to show how women (and men) are using their degrees from your university to make a difference in their families' lives and in their local communities.
7. Jonita said the following at 12:52 PM on Jul 8:
I think part of the challenge may be how we as women view success. It's easy for your university to find and recognize the women who are well-known or successful in the business and political spheres--their names are out there in the public or they may be involved with the university. The stay-at-home mom, however, may not consider her work as "noteworthy" and so she (or her husband) may not contact the university to say, "I'm busy raising three great kids who love God." It may be more of a perception issue the stay-at-home mom has with herself and/or a logistical challenge for the university to identify and recognize her for her successful work.
8. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:06 PM on Jul 8:
Oh come now, Ted. What's so bad about having women pastors? They are most amusing. Especially the ones at Ebenezer Church in San Francisco.
That "Goddess Rosary" is a howler!
Seriously...I remember during my undergrad days, we had "Speech Night" once every semester, where we would have students--selected by the humanities/socialist sciences faculty--give their best speeches.
Almost every lady who spoke had a feminist perspective of one form or another. The most telling was a gal who bragged about her mother, who--divorcing her husband (in her daughter's words: "breaking away from home life, changing diapers, and Sunday church") to strike out on her own--became a physician.
And it wasn't much better at Southern Seminary (pre-Mohler). You couldn't have a rational discussion about women in ministry without getting dragged into a larger discussion of feminist theology. And if you opposed calling God "mother", then you were obviously a sexist.
You want an example of the malarkey? I'll give you a straight-from-the-horse's mouth account.
In our "Formation for Ministry" class, we had a guest speaker--a professor who was supportive of feminist theology. She opined, "If Jewish society were matriarchal, then Jesus would have been a woman."
Barely able to contain myself, I blurted out, "And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their [butts] on the ground."
Both the professors in the room shook their head. Half the class wanted to run me for President. The other half wanted to kill me (some because I opposed feminist theology, others because I did so using a scatological expletive).
I couldn't stop laughing.
9. Bonnie said the following at 1:14 PM on Jul 8:
Sometimes I get these strong urges to be at home with my daughter because instinctively I know that's where I should be. It's where I want to be, and hopefully where I will be soon! You're totally right though - mothers don't get the kind of respect they should. They are often seen as less intelligent, less hard-working and less capable than working women. It's a real shame. Honestly I wish we lived in a time where stay-at-home motherhood was more of an option. Too many of us just can't live on our husbands' incomes alone (even being frugal).
I also worry that if something happened to my husband I'd be left out in the cold by potential employers if my resume included stay-at-home motherhood. The business world is cruel to stay-at-home moms reentering the workforce. That said, I'm certainly going to grab the opportunity to stay home when my husband finishes school and gets a better job. That is what's best for my family, I know, and I just have to leave my worries to God. He's always taken care of me/us before.
10. Kellie said the following at 1:24 PM on Jul 8:
Doesn't it also publish wedding and birth annoucements? My college alumni magazine will pretty much print whatever a former student submits...whether it's a job promotion or taking time off to care for a new baby.
11. Ted Slater said the following at 1:31 PM on Jul 8:
Tami (#6), you wrote that "while featuring high achievers/those who have been successful on a more 'global' scale makes for interesting copy, I think it's also a function of making a certain impression or proving a point."
I agree completely with you. My alma mater is educating people to become "Christian leaders to change the world," and wants to profile those who've done outstanding things in the fields in which they studied.
At the same time, there's this subtle (or not-so-subtle) thing being communicated, that only those women who use their degrees outside the home are "successful leaders."
My wife (master's degree holder, stay-at-home mom) pointed out that a good number of the editorial staff for the alumni magazine are women; that likely affected which stories they chose to highlight and how those stories were written. They probably just took the advice they were given in English class: "Write what you know."
Still, it bugs me that the necessary and honorable vocation of successful motherhood is either denigrated, or, as in this case, ignored altogether.
12. Sarah said the following at 1:53 PM on Jul 8:
Amir #8 wrote: "women pastors? They are most amusing"
What is so amusing about a woman sharing the good news of Christ and discipling and spiritually supporting fellow believers?
And not all women in ministry, even the ministry of pastor, hold to liberal and/or feminist theology.
On the actual subject of the post however, I appreciate the general sentiment. As most of my friends have large defined dreams, all I know right now of my future is that I want to marry and have a family. Some would call that unambitious, and it's a struggle sometimes to pursue what God wants (which may still include other things) rather than what would deem me a successful woman by the standards of the communities I am a part of.
13. Adam said the following at 1:57 PM on Jul 8:
Some professions do seem to be viewed as needing "success" in order to achieve them. Motherhood and staying at home to raise the children has not traditionally been one of those professions. As a matter of fact, it has tended to be the default profession.
Perhaps we should all chip in so that 17 Glouchester High School students can achieve success by staying at home with their children and passing on their morals.
Also, just because one is a mother does not mean that she is in any way successful at it. See: Southwest Airlines Says Family Is Too Unruly To Fly
--------------
Stay-at-home moms do a ton of work. Just ask any Dad who has tried it for a couple days. Society does clearly promote motherhood - they even have a holiday celebrating it. I'm not sure it belongs as a who's done what in a college grad magazine.
14. a sassy sister said the following at 2:03 PM on Jul 8:
Tami:
well said.
15. Melissa S. said the following at 2:06 PM on Jul 8:
Congrats on the baby girl!
16. Cassandra said the following at 2:19 PM on Jul 8:
I am saddened by your blanket statement that women shouldn't be pastors, and Amir's "laughing" at such a suggestion seems inappropriate to me. While I agree that women should not be Elders, I cannot find anything that says we cannot be pastors. Indeed, most churches would agree as they often have women acting to lead children and other women in the worship and study of the Lord. I would even bet that there are women leading Sunday school and Bible studies at your church. There is even biblical precedent for a woman teaching in the church: Aquilla and Priscilla.
If a woman is called to be on staff at a church, gifted and trained to teaching the Word of God to other believers, why is her gender a spiritual barrier? There may be certain roles in the church that it is inappropriate for a woman to fulfill, but I don't think she is barred from teaching God's Word.
17. Becky B said the following at 2:20 PM on Jul 8:
As a holder of a master's degree and now a stay-at-home mom, I can tell you which one is more challenging...the stay at home mom role! There are surprisingly a lot of other women I've met who say, "Oh, you stay home now? That's great!" or "You're lucky!" I hope and pray the tide is turning...Women can "have it all..." but not all at once and maybe not in the (glamourous by outward standards) way we first think of. We need to be willing to redefine what "success" means.
18. Craig said the following at 4:08 PM on Jul 8:
I've found the (Roman) Catholic response to the women as priests (ministers) query interesting. The Catholics have simply asserted, repeatedly, that the Church is not authorized to ordain women as priests. That is, that the priesthood can only be bestowed by virtue of authority granted the cardinals/etc. by Christ, and that He has not extended that authority to the ordination of women. For the Catholics, of course, the priest does more than teach--he is the embodiment of Christ on earth and intercedes for men and women with God, while providing the host to the faithful. A woman cannot be authorized to do this because of Christ's essential masculine nature.
Of course, the Catholic church has long had many institutionalized opportunities for consecrated, full-time service to Christ for women. The holy orders of women have done more in some eras for Christianity than the rest of the church was accomplishing. I think that as protestantism has continually hewed down the role of minister to a lesser and lesser sphere--essentially now teaching and physical/emotional ministry to the immediate needs of the people, as a counselor and organizer--it becomse less plausible to exclude women outright. After all, there is no denying that in scripture, women can teach at least in some contexts. If pastoring is essentially just teaching, with no sacramental role whatsoever, and if there is no belief that God Himself is literally authorizing a continuing episcopate when a new minister is ordained, then the exclusion of women seems more arbitrary and cultural. In a way, I think modern churches are reaping the fruit of a long season of radical innovation and disregard for theological tradition.
That doesn't mean they're wrong, of course. The older churches could certainly be wrong. But I think it's hard to hold that pastors are essentially powerless teachers with no real mystical/spiritual significance and then also hold that there are deep, innate, spiritual reasons to exclude women from their ranks.
Thoughts? Am I off my rocker here?
19. Jethro said the following at 4:11 PM on Jul 8:
Not to downplay the significance of motherhood Ted, but the magazine would be very long indeed if every alumni who had a child was featured as a 'successful alumni'. They need some way to differentiate people, child bearing, which is not incredibly unique, does not seem like the best criteria...
20. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:15 PM on Jul 8:
Cassandra says:
Excuse me, but when they deny the authority of scripture, and present God as something other than the God of Scripture, and impute feminist revisionist interpretations--which the vast majority of women pastors do, by the way--then we know what side they are on. And it isn't God's side.
As for women pastors, I'd say the pastoral epistles define the general rule: women are generally not permitted to lord over men.
Are there exceptions to that rule? Certainly.
In the OT, you had Deborah and Huldah--the former a judge and a prophetess, the latter a prophetess who advised a King--but make no mistake: they were the exceptions to the rule.
(I hope we can agree that two cases in 4,000 years--four if you include Anna and Phoebe, five if you include Miriam--makes a case for the exception and not the rule. Moreover, even the higher number--five cases in 4,000 years hardly makes a compelling case for what we are seeing today, especially given that the overwhelming majority of the "women pastors" are fundamentally opposed to the Scriptures.)
At any rate, those who support feminism--which describes the overwhelming majority of women pastors--are either (a) not really called to that office or (b) perverting the office to which they were called. They are a cancer to the office; they are a cancer to the Church.
I'll drink to the demise of feminism.
21. Courtney P. said the following at 5:51 PM on Jul 8:
Good Post! But I must disagree with you saying the Bilbe make "no precedence" for women pastors. At my church we have pastor and his wife "Our first lady" is on ordain minster as well (she is not a co-pastor. I believe that women can be minister if the are submitted to the headship of a male pastor. God is not a respecter of person "nor greek or jew, male or female" I believe in bibcal marriage men being the leaders and providers of their famliy and also beleive in women ministers. I have seen women pray and minitry to other women about subject I don't think men should address ie sexual abuse, battery, female issues.
P.S congrats on your baby girl much pray for yoor wife as she bore another child into the world.
22. Cassandra Marie said the following at 6:08 PM on Jul 8:
I especially agree with the contrast between a broad but shallow influence as opposed to a narrow but need influence. I think in this country, it is considered odd not to aspire to high ambitions, as defined by the recognition received. Quantity over quality argument I suppose.
To the other Cassandra who posted earlier, be careful in citing Aquilla and Priscilla. That passage says that they took Apollos into their home and taught him, not that they were teaching during the worship services. There is a vast difference there! In regards to the services, Paul states that he does not permit a woman to teach publicly. There is a difference between public teaching (in a church service, for example) and private teaching (in a personal situation or home setting).
23. Leah said the following at 6:50 PM on Jul 8:
Cassandra- my goodness, if a woman can't be an elder, how can you suggest she could be (heirarchally) HIGHER than an elder? (ie- pastor).
You say "Indeed, most churches would agree as they often have women acting to lead children and other women in the worship and study of the Lord". Ah-ha! That is DIFFERENT to being a pastor. 1 Timothy 2 clearly states that women must learn in submissiveness and not have authority over men in that context. ("A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.") NB: Before you jump all over that verse saying that women are perfectly allowed to have authority over men, keep in mind this passage is talking about worship services (indeed, the NIV gives that passage the heading of "Instructions for Worship"). It is not talking about the workplace and women being managers of men, it is talking about church and women being in the pulpit, teaching men.
Of course they are permitted to teach other women and children. But a female is rarely made a pastor simply for that role alone. Of course she isn't barred from teaching God's word. But a) you don't have to be a pastor to teach God's word, and b) like I just said, most female pastors are not pastors just of women and children.
24. Resa said the following at 6:51 PM on Jul 8:
I find it ironic that an employee of FOTF would make a statement against women pastors on a blog sponsored by FOTF since the founder of FOTF is a member of a denomination that has ordained women to ALL offices of the church including that of Sr. Pastor for the past 100 years. And for the record there are many Bible believing evangelical churches that ordain women that are not liberal or feminist at all, including the Church of God (Anderson) the Church of the Nazarene, the Salvation Army, the Wesleyan Church, and the Free Methodist Church.
And I think the point of the Alumni publication is to talk about how well people have used the education they received at the school. Sorry, but you don't need an advanced degree to be a stay at home mom. Yes you can be a successful woman by being a home maker, but you can be a great homemaker without even a high school education. I know, my mom was one. And she went on to have a great career.
25. Anna L. Davis said the following at 7:41 PM on Jul 8:
I appreciate this post and all the discussion. As a medical writer/editor turned stay-at-home mom, I've had to sort through what success means for me. I have come to understand that success is depending on God to use me in whatever my season of life, and right now that means being at home with my preschoolers. God has also called me to use my writing to encourage other believers. Working with Him in these ways -- loving my babies, and writing -- has been very rewarding in the deepest of ways.
26. Rachael said the following at 8:06 PM on Jul 8:
One reason those uniquely successful women might be mentioned is that they are more rare than stay-at-home moms. Doesn't mean they're more successful, but, it shows the diverse fields one can enter after their education.
If a stay-at-home mom submitted something about how her education impacted/affected her, my guess is that that could very well be published as well...
27. Rachael said the following at 8:09 PM on Jul 8:
P.S. In answer to the question: "When you hear that term, what comes to mind?"
-->Well, my mom, for one. She displayed a selfless love for her kids as we were growing up. And another one who comes to mind is an elderly woman who opened up her home and shared her hospitality for a group of us girls involved with international student ministry. So hospitable...so kind. Both women have admirable traits.
28. Nichole said the following at 8:57 PM on Jul 8:
I believe that motherhood and fathehood are the highest ministry callings that Christian women and men could ever hope to pursue. However, I believe there is also a great danger in calling pursuits outside the home "inch-deep." Evangelical Christians are always complaining about how godless our government and culture are. They argue that businesspeople and government representatives have rejected God, morality, and family values. Nevertheless,they fail to realize that God has not been locked out of those "sterile board rooms" where decisions about politics and culture are made, Christian men and women have abandoned them. Therefore, I think it is unfair to say that Christians, male and female, who are serving as witnesses in very dark places are not doing eternally significant work.
29. Tom Neven said the following at 9:39 PM on Jul 8:
Resa (#24)
Dr. Dobson has made a point of saying that Focus on the Family will not follow specific doctrinal distinctions of his denomination or the denominations of the ministry's employees or constituents -- at least when it comes to secondary matters, e.g., mode of baptism, ordination of women, and the like. I'm sure there are people even within Focus who disagree on this topic.
30. Lauren said the following at 9:41 PM on Jul 8:
Thank you, Craig (number 18) for one of the most insightful (not to mention tactful) comments I've read on Boundless in a long time. I don't think you're off your rocker. I think you've made a good point.
31. Sarah said the following at 9:48 PM on Jul 8:
Amir #20 wrote: "when they deny the authority of scripture, and present God as something other than the God of Scripture, and impute feminist revisionist interpretations--which the vast majority of women pastors do, by the way"
What sort of statistics/research do you have to back this up?
"women are generally not permitted to lord over men."
And since when are men generally permitted to lord over women?
"I hope we can agree that two cases in 4,000 years...makes a case for the exception and not the rule."
I respectfully disagree. If you take it at face value, then yes, it appears that way. But considering things such as culture can lead to the conclusion that they may have been exceptions only for their time.
32. Louise said the following at 9:52 PM on Jul 8:
Re comment 11,
Mr. Slater, with all due respect, why does it "bug" you that some people do not believe that stay-at-home moms perform the equivalent of workers employed outside the home?
You seem to be absolutely convinced that the workload and performance of stay-at-home moms is equal to that of outside employed workers...well that is fine sir.
Wouldn't it be sufficient just to say to yourself "These people who do not believe that SAHMs are equivalent to employed workers are simply incorrect. Oh, well, sometimes people just have wrong ideas. Hopefully they will soon learn otherwise."
Continually harping on the subject gives the air of "protesting too much."
Re the impending addition to your family, IMO this fact is irrelevant to your post, but congratulations!
:)
Louise
33. Ted Slater said the following at 11:25 PM on Jul 8:
Louise -- I simply want to commend women who choose to humbly pour their energies into their families. I want to affirm full-time motherhood as an honorable and significant calling.
Please call me Ted. "Sir" just strikes me as a bit too formal.
34. DannieA said the following at 11:30 PM on Jul 8:
I really had to pray before commenting...because I would have bitten some heads off earlier.
My aunt is a pastor and she is a good one!!!!!!!!!!! and just in case you're wondering, her youngest boy is mid 20s and living on his own (and she didn't go into being a pastor til the boys were older) so I think she has done things Biblically and in their proper time!
And in terms of alumni grads and magazines....I think it has more to do with recognition and ties to the school. PR ya know...I don't think people dismiss SAHM, but is a Christian University, Bible college, going to attract students (since tuition costs need to be paid) through an "ah hah" alumni or everyday alumni even if what everyday alumni does is good? I don't know...food for thought?
also and Ted where did you go? I guess Christian Institutions more or less have the same motto....mine was
"The mission of Abilene Christian University is to educate students for Christian service and leadership throughout the world."
35. Priscilla said the following at 3:13 AM on Jul 9:
I agree with a lot of your post, Ted, but I do wonder why the focus is on "successful women" alone. How about the successful men -- does the magazine focus on their accomplishments as husbands and fathers?
To rephrase your last few paragraphs: "In their last moments, men will likely not regret having spent so few hours working for The Man. They'll regret not having spent as much time as they could with the ones they love. In the case of married men, that's likely to include their children.
It's fine to recognize the success of men outside the home. Let's also recognize the too-overlooked success of those who, as the saying goes, rock the cradle."
Because men have such an important role to play as fathers, and I think that is overlooked far more than the role of the mother. Fathers really need all the encouragement they can get -- from alumni magazines, family blogs and everyone else.
(Disclaimer Note: I'm a single working woman. When I get married and have kids, I intend to stay at home with them at least till they're all in school. I expect that to be as important an accomplishment as anything in the last few years of professional life. However, while I don't expect my husband-to-be to stay at home and look after the kids, I do hope that he will look on his achievements as a father with as much pride as any professional achievement!)
36. Amir Larijani said the following at 3:19 AM on Jul 9:
Sarah says:
Laura Olson of Clemson University has done quite a bit of research in that matter. She affirms everything I am saying on this. The record of mainline denominations--which account for the majority of ordained women--attest to what I am saying in that ordained women are overwhelmingly feminist.
You can point to some women in the Pentecostal denominations as being conservative--as Olson does--but the numbers of ordained women in those denominations pale in comparison to the women in the mainline denominations, who are overwhelmingly feminist.
Even in pre-Mohler Southern Baptist Theologicl Seminary, which promoted the ordination of women and in which many women students were ordained in their local church, the women who were ordained were extremely liberal and very feminist. Only one of them that I knew--a professor who is now deceased--affirmed Biblical orthodoxy.
Genesis 3 for beginners. In the context of Church leadership, that's clearly on the men, as 1 Timothy 2 is quite clear on that matter. That passage is not merely a cultural context issue, either, as Paul gives theological reasons, not cultural ones.
Not in light of Jesus Christ. He bucked many cultural traditions, even with respect to women--e.g. He talked to them in public, instructed them, received public gifts from them, did not demand their public silence, affirmed them in public for their faith--but not with respect to leadership.
The New Testament is pretty clear with respect to the general rule with respect to Church leadership: it's on the men. Some would say that it's not the general rule but rather an absolute.
I suggest that it's the general rule because there is a Biblical precedent for exceptions (Deborah, Huldah).
37. Lynne said the following at 4:05 AM on Jul 9:
Craig #18
Well, put...Definitely giving me a lot to think about.
Nichole #28
I, too, had trouble with characterizing outside the home relationships as "inch deep" I love my husband and my kids and my relationships with them are definitely different than my others, both social and work. But I don't think that makes all my other relationships, particularly work, superficial in comparison or having no eternal value.
Congrats on the new baby Ted!
38. Louise said the following at 4:47 AM on Jul 9:
Comment 33, Mr. Slater, I think we all know on here what the Boundless opinion is.
:)
I was merely curious as to why this "bugs" you so much...but perhaps I shouldn't concern myself with that.
Everyone has "his/her things"...ideas, situations and opinions that one finds particularly irritating.
Re motherhood not being "commended" etc. comment 13 on this thread has made an excellent point about the Mothers Day holiday.
BTW, if I may be on the a first name basis with the Boundless staff, then by all means if you folks are ever in the Chicago area please e mail me and let me know.
I'd love to meet all of you...we can meet at Willow Creek Church. It's a mere half hour from my home.
:)
Lousie, aka Ms. Mcbride
39. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:22 AM on Jul 9:
Addressing Sarah's question:
Read it and weep (or rejoice, depending on your leanings on this matter).
40. Jo said the following at 6:44 AM on Jul 9:
Amir... For the record, I believe women shouldn't be pastors, although I have no problem with women teaching etc under the authority of male church leadership. But to use as your (quite flippant) example a 'church' which is *clearly* unscriptural in far more damaging ways than the gender of their minister, I find really offensive. The implication I get from that is that you believe women to be morally and theologically flawed to such an extent that without the guidance of men, we will all end up in heresy. I do realise that's probably not at all what you meant, but at the end of the day, I could link to heretical churches run by men too, and it would prove nothing about the right or ability of men in general to lead churches. If you are against women pastors, give Biblical backing; don't use the actions of one or even many individuals as proof that the practise as a whole is wrong.
On a related point, I really think men need to understand how important this issue is to a lot of women. Yes, some of this is due to wrong feminist ideas, but don't forget that feminism came out of a society where women had no voice at all. It's perhaps unfortunate but hardly surprising that a) many women are extremely protective of the rights they now have and b) anyone claiming that there are certain roles they still cannot perform will provoke feelings of anger, rejection, worthlessness - understandably I think, considering their treatment in the past.
I think women's role in church is something that Bible believing churches can legitimately disagree on. But women need to be affirmed, respected and valued, and churches that exclude them from leadership need to be understanding about that. Simply paying lip service to the roles women can play (well, you can always teach the children, or do the coffee) is not always enough. It's an issue that needs to be handled with a huge amount of sensitivity, compassion, and never condescension.
Sorry for the long post.
41. Natalie said the following at 8:16 AM on Jul 9:
"Women pastors, a vocation with no biblical precedence"
I respectfully disagree. There clearly is a Biblical precedence being set that says being a pastor is not a "men's club only" vocation. Look at the Biblical examples of Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, Euodia and Syntyche, and Chloe. If gender-based leadership were God's intent, why did God call and equip women to be spiritual leaders?
Patriarch is not God's plan for the human race. God does not intend that leadership should be gender-based. These are the results of the fall.
One can be both a dedicated pastor and an excellent mother. One can be called to both family and to church ministry.
-Natalie
42. Jen said the following at 8:43 AM on Jul 9:
Concerning all the comments on women as pastors, I thought it might be helpful to go through a few passages on the subject, as it is a vital one but one that is often misunderstood. I hope and pray these will be of some help to anyone who may be confused or need reassuring. I will start by going through 2 key passages in the New Testament that pertain to the order of leadership in the local church. Then we’ll go through the examples of Deborah and Priscilla, which are brought up frequently, and Galatians 3:28 which is often taken out of context, and finally pastors and elders and spiritual gifts, which can help put these teachings into perspective. Note, this is only a brief overview as I don’t have time to go over everything. If you’re looking for an excellent resource that covers the topic in more detail, I’d recommend “Men and Women Equal Yet Different: A Brief Study of the Biblical Passages on Gender” by Alexander Strauch.
Headship in the local church
For whatever reason – and we don’t need to understand the reason why – God has ordained that men be the leaders in the local church. This does not mean that women are never leaders. They may lead women’s ministries, etc; this will be discussed further in another section.
The bible is absolutely clear about this and to dispute this matter is to not only to make a mockery of God’s Word, but to disobey Him. Scripture speaks for itself:
1 Corinthians 14:34-38 “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in the church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”
The last verse says it all: If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. How can one argue with that? The only way to argue with it is to deny Scripture. Or will we also deny 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”?
1 Timothy 2:11-14 “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”
For all those who want to say that Paul was writing this in a particular period of history when women would shout out in the middle of the service or whatever, there is no way that this passage can be dismissed on cultural grounds. In 1 Corinthians Paul says clearly “the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” Here, Paul appeals to Creation. He is not giving cultural reasons. Unless we want to deny that the Scriptures are the infallible Word of God, there is no way we can deny that it is not God’s will that women remain silent in the church, that they do not have authority over a man – ie, they are not to be in leadership over, or to be teaching a man, in the local church.
Deborah
One OT illustration that is often used to suggest that women should have positions of leadership in the church is that of Deborah in Judges 4. However, if you read the story carefully, the exact opposite point is clear: God has ordained that men should be leaders.
1. The Israelites were not exactly following the Lord during this period (4:1-2 “When Ehud was dead, the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord. So the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor.”) So to begin with, Deborah was judging Israel at a point when they were not following the Lord. She is not commended for this; it is stated as fact, and to take an example for women leadership from a period when God’s people were not following Him is probably not a good principle.
2. Deborah herself rebukes Barak for not taking more of a leadership position in leading the Israelites into battle against their oppressors (4:6-7).
3. Barak doesn’t want to be a leader. In the case where the man called to take leadership refused to take it, God in His mercy used a woman. In verse 8 Barak says to Deborah, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go!” Deborah responds, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Here, Deborah is again acknowledging the Barak should be the leader, but that the Lord will use her because he refuses to take on the responsibility. As a result, he will not receive any glory. Deborah is to be admired as a woman who followed the Lord when no man would, and for that she is a great example. But she is not an example of the norm, and that is clear.
4. To an extent, this is not even a relevant example for the discussion of whether or not women should be in leadership in the local church. Although male leadership is the norm throughout Scriptures, and is commanded in the New Testament for the local church, it is not wise to take examples from the Jews of the Old Testament and apply them to the way the local church operates. We have been given ample instruction in the New Testament dictating how the Lord would have the church operate. (Note, many people are confused about the Jews and the church – they are not one and the same. I don’t have the time to go into detail here).
Aquila and Priscilla
As previously mentioned, Aquila and Priscilla work as a team to correct a young man who is zealous for the Lord. Notice, Priscilla is not working alone but with her husband. Also, this is not within the context of the gathering of the local church. See….
Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”) To use this verse to say that women can have roles of leadership over men in the church, is to a) take the verse out of context, and b) to make the Scriptures contradict what is clearly taught in other passages. Taken in context, this verse is talking about the availability of salvation to all believers. Galatians 3:26 says, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” In the Old Testament, the Jews were God’s chosen people. Jesus was prophesied to the Jews as their Redeemer. What was not universally understood at the time was that Christ also came for the Gentiles. Here in Galatians, Paul is reassuring the Gentiles in Galatia that salvation is for all men, not just the Jews. The phrase, “for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” further proves the point. This is not a verse suggesting that there is no order in the church, that there is no structure, that there is no distinction between the roles of men and the roles of women in the local church.
Pastors and Elders
There is much confusion in the local church today about pastors and elders. Nowhere in Scripture is there a pattern for modern-day pastors. Nowhere does it suggest that there should be one or two men solely responsible for all the teaching in the church and for all the caring of the spiritual needs of the church. In the local churches in the New Testament, the spiritual leaders were elders. 1 Timothy 3 outlines the qualifications for elders (those responsible for the spiritual care of the local church) and deacons (those responsible for maintenance of the local church – this might include being responsible for the church budget or for coordinating ministries under the elders, etc).
Today, churches hire a “pastor,” who is primarily responsible for the spiritual care of the local church. The term is somewhat unfortunate, as a pastor could technically be someone who has the gift of pasturing – caring for and being spiritual leaders, in any capacity. So technically, a woman can be a pastor.
I bring this up because I notice at times in this debate that some people, saying that women can be pastors, simply mean that women can be the leader in a ministry involving the spiritual well-being of women and children, which is absolutely correct. However, it doesn’t mean that a woman can be in leadership in any capacity over men.
Spiritual Gifts
One of the women people bring forth in the debate over whether or not women can be in leadership positions in the local church is that of spiritual gifts. Nowhere does Scripture say that any spiritual gifts are only for men, or only for women, so if a woman has the gift of teaching or pasturing, why would God have a structure in place that doesn’t allow them to teach or pastor?
This stems from a misunderstanding of spiritual gifts. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul says, “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant.” He goes on to say, “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all.” He goes on to list some spiritual gifts.
Notice: there are different gifts, different ministries, and different activities. So perhaps a man has a gift of teaching. This does not necessarily mean that he is gifted to preach from the pulpit in the local church. Perhaps he is gifted in teaching one-on-one. Perhaps he is gifted in teaching and evangelizing, to clearly explain to the gospel to non-believers. As such, he may be involved in a ministry of teaching outside of the local church, in street ministry or something. Or perhaps another man is good at teaching through writing, and is involved in writing books or articles to teach others. This is just discussing one gift – teaching – but there different ministries and different activities that it can be used in.
As such, a woman may have the gift of teaching. The Lord, in His wisdom, has ordained clearly that women should be silent in the church, that she should not be teaching and leading and having authority over the men in the local church. But perhaps she can use her gift in Sunday School, or at a girls camp, or as a speaker at a women’s conference.
Perhaps a woman has the gift of pasturing. She may have a ministry of overseeing a ladies’ bible study, or of meeting with women in the local church to pray with them and encourage them in times of need. She doesn’t need to be standing at the front of the church to be used mightily by God.
What is more important, our society’s view of what is just? Our society’s view of what men and women should or shouldn’t do? Our own sense of what is fair and right? Or what God has plainly instructed?
43. Nicole Y said the following at 9:05 AM on Jul 9:
When I hear "successful woman"...I must admit that I also think of someone who has had a career or has influenced a great number of people.
I would have to agree with Resa: "And I think the point of the Alumni publication is to talk about how well people have used the education they received at the school."
Yes, the message is about women who have influenced others on a more grand scale, but that is usually the point of an Alumni magazine.
I get the point that you are trying to make though. I've had a successful career for the past 10 years. Hopefully, if my husband and I ever get to be parents, I hope to be a successful SAHM also. But I'm not looking for someone to pat me on the back or recognize what I do other than God and my own family. To me, being a "mom" is just what all mom's do. I will be successful if my husband and childrens' needs are met, if they love the Lord and if they go to bed happy, well fed and safe.
I guess another thought I wanted to share....Christians also have their own version of "success". Let's not forget that there are many Christian individuals who don't feel successful because they haven't gotten married by a certain age or haven't had X number of children, aren't serving in ministry, or don't stay home with their children. In Christian circles, these individuals are often considered the less successful ones.
44. Jewels said the following at 10:32 AM on Jul 9:
Thank you for this post. AMEN 100%!!
45. Sherry Baker said the following at 10:37 AM on Jul 9:
I am an undergraduate female student on a full scholarship to the school of my dreams, which I would have never been able to afford otherwise. I was hoping to read some comments from women who have either stayed at home or continued working when choosing to have a family. I am afraid that I may be wasting God-given talents (my leadership ability, passion for service, etc.) by one day staying at home, especially since I have worked so hard to get to a prestigious university. However, I know that if I have a family I want to be the best mother possible. This has been on my mind a lot lately since my boyfriend's mother is a stay at home mom. While she has done a wonderful job raising her kids to walk with God, I can't help but wonder how she could give up a career and a college education to do so. I would love to hear your thoughts.
46. Courtney P. said the following at 10:47 AM on Jul 9:
Just because you are a stay-at-home mom does not mean you are submitted to you Husband and it does not mean you don't "lord over men". Just because you are a women in minstry does not mean you ARE NOT submitted to your OWN HUSBAND. It's matters of the heart
47. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:12 PM on Jul 9:
Jo says:
I was trying to be funny by using that example. On the other hand, when denominations accept women's ordination as the rule--rather than the exception--it is an out-and-out disaster. The record of the mainline denominations bears witness to that.
This has nothing to do with any alleged "inferiority" of women--men are no less depraved--but rather the utter lack of regard for Scripture that one must embrace in order to promote that cause.
The Scriptures are very clear on the matter, and 1 Timothy 2 is not to be taken lightly. This is not a cultural-context issue, as Paul gave theological reasons and not cultural ones.
When denominations ignore the commands of Scripture and turn this into an "equal rights" issue, they create a disaster for the Church.
48. BDB said the following at 1:23 PM on Jul 9:
Sherry Baker (#45) wrote:
>>I am afraid that I may be wasting God-given talents (my leadership ability, passion for service, etc.) by one day staying at home,<<
You are not wasting your talents. Remember, full-time child rearing might only be 20 of 60 years of marriage; leaving 40 years for part or full-time other activities.
My grandmother was a mother first - but also was a nurse (not always full time) and a farmer's wife and lobbied the state legislature...different seasons of life used her skills and talent differently. She's 92 now, still going strong, but also still puts motherhood at the top.
My sister is a Doctor of Audiology, a field that is mostly women working part time. Very smart women with scientific minds - who want to be moms, so the whole field has turned into job sharing moms.
I do encourage you to study the fields you are good at and look to prepare in one that allows you to move into and out of motherhood. Allied health (such as audiology and optometry), nursing, education, writing and accounting are all fields that can be moved to part time during motherhood and full time after children are grown. And frankly, all those fields will give you skills you can teach your children. It's no accident that children's educational achievement most closely tracks the educational achievement of their mother.
Your education is not wasted.
49. Craig said the following at 1:59 PM on Jul 9:
With regards to the actual original subject of this thread....I don't think the school's magazine was being unreasonable. There is a season for everything, and even many women who commit themselves to children and family while chilren are young (which I believe in strongly, by the way) will also at some point have the opportunity to use their education in a more professional and visible (though not more important)way. Either before having children, or once children are in school, or once they're essentially grown, women who put their families first will still have opportunities to be teachers, doctors, nurses, businesswomen, researchers....and so long as a woman's immediate responsibilities to her family and home are not shortchanged, those professional experiences can only add to her contribution to HER OWN CHILDREN, as well as to the world. A woman with the deep knowledge that comes from teaching ancient history may inspire her sons; a woman with medical knowledge may be a valuable resource for her grandchildren. My mother's experience with sports led to my lifelong love of basketball, and her experience teaching the blind gave me an acute sense of the value of the disabled. I see nothing wrong with a particular article celebrating the achievements of women in the professional world--surely those achievements will benefit the women's children as well, so long as the proper balance is kept.
50. Heather Koerner said the following at 2:39 PM on Jul 9:
Sherry (#45),
We never waste our God-given talents when we are obedient to what God commands.
Here's one of the best quotes I've ever read to answer your question (from Dorothy Patterson):
HT: girltalk blog
51. Ted Slater said the following at 3:06 PM on Jul 9:
Natalie (41) -- Syntyche was a senior pastor? Huldah was a senior pastor? Miriam was a senior pastor?
Of course they weren't.
My point is not that women should not be ministers -- of course they should. My point is not that women should not be leaders -- of course they can.
My point is that Scripture provides no examples of women pastors, women who shepherd over a congregation. In fact, Scripture (see, for example, 1 Tim 3:2 and 3:12, Titus 1:5-6) is pretty explicit in requiring overseers and deacons and elders to be men (more specifically, "husbands of one wife").
I'm not sure how else to interpret Scripture but to believe what it clearly says, despite its cultural insensitivities.
Again, I affirm that the Lord calls some women to be ministers, some prophets, some teachers, some evangelists, some judges, some leaders. I just don't see Scripture affirming a woman's desire to become a pastor.
52. Jo said the following at 3:17 PM on Jul 9:
Amir: The article you linked to in #39 says that 56% of women pastors surveyed said they were 'strong feminists'. I wouldn't call that majority 'overwhelming', especially considering that 26% of their male counterparts were strong feminists too!
I would however be concerned by the lack of importance they placed on spiritual matters. But as support for your views, I wouldn't say that article helps you much. Especially as you're focusing (understandably) on American churches and the issue of women in leadership stretches far further than that - I of course am in the UK and I highly doubt those findings have much in common at all with women pastors over here.
53. Lynne said the following at 3:34 PM on Jul 9:
Sherry Baker (#45)
First, let me congratulate you on your scholarships. Getting through school with minimal debt is something that gives you plenty of options later on.
Second, let me assure you that your education is NEVER a waste, no matter how you choose to balance home and career.
Third, much of your decision-making regarding the balance once you have kids will be affected by factors at the time. One thing that doesn't get discussed much is revising the plan as you go. I know many women who continued working full-time until they had their 2nd child, and then switch to full-time at home or part-time. For me, my husband and evaluate our (not just my) work status on a regular basis to check out how it's impacting us and the kids. Both of us have turned down jobs, or not even pursued specific positions that required more time than we were willing to give (and we have the mediocre paychecks to prove it : )
Fourth, desiring to work doesn't automatically mean your heart isn't right with God. He has gifted us all uniquely. I have occasionally joked that if I stayed at home, what we saved in childcare, I'd need for therapy bills : )
Fifth, All choices have consequences. Staying at home full-time does not guarantee godly kids. Working outside the home doesn't ensure your child will be a substance using atheist (and yes, I'm familiar with the studies on kids in daycare).
Lastly, Pursue and in the words of .38 Special "Hold on Loosely" Keep talking to your boyfriend and other women you know, find out how they made their decisions, what are the costs involved (beyond financial) look at their marriages, look at women like you, and talk to God regularly.
Sorry for the long post, but as a full-time working mom, i know it's a view that isn't widely represented on boundless...though apparently it is in the Regents alumni magazine.
L
54. Craig said the following at 4:02 PM on Jul 9:
Ted and I have had some disagreements on boundless, but I have to agree with him here (#51), despite my earlier observations about the source of the women-as-ministers trend in protestant churches. It takes some really convoluted rhetorical reinterpretative gymnastics to muddy the waters on the essentially clear scriptural rule against women leaders of Christian congregations. That level of "inventiveness" in reading scripture, if applied to other subjects addressed with equal clarity in the Bible, would cloud core Christian doctrines and teachings in an impenetrable fog. Paul's instructions regarding homosexuality and his doctrines of the divinity of Christ were issued in a particular cultural context too--as are ANY rules or doctrines actually explained to a particular congregation at a certain place and time. But that doesn't change the universal application of the message, considering the consistency of spirit with which it is issued to multiple congregations and its harmony with earlier moral rules in the Jewish law.
My point is that others (Shelby Spong, anyone?) are using the same mechanism to discredit core Christian beliefs. The "Jesus Seminar" argues that assertions of Christ's divine nature were simply the result of a cultural context of general ignorance and superstition, and should be discounted or radically re-interpreted in light of modern knowledge. Gay activists argue that long-standing Christian morality regarding sexual behavior is rooted in "ancient" instructions in scripture that were meant only to soothe the consciences of a benighted, ignorant population of early Christians trying to morally differentiate themselves from Romans and Greeks--and that God (if He exists--they're never sure) would not want those instructions applied to we sophisticated modern people who no longer "need" them. Be careful how readily you read clear instructions out of existence to accomodate your predilictions as a modern westerner; there are others ready to use the exact procedures you propose to be rid of Christian doctrines that you regard as essential.
In this case, all things considered, I have to say that an insistence on re-reading scripture to authorize women to serve as leading ministers of congregations veers away from honest interpretation of the whole of scripture and dangerously near to willful self-delusion. Of course, there are literally thousands of opportunities for full-time Christian service for women if that is one's calling--from missionary ministries, to medical ministries, to Catholic and Orthodox religious orders, to the teaching of women and children in church, to the teaching of theology in a professorial context. The opportunities are...boundless...enough to satisfy any service-driven woman without an indulgence in self-deception.
55. Resa said the following at 4:26 PM on Jul 9:
"On the other hand, when denominations accept women's ordination as the rule--rather than the exception--it is an out-and-out disaster."
Um...no. The churches that I listed in my first post ordain women as the rule. Men and women are treated equally in the ordination process. And has been that way in many of those churches for over 100 years. Ordaining women has not been a disaster in any of those churches. They are growing, evangelical, missional churches that are proclaiming the good news of Jesus. They are not pentacostal either as one person mentioned. The problems with mainline churches may correlate with ordaining women, but you would find it hard to prove causation.
56. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:22 PM on Jul 9:
Resa says:
It doesn't have to be. To justify ordaining women as the rule, you have to negate 1 Timothy 2, thus flagrantly disregarding Scripture. That is why such denominations are in the tank.
Even in your denomination, what is the percentage of women in the pastorate? You claim it is the rule, but I doubt that you mean to imply that the women are the majority of ordained pastors (which is what I meant).
Last time I checked, the most liberal denomination--the United Church of Christ--does not even have a majority of women in the pastorate.
57. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:38 PM on Jul 9:
Jo: when 56% of the women pastors call themselves "strong feminists", that's pretty overwhelming. Especially when you consider that feminism is anything but compatible with Scripture.
Ergo, that tells me that 56% of the women pastors and at least 25% of the men have perverted their calling, assuming the pastorate is the office to which they were called. Pardon me, but I find that "overwhelming".
Moreover, that over a quarter of the men would also identify as such would testify to the level of emasculation that goes on at seminaries. Murrow points to this as a reason why men loathe going to church.
Even at a seminary that was quite conservative on the overall scale, anyone who contested the use of inclusive language in Scripture, or contested the premise of rendering God as "mother" or "motherly father", was subject to all sorts of derogatory labels. And, no, this was Southern Seminary, not UCal Berserkely.
When professors intone that "if Jewish society were matriarchal, then Jesus would have been a woman"--and there is more outrage at a student who contests such garbage with strong language than the fact that a professor is spewing nonsense--then it is time to reconsider the quality of education that our pastors are receiving. It sure carries little resemblance to Scripture.
(That is one aspect that Al Mohler cleaned up at Southern.)
58. Resa said the following at 6:41 PM on Jul 9:
Amir,
If you meant a majority as the rule, and you know of no such church that has a majority or woman pastors, then what churches are you talking about that are in disastrous situation?
And no these churches that I mentioned do not disregard any scripture. They seek to understand all scripture in the historical context in which they were written. And their understanding of the scripture is not a product of the feminist movement as these understandings of scripture were long before the modern feminist movements. They are all conservative churches.
59. Leah said the following at 9:02 PM on Jul 9:
DannieA,
Just because a woman is a pastor doesn't make her a bad person or a bad parent. I don't know why you'd assume anti-female-pastor proponents would automatically condemn a female pastor as a bad parent!!
Just because someone does something well doesn't mean they should be doing it. We can't override what the bible commands with the excuse "but they're good at it".
Jen is spot-on in saying "What is more important, our society’s view of what is just? Our society’s view of what men and women should or shouldn’t do? Our own sense of what is fair and right? Or what God has plainly instructed?"
I feel helpless when people bombard me with "but my mother is a pastor!" Or "but my aunt is a pastor!" I look at them and think "how can they expect me to change the facts? That is what the bible says, full stop. What do they expect me to do, stop believing the bible for the sake of peace and avoiding offending someone?"
60. Rachael said the following at 9:27 PM on Jul 9:
What's a minister?
Someone who shares knowledge of the Bible with someone?
Anyway it's different than a pastor?
(re: #51)
61. Ted Slater said the following at 10:23 PM on Jul 9:
Rachael, yes, a pastor is more than a "mere" minister.
I really like a lot of what Jen says in comment 42. Maybe check that out when you get a chance.
Also maybe check out my comment 51.
62. Julia H said the following at 11:03 PM on Jul 9:
Jen (comment 42) is one of the best "teachers" I have ever seen? Am I the only one who finds it ironic given that men read this blog and she is teaching about why it is not correct for a woman to teach or have authority over men? ;)
Seriously, that was the best explanation I have heard about this theology. Thanks for making it so clear. Also, I'm curious about what your denominational background is - if I may be so bold as to ask.
63. Jeremy said the following at 12:41 AM on Jul 10:
"Especially when you consider that feminism is anything but compatible with Scripture."
I think you may be applying a different definition of "feminism" than those who responded to this survey. The answers.com definition (the Google "definition" link) reads:
"Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes."
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who believes that treating the sexes unequally socially, politically, or economically is a good thing. According to that defintion, that makes almost all of us feminists.
Of course, there are many more radical feminists that confuse being equal with being identical, creating the resulting confusion over roles within the church. And of course this is a problem. My point is merely that dismissing feminism entirely based on your definition of it could well bother others who understand it differently.
64. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:19 AM on Jul 10:
I'm talking about denominations that frame it in terms of equal rights, and completely sidestep 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Timothy 3, as well as Titus in the process. The mainline denominations are striving to make it the rule. And the more feminist, the merrier.
If Olson's stats are correct--that 56% of ordained women (who themselves are less than a third of the overall clergy) identify themselves as "strong feminists"--then that should be quite telling, doncha think? If a lost person talks to a woman pastor, he or she has less than a 50% chance of talking to someone who even believes the Scriptures.
That it has gotten so bad that even a quarter of the MEN identify themselves as "strong feminists" also speaks to the level of darkness being promoted at our seminaries. That means--at best--anyone who is lost (or a believer in need of counsel) has a 1 in 4 chance that the minister he consults is himself (or herself) off the reservation. It truly is the blind leading the blind.
Dismissing 1 Timothy 2 as "historical context" or even "cultural context" takes quite a bit of gymnastics, as Paul did not give cultural reasons. He did, however, give a historical consideration: Creation and the Fall.
Moreover, when delineating the requirements for the offices in 1 Timothy 3, you have a prima facie case that the default position is that the men are to lead, as among the requirements for overseer is "husband of one wife".
Ergo, my case that women pastors are the exception and not the rule.
As I've said, I'm not opposed; on the other hand, in Scripture it is clearly the exception. This is NOT an equal rights matter.
Moreover, Ted is right: there is no precedence for a woman pastor. While I accept the premise that it is possible, I don't see it there. And the Biblical exceptions we have--where women are in high places of spiritual leadership--do not make a compelling case for what we are seeing today, especially with respect to what we are seeing in the mainline denominations.
Jesus said you'll know them by their fruits. When over half the women clergy identify themselves as "strong feminists", you've got a substantial case that either (a) they are not really called to the office, or (b) they are perverting their calling.
The women who led in the Bible were extraordinary. Deborah--being a prophet who ended up leading a military rout--was Golda Meir on steroids.
Huldah--who smacked down the High Priests who didn't even recognize the Book of the Law in the Temple, and who pronounced judgment for Judah in the presence of a king--was also exceptionally bold.
When I look at women clergy, I'm not seeing Deborahs and Huldahs. And when 56% of them identify themselves as being on the side of Jezebel, one must consider what is going on in the Church.
65. Lola said the following at 5:29 AM on Jul 10:
Jen,
If it's God's will that women should not pastor churches then i have no problem accepting this truth. However it will be an easier message to convey to women in the church if men like Ted and Amir, (who lack any humility) stayed away from the matter. Let them leave the task of conveying the message of women in leadership to Pastors and women like yourself.
66. Nicole Y said the following at 9:00 AM on Jul 10:
Yikes.....I enjoyed this thread because it is a subject area I've been thinking about a lot lately as my husband and I are trying to start a family.....that is until it became a thread about women being pastors. I don't even want to post a comment about the original topic because I am scared it will get lost in the jumble.
67. Lauren said the following at 9:49 AM on Jul 10:
Sherry (Comment #45): I also went to undergrad on a full scholarship to study science. Right now I am in graduate school (also paid for) working toward a Ph.D. in environmental science. I am also engaged and am getting married in the fall.
My advice to you would be to not worry too much, but also to continually be aware of what your future goals are. The amazing thing about getting a scholarship to undergrad is that you will not be bringing student loans into your marriage which opens you up to a lot more options. Additionally your strong work ethic and love for learning are qualities that will help make you an excellent wife and mother, so no matter what you decide to do your education will not be wasted.
As for pursuing your career of choice, more and more options are becoming available including the ability to work from home and well as part time opportunities if you choose to stay with your children while they are small. You just need to put that excellent mind of yours to good use and really think through your steps in order to keep as many options on the table as possible.
Boundless has some excellent articles that have really helped me and my future husband think through some of these issues (see Future Interest and If you want it all you need a plan). When we get married we do plan to live off of his income and put mine into savings to make it easier for us in the future. Also I am constantly looking into ways to build up the teaching section of my CV so that after we have children I can still teach part time at a small college or university. I have also worked as a reviewer of scientific articles, so that I can continue to earn some income by working from home.
I would also take some time to talk to a variety of older women who are wives and mothers and ask them how they do it. There are many successfully and driven women in my church who have families and have found ways to effectively downsize their careers in order to care for their families while still contributing financially and using the professional/intellectual gifts that God as given them.
I hope this helps!
68. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:53 AM on Jul 10:
Lola: That's really excellent example of dialogue; rather than discuss the merits of what Ted--or myself--is saying, you (a) attack our character and (b) suggest limiting who gets to partake in the discussion.
Jo and Resa--even Sarah--have raised legitimate questions, and I have answered them honestly without insulting their character.
Ted--often someone with whom I've had a few jousts--has, as far as I have seen, provided a substantive Biblical explication for his position.
My position on the matter has been--and still is--that women pastors are, at best, the exception to the rule against the backdrop of Scripture. There is no alleged "inferiority of women" on my part; it's simply about what Scripture says.
And, by the way, what I am saying puts me to the left of Ted, Al Mohler, and Farmer Tom on this matter.
On the other hand, I make no apologies for pointing out what are very inconvenient truths to those who are otherwise conservative who support a more liberal position on women pastors.
When 56% of women clergy--who are already a minority of overall clergy--identify themselves as "strong feminists", it's substantial enough of a case for revisiting the paradigm of ministerial ordination.
69. dana111 said the following at 10:55 AM on Jul 10:
Ladies,
I do not believe that either Ted or Amir are showing a lack of humility when they refer to the Word of God! As a woman, I know that it is hard to read what the Bible says about women pastors without feeling slighted, but we cannot deny what the Bible says about the role of women in the body of Christ. Per scripture, women are not supposed has authority over men within the Church. Why did God command such a thing? I have no idea. But, as Voddie Baucham would say, these men (Ted and Amir) didn't write the mail... they are just delivering it! Even as followers of Christ, there are many things in the Bible that may offend our modern sensibilities. The Bible's views on subjects such as homosexuality, the life of the unborn, the role of men and women in both the Church and the home, how to treat our enemies, how to care for the poor, how to respect our Government... all of these things will offend. The Bible clearly states that immoral practices, such as homosexuality, are wrong. The Bible also clearly states that women are not to have authority over men within the context of both home and the congregational Church. As Christians who SHOULD believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, we cannot pick and choose the commands we want to obey and disregard the rest. If you have a problem with God's commands, take it up with Him. But, you better come from a place of humility first! HE is the potter. WE are the clay. Until we amass the wisdom of the Almighty, we have no right to disobey His Word in order to make us feel better about ourselves.
70. farmer Tom said the following at 12:06 PM on Jul 10:
And, by the way, what I am saying puts me to the left of Ted, Al Mohler, and Farmer Tom on this matter.
Ain't that the truth.
They have been editing my comments for the last few days, because I've been neither as gracious nor as liberal as Amir in my responses.
In fact, some of you would have been on the war path if they had posted my comments, because you would say I was rude, vindictive and mean.
The question many of you fail to answer on this topic, (and many others). Who or what is my final authority when it comes to matters of personal conviction or personal practice?
For many of you it's simply a cultural thing. What is the culture doing? For some it's determined by your church: "My church, my aunt, my friend's mom is a (pastor) so I think it's OK." Most of you are also influenced by your views of the relationship between men and women. You think men and women are equal, therefore you think they are equally qualified to do the same things.
My position, I think Amir's position, I'm quite certain Jen's position, and Ted's position as well can best be described as follows.
Scripture is our final authority for Faith and Practice.
If Scripture says don't do it, don't do it.
If Scripture say to do it, do it.
If Scripture is silent, then using Biblical knowledge, discern from other Scripture what God would have us know on the subject (e.g., abortion).
At no time is my position determined by what my church teaches, my aunt does, my friend believes, my denomination practices or by my personal feelings.
My authority is Scripture.
71. IMO said the following at 12:45 PM on Jul 10:
#42, #70...
Amen!!!!
72. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:50 PM on Jul 10:
Lol. I'm with IMO on that one.
73. Jeremy said the following at 3:00 PM on Jul 10:
"Scripture is our final authority for Faith and Practice.
If Scripture says don't do it, don't do it.
If Scripture say to do it, do it."
I think everyone here would agree to that principle. The trouble is that there IS a cultural element to Scripture, and discernment in that area is difficult. Some obvious examples:
"But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head"
- 1 Corinthians 11:5
"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?"
- 1 Corinthians 11:14
"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braded hair and gold or pearls or costly garments"
- 1 Timothy 2:9
So then, do you think it is sinful for a woman to pray with her head uncovered, or to have braided hair? Or for a man to have long hair? Or are there some cultural elements that might come into play in our interpretation of Scripture?
I realize, of course, that this is a very dangerous path, and one from which many have spun out (those who support homosexual sex, for instance). But it is nonetheless a fact that interpretation of Scripture is not as simple as taking literally every word of it (does God have wings?).
-------------------------------------------
"... discern from other Scripture what God would have us know on the subject (e.g., abortion)."
I am glad someone here will acknowledge that abortion is not addressed in Scripture, and is not as simple an issue as many pretend.
74. Esther said the following at 3:52 PM on Jul 10:
Let me start by saying that I was raised by a SAHM, and hope to someday be the same.
THAT SAID:
I commented on the post about the book by the Harris brothers that it seems like the focus on doing BIG, important, world-changing things, makes the normal, faithful, everyday things that most of us do seem trivial and inadequate.
Yet here, when the accomplishments of women (and I'm sure the alumni magazine recognized men too) are lauded, it is viewed as ignoring the legitimate accomplishments of 'average' Christians.
SO, rather than feeling upset that women are praised for accomplishing things other than motherhood, why can't we praise those who teach (for teaching), those who mother (for mothering), those who lead (for leading)...you get the point. Yes, we all have different roles in the body, and some get more attention. I think this all boils down to people being insecure. Yes, if God calls you to do something considered BIG, then do so humbly, and if He calls you to something "small" or "normal", do so gratefully, that He has chosen to use you. Let's not be like Miriam and Aaron.
75. Leah said the following at 6:34 PM on Jul 10:
Jeremy- those sorts of commands are often given with a reason. If that reason no longer exists, then we know we can disregard that command.
However, with the woman in authority command, Paul says "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."
The reason women are not to be in (biblical) authority over men is because she was the one who first sinned. That reason will never go away or change. Therefore, the command will never go away or change.
Rachael- "minister" is the term given by many churches to the position of "pastor" or "reverend".
76. farmer Tom said the following at 6:45 PM on Jul 10:
I am glad someone here will acknowledge that abortion is not addressed in Scripture, and is not as simple an issue as many pretend.
Thank You for taking the bait!!!!
Abortion is directly addressed in Scripture. that why we are required to study Scripture carefully.
Exodus 20:13 is addressed directly to abortion, it simply refers to all murder in general, "Thou shall not unjustly take a human life."
Killing is necessary in war, in self defense and in capital punishment, but this command is referring to the unjust taking of a human life and abortion is without a doubt the killing of the most innocent of humans. They have never sinned. Scripture tells us not to "shed innocent blood". It's sure not talking about mass murderers, it is talking about the unborn.
So thank you again for taking the bait. You demonstrate your inability to read Scripture by attempting to justify killing innocent unborn humans. Nice try, now move along to a different subject, you didn't make the grade on that one.
77. farmer Tom said the following at 7:26 PM on Jul 10:
A couple of things.
For the record, I have a lady, no wrong term, female, relative who is attempting to masquerade as a Pastor. It is both irritating and pathetic. It's pathetic when we have a family gathering and this female attempts to lead in prayer, yet her relationship to the Creator God is broken because she is living in direct violation of His written word, so her prayers are empty, hollow, recitations of words that have no meaning. She does not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who loved her and gave His life for her. Rather she invokes His name and talks to Him as if to a complete stranger. Her "god" is a distant, mysterious, entity whom she prays to but does not know. I tell you in all sincerity that my 8 year olds prayers sound more sincere than hers do.
It's irritating because those of us in the family who actually have some Biblical knowledge, (remember over twenty of them are in full time Christian service and over 50 of us have some Bible college education), can read at a higher than third grade level and treat Scripture as our final authority for Faith and Practice, have to be "tolerant" and play along with her game, because she's family.
Sad part is that she's now retirement age and lamenting the fact that she has no grandchildren. Go figure. This woman believes strongly in the right to murder your unborn child. She has two daughters who have never married, and one claims to be a lesbian. Guess both of them believed what mother taught. Her son is an emasculated little cowering waif who has been in an out of the psycho ward several times.
When one's life style matches their theology, it will have a profound affect on behavior. She actively rejects Scripture as a guide for living, guess what, her children are complete and total failures in the area of family. Why, because their mother rejects God"s role for women as wives and mothers, and attempts to take on the role of leader, both in her own home and then in some poor beleaguered "church".
To those young ladies who are concerned with being a SAHM and not using the college degree they have, don't worry about it.
My lovely wife has a four year degree in studio art. Now she is a SAHM, yet she has found numerous ways to use that education in service to the Lord. As I write this she is currently directing our churches VBS. She has done numerous "art" related projects in organizing and planning VBS including building a float for the local parade on the 4th, to promote the VBS, designed background scenes for the program. Made costumes for those participating, and dressed me up as a Roman centurion.
She is using all that college training to serve the Lord while also filling the role of being a great wife and mother. That's what God intended.
78. Sarah said the following at 7:55 PM on Jul 10:
Amir (#64) wrote: "When over half the women clergy identify themselves as "strong feminists", you've got a substantial case that either (a) they are not really called to the office, or (b) they are perverting their calling."
Wouldn't you say that the issue here then is not the fact that they are women, but what theological beliefs they hold to? This is where I question you; a significant part of your case so far is based on the theological stances of women pastors, not their sex/gender alone. And seeing as how there is not a cause and effect relationship between the two, I'm not sure I understand why you continue to bring it up.
Jeremy (#73) - well said.
I also believe in the authority of Scripture and would like to think that my feelings do not override that. My problem, however, is that I am not able to reconcile what you hold to be scriptural to what I read and understand to be scriptural.
Additionally, as to the precedence thing, would you or would you not agree that there are other things done within the Christian faith today which have no biblical precedence? For example, what is the biblical precedence for church constructing buildings to meet in? Sure there were the the Tabernacle and the Temple, but they were only two in the whole Bible. Wouldn't that make them the exception rather than the rule?
79. Jeremy said the following at 9:38 PM on Jul 10:
"Exodus 20:13 is addressed directly to abortion, it simply refers to all murder in general, 'Thou shall not unjustly take a human life.' "
Ugh. Let's not turn this into an abortion debate, but the essential question related to abortion is whether or not a fetus is indeed a human soul (which would make abortion murder). Simply presupposing a specific answer to that question and then showing how Scripture addresses murder is not helpful. We all agree that murder is sinful. What some disagree on is whether abortion is murder, whether a fetus has a soul. Scripture does not speak directly to that, the central issue surrounding abortion.
I am sorry if I come across as condescending, but so much of the discussion of abortion within Christian circles devolves into Farmer Tom's kind of response, people patting themselves or one another on the back, and completely ignoring the central issue. Now I have been warned and had several comments blocked for seeming to support abortion, so let me make clear that I am not try to do so here. I am merely trying to remind everyone of what the central issue with regard to abortion actually is, and maybe try to dispel the myth that that central issue is clear-cut in Scripture.
And again, this was all an aside, I really am not looking for this to turn into an abortion debate.
80. Jeremy said the following at 10:34 PM on Jul 10:
"Jeremy- those sorts of commands are often given with a reason. If that reason no longer exists, then we know we can disregard that command."
The difficulty is that the verses from 1 Corinthians 11 prohibiting long hair for men and praying with uncovered heads for women also are accompanied by several universal justifications. Paul says this is to be done "because of the angels" (v 10), and that it is something that "nature itself" teaches (v 14). I really do not have a good answer for this dilemma, I just want to show that Scripturally, the issues of, say, men having long hair and the ordination of women really are not very different, and both present fairly serious problems. We have just chosen to ignore one over time.
81. Craig said the following at 12:08 AM on Jul 11:
Jeremy...I'm tired of this too but....It takes a special sort of self-delusion for a Christian to pretend that unborn babies--at least at the stages of pregnancy actually involved in most abortions--might not be human beings. It IS a scientific question, but the ultrasound and modern medicine have answered it. The only thing left obstructing this reality is the will to power in the minds of the lost. Besides which, if it WERE an "open question", shouldn't we err towards the protection of life? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those advocating a right to eviscerate what "might or might not" be a human life?
On another note....I'm inclined to believe that Farmer Tom's assessment of his family's "black sheep" relative is accurate--but I think he goes over the top in declaring that she lacks a genuine relationship with Christ. One can be wrong about any number of theological matters and yet be in communion with Christ, and we should be humble about making declarations about how God sees and touches the soul of another person. Particularly one who claims Christ. The mercy of God reaches all kinds of flaws and errors in men and women.
82. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:30 AM on Jul 11:
For the record, I have a lady, no wrong term, female, relative
Lol.
Sarah:
Wouldn't you say that the issue here then is not the fact that they are women, but what theological beliefs they hold to?
Part of their theological beliefs is believing that its ok for women to be the leaders of a church - and by holding that position, it is a direct violation of scripture - ergo, their theology is still in question.
Jeremy (#79),
Why? Why do you do this if you aren't an abortion supporter? No, I can't make this argument to a non-believer because they simply don't place God or scripture in a specific authority over them that this response refers to. But YOU, as a Christian, do accept that authority, so I can make this case to you:
GOD is the author of life. No one else. The beginning of that process is CONCEPTION. I don't care when a fetus is "technically" alive, only that in its existence, a life is in process...that was put there by GOD. My interpretation of Exodus 20:13 has always been that no human being is to be the author or destructor of life. There is only ONE who determines when one lives or dies. There is only ONE who breathes life and takes it away. For any human being to take another's life (even a fetus that isn't "technically" alive, even taking your OWN life) is an attempt to play God in matters of life and death.
The power of life is in his hands and his alone. Conception is a direct result of God's work. You could have sex til the cows come home and you won't get pregnant unless God makes that happen.
Now, when I have an argument to present to an unbeliever, I'll get back to you.
83. IMO said the following at 8:18 AM on Jul 11:
I don't think it's a stretch to use this psalm to demonstrate that Scripture DOES speak DIRECTLY to an unborn baby with a soul.
Psalm 139: 13-16
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
84. Jeremy said the following at 9:57 AM on Jul 11:
I debate responding at all, and perhaps this comment will be blocked, but I suppose I will give it a shot. Let me make the most important point first:
"Besides which, if it WERE an "open question", shouldn't we err towards the protection of life? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those advocating a right to eviscerate what "might or might not" be a human life?"
Absolutely, which is why, even though I suspect that the soul is first present at birth, I sill support abortion being illegal.
---------------------------------------------
"It IS a scientific question, but the ultrasound and modern medicine have answered it."
This is simply untrue. Yes, a fetus is living human tissue (as is a wart, but no one would have a problem killing that), but the question of whether or not it has a soul, the question which would make abortion morally different from killing an animal, is fundamentally not a scientific one. We can certainly use scientific data to make guesses about it (for example, ~70% of all conceived embryos are naturally aborted, so if indeed the soul were present at conception, at least 70% of all souls in heaven or hell would be less than a week old), but the question lies properly in the area of religion. Which, of course, is why we are attempting to glean Biblical truths that might shed light on it.
---------------------------------------------
"GOD is the author of life. No one else. The beginning of that process is CONCEPTION. I don't care when a fetus is "technically" alive, only that in its existence, a life is in process...that was put there by GOD. ... For any human being to take another's life (even a fetus that isn't "technically" alive, even taking your OWN life) is an attempt to play God in matters of life and death."
This presents exactly the same problem. In exactly the same way, an animal's life is created by God, and yet it is morally acceptable (even commanded) for humans to kill animals. And if the issue is ONLY the presence of living human tissue, then removing a wart or having an amputation is tantamout to murder, which is clearly ridiculous. The entire question is when the soul is first present, and merely stating that the answer is conception without any reason begs the question.
---------------------------------------------
"Psalm 139: 13-16
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb. "
This is probably the most over-used "proof-text" in the area of abortion. The obvious point, once again, is that in exactly the same way, could not we say that God knits together a baby cow in its mother's womb? Of course! This psalm is speaking to God's creative power and his complete control over creation, but it really does not address the issue of a soul.
---------------------------------------------
I am not claiming that I have the answer to this question. From the both literal and symbolic significance Scripture places on birth and many of the statements equating life with breath, my guess is that the soul is first present at birth. However, as was pointed out, of course we should err on the side of caution with any unclear questions relating to life and death. But my point is exactly that -- this question is a difficult one and a bit murky in Scripture, and pretending that it is clear-cut does not serve anyone.
85. IMO said the following at 11:16 AM on Jul 11:
"This psalm is speaking to God's creative power and his complete control over creation, but it really does not address the issue of a soul."
David's psalm seems a little more specific and PERSONAL than your generalization... IMO.
You see this Psalm as an "over-used 'proof-text'"...
I see it as David expressing his intimate and comforting relationship with God.
----
I guess I just don't see the need of Scripture to address the "issue of the soul." I think Scripture shouts it loud and clear, without using the terms "soul and baby in womb." I really think it's just a given in Scripture. Then again, maybe I have way too much faith... ;-)
----
It really does get fascinating to think about when a baby gets his or her soul...Just thinking about that exact, exact time is some crazy food for thought.
I know I have my answer.
86. Tami said the following at 2:35 PM on Jul 12:
Will someone let us know when Ashleigh is granted success in giving birth to the newest Slater gal? :)
87. Sherry Baker said the following at 3:15 PM on Jul 12:
Thanks everyone! Lauren (#67), I am an environmental policy major! : )
88. Tom Neven said the following at 5:27 PM on Jul 12:
Ted and Ashleigh Slater are the proud parents of their third daughter, Savannah Eloise Slater.
Savannah arrived weighing 7 lbs. 11 oz. and is 19-1/4 inches long.
Mother and baby are doing very well. Dad's walking in dazed circles.
89. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:55 PM on Jul 12:
Actually, Jeremy, there's ample Biblical proof for life in the womb. Esau and Jacob fought in the womb, and John the Baptist leapt in the womb, and was filled with the Holy Spirit while in the womb.
But hey...I'm sure Herod would not have minded doing a partial birth abortion...
As to your strawman logic on 1 Corinthians 11, why don't you cite the passage in its entirety and perform some analysis beyond your backhanded, proof-texted attack on those who oppose women pastors?
Better yet, I'll do it.
If you'd bother to read the passage, you'd understand that it is addressing the issue of authority and submission--the husband to the Lord and the wife to her husband.
For the man to wear a headcovering would have meant implied submission to an authority other than Jesus whereas for a wife to eschew a covering--or cut her hair--was a symbolic rejection of the authority of her husband.
If anything, this passage flies in the face of feminist theology and its warped teachings with respect to "equality". (The Scriptures teach equality, but not the way the feminists would have you understand it.)
Are there cultural matters today that may indicate acceptance or rejection of authority by husbands and wives? Perhaps.
At the same time, your use of that passage--especially in the larger context of the chapter in which it occurs in Scripture--is a weak rebuttal to those who would argue against a general case for women pastors.
90. Tami said the following at 5:55 PM on Jul 12:
Thanks, Tom!
91. Kyra said the following at 8:48 PM on Jul 12:
As a master's graduate and single mom I constantly wrestle with my role in the world as a woman. I do think that if I were lucky enough to be in a situation where I were married and my husband's income were enough to support us, I would stay home with my children while they were young.
But there are a couple things that make me uncomfortable with the "men as leaders" topic, and they were both touched on in this post.
Firstly, I get kind of aggravated every time I read a man (and occasionally some women) make commments that seem to brush aside the idea of successful women in the public arena. Yes, I would agree that being a stay at home mom is admirable. But if the gender philosophies of Christians are taken to the ultimate end, let's think about what the results would be...in other words, a world where 100% of the CEO's, Presidents, lawyers, doctors, etc...are all men. Because the women are too busy being full time moms. So many women-specific issues have been addressed in the last decades as a result of women being in those leadership positions. Even if only good, Christian men were the captains of every ship, they still wouldn't bring to the table the perspectives women have to offer. Sure a man can have a sister, wife or daughter, but he can't know what it's like to give birth, or go through menopause, have an abortion, or encounter sexual discrimination in the workplace, etc. Being a Catholic, I especially take issue with the lack of "biblical precedence" for female pastors or priests. This, to me, is bizarre. Especially in an enviroment where women make up 62% of the church going population, and much of the public speaking talent! I think it's a case where the Bible is just taken TOO literally. I mean, none of Jesus' apostle's were women, okay, but do we all honestly believe it is because God the Father wants only men to be the leaders of the Church, for all eternity? It seems to me that churches full of male leaders (in many cases celibate, childless male leaders) could benefit from the perspectives of women, of mothers. By holding on to the tradition of male leadership we're not being true to the Church, in my opinion we are cheating it.
Secondly, when we speak of stay-at-home moms, I think it's always important to remember that at least in this country we're speaking of a particular demographic. That is, married women, who were lucky enough to marry men who went to college and/or who make enough money to support the couple AND their children, without the wife having to work. In many cases, he may also have to help pay back college loans accrued by the stay at home mom to earn degrees she has yet to use. Let's not kid ourselves and admit that this is a very small demographic.
PS- I didn't hear any mention of honoring successful MEN who influence people on a smaller scale, such as stay at home dads. To me the article reads as though this is becase men who are successful on a large scale are the norm, and this whole "successful women" thing is some sort of anomaly of modern culture.
92. Kyra said the following at 9:11 PM on Jul 12:
I'm confused about a few of the posts' mention of the word "feminism" almost as if it were a dirty word. I guess I have a misunderstanding of what feminism is and was wondering if those who posted about it could clarify?
To me, "feminism" means "from a female perspective." In this case I suppose I would consider myself a feminist because...hello, I'm female. It means calling attention to areas in which women are discriminated against, as they still are today, sadly.
For example, let's take the church. The idea that certain roles are exclusive to men when those roles demand no qualities or talents not held by women... this is discrimination. If a public corporation declared that women could work for it but never be promoted beyond the position of general manager, no matter how qualified, and if the women didn't like it they can always just go work somewhere else...this would be discrimination. But for some reason because the Church does it, it's okay. I guess the reason why most church-going men don't register this discrimination is because they have the opportunity to become pastors, deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, popes, should they so choose. And the reason why the issue isn't addressed more often is because the women who do register the discrimination are too busy holding their parishes together through volunteer work and trying to get their children (and husbands..) dressed in time for Sunday morning worship!
Gee, I guess feminism is pretty ridiculous in a way. What did it get us? I mean, imagine a woman say, wanting to own her own property. What for? Or how about a woman wanting to vote, that one's really amusing. Let her husband cast the vote for the whole household, why would she need to have her own opinion? Can't she just trust that her husband (or father) would vote for the right fellow?
As screwball as some of the radical feminist agendas are occasionally, it would be nice if we didn't throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak.
93. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:17 AM on Jul 13:
Kyra says:
Sadly, you have fallen for the mistaken assumption that all discrimination is evil. Whether we wish to admit it or not, God discriminates quite a bit. Heck, while He was on this earth, Jesus even discriminated. He did not choose any women to be among the 12 Disciples. He did not spend all His time with them equally; He apparently favored one--John--over the others while entrusting Peter with responsibilities not afforded to the others. Only three of the Twelve were present at the Transfiguration. Quick...file the lawsuit!
The Church was never established to be an Equal Opportunity Employer, and the premise of women exercising authority over men is clearly the exception to the rule in Scripture. It's not about what I think of "discrimination" or "rights"; it's about what Scripture says. And when it comes to Church leadership, the rule is male leadership. At best, women leading men is the exception, although a credible case can be made that the exclusion of women from the pastorate is an absolute one.
It has yielded at least 50 million dead babies, a higher divorce rate, economic burdens that have forced families to rely on two incomes--which, as Tyagi and Warren have pointed out--has increased the risk of financial calamity for families; a birth rate that threatens the sustainability of Western cilvization; a whole generation of women who are now going well into their 30s and 40s wondering if they'll ever be able to marry.
I'll drink to the demise of feminism.
94. Jeremy said the following at 3:08 PM on Jul 13:
"If you'd bother to read the passage, you'd understand that it is addressing the issue of authority and submission--the husband to the Lord and the wife to her husband.
For the man to wear a headcovering would have meant implied submission to an authority other than Jesus whereas for a wife to eschew a covering--or cut her hair--was a symbolic rejection of the authority of her husband."
I think you misunderstand where I am coming from. I would agree with that interpretation, and I also would agree that women should not be pastors. I was merely pointing out that it is a trickier and more difficult issue than some might admit, and doing so by drawing a parallel to another passage.
The problem is this -- what you have done with the 1 Corinthians passage (which again, I think is valid in this case) is to attempt to understand the principle of the passage (authority as it relates to both men and women), and disregarded the specifics (women covering their head when praying, men not having long hair). But again, those that support women being pastors see themselves as doing the exact same thing, disregarding the specific (women not being pastors) in favor of understanding the principle (usually, the uneducated being in positions of authority, cf. 1 Cor 14:34-35).
"Actually, Jeremy, there's ample Biblical proof for life in the womb."
That is true =). Just as there is ample Biblical proof for the life of a dove. This does not make killing them morally wrong. But I am going to refrain from elaborating on this one to avoid de-railing the topic.
95. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:44 PM on Jul 13:
Sarah asks:
That the numbers are so high among the women provides a substantial case for revisiting the paradigm of their ordination. Keep in mind that the 56% is only the women who identify themselves as strong feminists. Even moderate or light feminism is heresy.
Moreover, the stats carry the implication that the actual percentage of feminists among the women clergy is likely higher, as theological liberals often do not choose to be labeled as such.
Ergo, the degree theological liberalism among women clergy itself provides at least a prima facie case that the women as pastors paradigm is a wrong one.
96. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:51 PM on Jul 13:
Jeremy says:
Now you're sounding more like Peter Singer, and have thus ruined your credibility. Doves are not morally equivalent to humans, nor is there a Biblical case in which God suggests that killing children in utero is permissible.
In fact, as I pointed out, two children fought in the womb, and God referred to them--while still in utero--as two nations. And John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in utero.
As for those who support women pastors, they are free to make a Biblical case for it. As far as I have seen, Ted and Farmer Tom would love to see it.
In fact, I've probably made the only substantive case for women pastors, albeit as the exception to the rule that otherwise prohibits them from exercising authority over men.
97. Sarah said the following at 8:50 PM on Jul 13:
Amir (#96) wrote: "Ergo, the degree theological liberalism among women clergy itself provides at least a prima facie case that the women as pastors paradigm is a wrong one."
A prima facie case, yes. However, give it another look and I feel like it should be obvious that this is a weak argument against women pastors. Plenty of male pastors hold to faulty theology. This, however, does not negate their entire gender's capability of pastoring based simply on gender. Therefore, I'm not sure how you can promote the logic that because a lot of female pastors hold to faulty theology, no one of their gender should be permitted to be a pastor.
Honestly, I think that Craig (#18) has given the best potential explanation of why, if for any reason, a woman shouldn't be a pastor, because it places the emphasis on the role and nature of the position itself rather than on the sex/gender of the person fulfilling it.
From what I've read and looked into, the commands in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy can not be fully understood without understanding the cultural and situation specific problems that provoked their writing. From what I understood them to be, I would then agree that women who are preaching heresy should not be permitted to teach. However, the fact that these women believe as such and could be allowed to be in leadership is a problem with the church and individuals - not women as a whole.
Also, as I am rereading the passages, I cannot help but feel a need to probe further into the verses surrounding the single verses that are often quoted as sufficient proof against women pastors.
For example: in the 1 Corinthians passage, Paul says that women must remain silent in the churches and are not allowed to speak. But what about verse 35 which says "If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home." Why would Paul say this? It seems a bit random if not provoked by the actual events of women speaking in a disruptive manner. And why the highlight on their own husbands ? Why not just say "husbands" unless there was an issue with them asking other men? Now, I don't know why that would be an issue, but...
Also, let's take a look at the KJV of 1 Timothy 2:12: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Let's first note that "to usurp" means to take over without right. Let's also note that "nor to usurp authority over the man" can easily be removed and the sentence still reads grammatically correct. Therefore, regardless of authority and leadership issues, women still wouldn't be allowed to teach from the way I understand some people here are approaching and interpreting these verses. This is a blanket statement that says at face value that Paul does not permit a woman to teach. Not, he doesn't permit them to teach over men, or he doesn't permit them to teach only if it comes by usurpation. Paul simply doesn't permit women to teach. So if we're going to get restrictive here, let's go all the way. Women shouldn't be teaching at all in church, regardless of who their audience is.
Of course, all of this also depends on your definition and understanding of church and the position of pastor.
98. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:17 AM on Jul 14:
Sarah says:
Not against the backdrop of Scripture it's not. And I would suggest that it is more than a prima facie case when Scriptural reality is taken into account.
Jesus shattered many paradigms with respect to how society viewed women. However, He did not create any standard for women exercising authority over men.
In Scripture, there is only one really strong case where this happens--Deborah--and even in that one it was a case where the man who was supposed to lead (Barak) deferred to her.
In the New Testament, there is no precedent for women leading men in the Church. In fact, the very same Apostle Paul who declared that in Christ there is neither...male nor female, also specifically forbade women from teaching or holding authority over men. And his reasons were theological and not cultural. Moreover, the requirements for overseer included husband of one wife. Ergo, if he intended to make an allowance for women in such an office, it's not even implicit.
(Some might raise the argument that this interpretation requires that a pastor be a married man and therefore excludes singles. That might hold water, except that (a) the Apostle who wrote the letter was himself single; (b) other than Peter--who had a mother-in-law--we have no definitive evidence that any of the original Disciples were married; and (c) it is likely that Timothy was single, as Paul makes no mention in either of his two letters to Timothy regarding his wife. Given the relationship between the Paul and Timothy--which was both close and extended--such an omission would be a clear indicator that Timothy was likely single.)
99. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:42 AM on Jul 14:
Of course, all of this also depends on your definition and understanding of church and the position of pastor.
And the meaning of the original word that was translated into "teach" =p
I've heard it being interpreted as a postion of making doctrine (as the head priest of a church was typically capable of doing without any accountability except for scripture and God). Under this interpretation, Phoebe as a Deacon isn't out of line, because she wasn't in charge of doctrine and was directly accountable to Paul.
That's just one view =p
100. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:51 AM on Jul 14:
Sarah says:
The passage, however, did not address only the women who were teaching heresy.
Likely, you had a situation where the women were using the Church to gain positions of authority and influence that they did not have at home or in general society.
Paul articulated a general rule that is also reflected in 1 Timothy: women are not to be leading men.
I take that to mean that women ought not be teaching men or holding authority over men. As for "usurping authority", women have no "right" to take on roles that are specifically on the men. Does God make exceptions where women are allowed in that capacity? Arguably so, but those are exceptions.
Fact is, men have a natural tendency to want to delegate to and accommodate women. Just ask any man who is married. The natural tendency for the men is to be passive.
Likewise, women have a natural tendency to usurp roles that men have a natural tendency to want to delegate.
That would not hold water against the larger context of Scripture, as women were among those commanded to teach God's commands to their children (Deuteronomy 6:4-9). Ergo, accepting the interpretation that this is about women leading men is valid, especially given the theological reasons Paul provides for prohibiting women teaching men in the given passage.
My understanding is that of overseer, delineated in 1 Timothy 3. And--as Ted correctly pointed out--there is no Biblical precedence for women in that role