That is most absolutely applicable to us, if viewed in the proper mindset of the Orthodox Church. This is the same rationale as saying that Luke 14:26 is not applicable to us, "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." It is applicable, but one must read it with the mindset of the Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirit, who is One in Essence with the Son and the Father. If one reads a word with their own mindset, they will apply their own interpretation to the word; this is likened to taking something historically out of context. The context is the mind of the Church, that whose Head is Christ Jesus.
If there exists some contention as to what it is that the verse actually is understood to mean, then this is a topic for another thread.
The first letter to Timothy describes the requirements of a man who wants to be a bishop,presbyter, or deacon. No mention of women being ordained is mentioned. In both of St Paul's letters to Timothy he says pretty clear that women are not to hold a position of authority over a man, speaking of in Church. That she should be silent. He also goes into detail about how a woman is to dress and act. This of course is largely ignored today and if point this out to women, that they should dress modestly, well then we are sexist.
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
ut the question has still not been addressed. If women were counted equal with apostles and had the gifts of of prophesy, etc., why should they not be allowed into the priesthood today? Please limit evidence to that from the NT.
Prophesying has nothing to with being an apostle. These are two different roles.
1. Romans 16:1-2 "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me." Phoebe as a 'minister' and as patron] 2. Romans 16:6-7 "Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." [Junia as an outstanding apostle]
3. Philippians 4:1-3 "1 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends! I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life." [Euodia and Syntuche as 'co-workers']
4. Acts 18:1-3 "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them." [[Priscilla and Aquila as 'co-workers' and house-church leaders]
5. Acts 18: 24-26 "Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor[a] and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately." [Priscilla and Aquila as 'co-workers' and house-church leaders]
6. 1 Corinthians 11:5 "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved." [Female prophets]
7. Acts 21:9 "He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied." [Female prophets]
8. 1 Corinthians 7:13-16 "And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" [Christian wife as spiritual leader in a mixed marriage]
9. Colossians 4:15 "Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house." [Nympha as house-church leader]
St. John Chrysostom- "Homilies on Romans 31" on Romans 16:6-7
"Think how great the devotion of this woman Junia must have been , that she should be worthy to be called an apostle!"
Theoderet - "Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans" on Romans 16:7
"These people were companions of Paul in his sufferings and even shared imprisonment with him. Hence he says that they are men and women of note, not among the pupils but among the teachers, and not among the ordinary teachers but among the apostles!"
Origen - "Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans" on Romans 16:1-12
"This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church's ministry by the apostle's authority."
This is going to lead us in a tangent. I do not wish to get sidetracked.
I will repeat one of the main questions:
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137275#msg137275 date=1304483347] What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=11375.msg137279#msg137279 date=1304483759] I fear that I am not providing ample opportunity for others to answer, and for this, I ask for everyone's forgiveness.
1. Romans 16:1-2 "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me." Phoebe as a 'minister' and as patron]
The Greek word for servant is deacon and service is deaconeya. So, when St Paul says he is the servant of the Lord he uses the word "deacon" but that does not mean he is a deacon.
Deacon in the Church is a priestly rank and it is evident in Acts 6 how it was important that the Apostles lay their hands on the men chosen for this honorable rank.
So Roman 16:1-2 DOES NOT mean that Phoebe received the priestly rank.
Note: It is important to reference several translations to get an exact meaning.
Next Verse
6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard among you. 7 Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before
Certainly, Mary is not a man. St Paul is saying that they are of good reputation and NOT among the apostles.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137286#msg137286 date=1304485834] Note: It is important to reference several translations to get an exact meaning.
Next Verse
6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard among you. 7 Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before
Certainly, Mary is not a man. St Paul is saying that they are of good reputation and NOT among the apostles.
I am not sure how you came to this conclusion? Please read the quotes of the fathers that I provided.
wow, 3 pages while i slept! i hope you guys are all sleeping now, so i have time to write something too! to summarise all the great Bible quotes you already all gave; there are important roles for women in church. there were women who 'followed Jesus from galilee' and provided financially for Jesus. the wife of pilate interrupted a roman tribunal to tell pilate about her bad dream and to warn him not to be the one who unjustly judges Jesus (i'm sure that kind of thing was against protocol!) the 'ideal woman' at the end of the book of proverbs not only is a great mother, but also has 1 or 2 good businesses going and works outside the house to bring honour on the whole family. mary sat at the feet of Jesus listening and being educated instead of assuming the traditional woman's role of being busy in the kitchen and not really knowing what was going on. of course there were many female prophets. they would give their message to a priest or bishop and allow him to decide what to do with it; they did not start their own churches.
but there are no female priests, because God has given this role to men. if you look at the role of assisted conception, women are trying to invent a system of having babies where they don't need men at all! maybe God is just having pity on men by not allowing women in, a kind of 'positive discrimination' so woman don't take over. women have uteruses, and that can make them feel they can do everything! if you look at churches today, you don't see that the majority are men, so women are certainly not excluded.
personally, i would like to see a wider role for deaconesses and female singers. but they must take care not to take over and exclude the men. how many women have you met who moan that the 'deacons' (singers/readers) aren't pronouncing the words properly or the tune? i have met plenty. i worry that if women were in charge it would all be more 'professionally done' and less from the heart. in many eastern orthodox churches, women have a much wider role than in our church.
but even in our churches, women can be on the church council (making major financial decisions and planning church events) and can read the Bible during apocalypses (Good friday night/saturday morning) and they can also co-lead (eg. with their husband) Bible studies, and of course, teach sunday school, which is a really important and very serious leadership ability. so there is plenty to do, and if anyone is doing all this and is still bored, please send me a personal message, i am sure i can think of something to keep you busy!
i. personally, always feel the urge to rearrange the 'deacon's' tonia (and sometimes abouna's) as they are not always zipped properly on the shoulder, or the badrashiel (don't know the english word) is slipping off all the time. can you imagine what a disruption to the liturgy it would be if the deacons were 'tidied up' by a woman and checked to see if they were presentable before being allowed out from the curtain (men's side, not altar!) i think it would be very bad and i am glad i am not allowed to interfere in this way ;)
i hope, unworthy 1 you get enough material for your professor. is he religious at all?
I'm not sure how one can necessarily equate leadership with the priesthood. Women, to this day, have leadership positions in the church. There are women sunday school teachers (a leadership position). There are women in charge of church upkeep (a leadership position). There are women on the church board (a leadership position). There are women who head the planning of various church functions (a leadership position). To be called an equal to the apostles does not imply they were in the priesthood. It simply means they served with as much fervent love as the Apostles themselves. Leadership is not just about being a priest. There are many important functions in the church outside of the priesthood, that are no less vital. It seems your professor has a clear agenda, I'd urge caution. Another thing, as St. Paul says, there are numerous gifts of the Spirit. They have nothing to do with a perceived 'status' in the Church. They are just that, GIFTS of the Spirit offered to ANYONE God chooses to bestow that grace upon. In the end, however, it is not the gifts of the Spirit that matter but the fruits of the Spirit that define us as Christians, and thereby, leaders in this fallen world.
But specifically for the Apocalypse, deacons are not dressed. So, men can read.
Of course the correct rite is for the arch priest should be the one to read but this is not practical. So, they allowed the laity to read and now women!!!!!!!
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11375.msg137317#msg137317 date=1304520369] I agree menatasgeel.
But specifically for the Apocalypse, deacons are not dressed. So, men can read.
Of course the correct rite is for the arch priest should be the one to read but this is not practical. So, they allowed the laity to read and now women!!!!!!!
hehe.....there's a debate on that. BUT, despite all those debates, there are many books that say we must were tonai from the beginning. and that's what my church have been doing for the last couple of yrs.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137275#msg137275 date=1304483347] Well put, thank you for the thoughtful replies.
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
Not a contradiction, it is a misinterpretation by a person either unwilling to search the church fathers for commentary or interpreting scripture for yourself. Women are not to have authority over a man in church, therefore they cannot enter into the priesthood. You are interchanging the words authority and leadership as if they are the same thing in order to try and be more "Politically Correct" with the ladies.
So you all seem to agree that women can have leadership roles.
Now I will ask the same question I asked several times: How do we reconcile that with the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, if we say these passages are normative. According to these passages women should not have leadership roles or even speak in the assembly. So either these passages are case and time specific, or we need to change our current practices. Doesn't anyone see the contradiction? Most (if not all) of the church fathers' writings on this issue revolve around those two passages. What is ignored are all the descriptive passages of woman prophesying and being called apostles. How can one be an apostle or prophesy if they must keep silent?
And on the issue of equating leadership roles in the early church with that of the priesthood. . .how do you separate the two? No one is referred to as a priest in the New Testament (according to my knowledge). If all are being called apostles, how can you say some are priests and others are 'just apostles'?
The professor argues that because of the passages he outlines, there was no real patriarchal structure. He argues that Jesus and Paul fought against patriarchal authority and gender roles and formed a community of brothers and sisters. Some were elders but they were all equal.
Can anyone provide evidence of the priesthood in the first century?
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137331#msg137331 date=1304527665] So you all seem to agree that women can have leadership roles.
Now I will ask the same question I asked several times: How do we reconcile that with the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, if we say these passages are normative. According to these passages women should not have leadership roles or even speak in the assembly. So either these passages are case and time specific, or we need to change our current practices. Doesn't anyone see the contradiction? Most (if not all) of the church fathers' writings on this issue revolve around those two passages. What is ignored are all the descriptive passages of woman prophesying and being called apostles. How can one be an apostle or prophesy if they must keep silent?
These verses must be put in their proper historical context. They do not exist in a vacuum. As far as I can tell, St. Paul request that women should remain silent in the context of the Church so they refrain from idle chatter and gossip. This also, implicitly, goes for men, though women are often (for better or for worse) associated with idle chatter and gossip.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=11375.msg137330#msg137330 date=1304527004] [quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137275#msg137275 date=1304483347] Well put, thank you for the thoughtful replies.
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
Not a contradiction, it is a misinterpretation by a person either unwilling to search the church fathers for commentary or interpreting scripture for yourself. Women are not to have authority over a man in church, therefore they cannot enter into the priesthood. You are interchanging the words authority and leadership as if they are the same thing in order to try and be more "Politically Correct" with the ladies.
Me trying to be "politically correct"? Lol - far from it.
But women do have authority over some men in the church. My sunday school leader is a women. . . I would assume (justifiably so) that leaders have authority. Is that so far-fetched?
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=11375.msg137332#msg137332 date=1304527911] + Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137331#msg137331 date=1304527665] So you all seem to agree that women can have leadership roles.
Now I will ask the same question I asked several times: How do we reconcile that with the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, if we say these passages are normative. According to these passages women should not have leadership roles or even speak in the assembly. So either these passages are case and time specific, or we need to change our current practices. Doesn't anyone see the contradiction? Most (if not all) of the church fathers' writings on this issue revolve around those two passages. What is ignored are all the descriptive passages of woman prophesying and being called apostles. How can one be an apostle or prophesy if they must keep silent?
These verses must be put in their proper historical context. They do not exist in a vacuum. As far as I can tell, St. Paul request that women should remain silent in the context of the Church so they refrain from idle chatter and gossip. This also, implicitly, goes for men, though women are often (for better or for worse) associated with idle chatter and gossip.
So if we are putting them in context then you are saying that they were corrective passages. They were written to address a specific problem at a specific time. So they cannot be normative. Unless we are talking about cases in which women are being 'chattery' and gossiping.
They are both corrective and normative. The same standards apply today in Church. While they may address a specific problem at a specific time, this problem still exists and the corrective solution is still found in these Epistles. If you can get your hands on it, there is a very good textbook called: The New Testament: A Student's Introduction. I used this book when I took a first year introductory course on the New Testament in university. It has, what I feel to be, a fantastic section discussion St. Paul's epistles. In particular, it helps put into historical context what St. Paul writes. Pages 341 - 343 would be particularly useful to you.
Thank you - I will search for it in my school's library.
I am afraid what is not being addressed is that if these passages are normative and corrective, how do we reconcile them with the passages about women who WERE in leadership and DID speak in the assembly and even PROPHECY?
Is their evidence of the priesthood and male authority in the first century?
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=11375.msg137298#msg137298 date=1304501133] i hope, unworthy 1 you get enough material for your professor. is he religious at all?
He seems to have his own type of Christianity ;) It is clear that he admires Jesus and the early Christians for the moral values they emphasized and for the social injustice they attacked. I think he basically believes that after Constantine everything went down-hill. .
He is now working on a book about calling no man father. Maybe I can get him to change his stance before its published - however unlikely that may be :)
I think what I referenced will help answer your question. Allow me to type an excerpt for you:
... If Jesus included numerous women among his disciples -- some of whom were the first to proclaim the 'good news' of his resurrection -- and Paul endorsed women such as Phoebe as congregational leaders (Rom. 16:1-2ff.), how did the Christian community eventually come to reject woman's leadership in favor of exclusively male domination? Recently, several scholars have suggested that the gradual shrinking of women's roles in the church may have been related to a historic change in the kinds of places in which believers assembled. In Paul's day, relatively small groups of Christians assembled in private houses -- no separate church buildings then existed. Because only comparatively well-to-do homeowners had dwellings large enough to accommodate even a few dozen people, the host and/or hostess probably took a leading role in presiding over gatherings in his or her home. If a congregation assembled at the house of a wealthy widow -- one no longer under a husband's control -- it is likely that she participated actively in worship services, praying, prophesying, and teaching others (1Cor. 11:5; cf. the story of Lydia, who offered her house to Paul, in Acts 16:13-15).
As congregations grew, attracting larger numbers of qualified men, however, the prominence of women householders who hosted Christian meetings gradually declined. The shift from gathering in private accommodations, traditionally run by women, to assembling in larger edifices in the public sphere, where men dominated, had an inevitable effect on the composition of church leadership...
... But after the belief in an imminent divine kingdom waned and the church accepted an indefinitely delayed Parousia, the Christian community increasingly adapted itself to the customs and assumptions of the larger Greco-Roman world. The adaptation seems to have included almost wholesale acceptance of Roman society's view of male-female relationships, a view that the author of 1 Timothy uncritically endorses...
Excerpt taken from The New Testament: A Student's Introduction (Box 15.1 pages 342-343)
Comments
If there exists some contention as to what it is that the verse actually is understood to mean, then this is a topic for another thread.
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
What is it?
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137239#msg137239 date=1304473325]
1. Romans 16:1-2 "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me." Phoebe as a 'minister' and as patron]
2. Romans 16:6-7 "Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."
[Junia as an outstanding apostle]
3. Philippians 4:1-3 "1 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, dear friends! I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life."
[Euodia and Syntuche as 'co-workers']
4. Acts 18:1-3 "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them." [[Priscilla and Aquila as 'co-workers' and house-church leaders]
5. Acts 18: 24-26 "Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor[a] and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately."
[Priscilla and Aquila as 'co-workers' and house-church leaders]
6. 1 Corinthians 11:5 "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved." [Female prophets]
7. Acts 21:9 "He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied." [Female prophets]
8. 1 Corinthians 7:13-16 "And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" [Christian wife as spiritual leader in a mixed marriage]
9. Colossians 4:15 "Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house."
[Nympha as house-church leader]
St. John Chrysostom- "Homilies on Romans 31" on Romans 16:6-7
"Think how great the devotion of this woman Junia must have been , that she should be worthy to be called an apostle!"
Theoderet - "Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans" on Romans 16:7
"These people were companions of Paul in his sufferings and even shared imprisonment with him. Hence he says that they are men and women of note, not among the pupils but among the teachers, and not among the ordinary teachers but among the apostles!"
Origen - "Commentary of the Epistle to the Romans" on Romans 16:1-12
"This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church's ministry by the apostle's authority."
This is going to lead us in a tangent. I do not wish to get sidetracked.
I will repeat one of the main questions:
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137275#msg137275 date=1304483347]
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
I fear that I am not providing ample opportunity for others to answer, and for this, I ask for everyone's forgiveness.
Do not apologize, you have been very helpful.
1. Romans 16:1-2 "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me." Phoebe as a 'minister' and as patron]
The Greek word for servant is deacon and service is deaconeya. So, when St Paul says he is the servant of the Lord he uses the word "deacon" but that does not mean he is a deacon.
Deacon in the Church is a priestly rank and it is evident in Acts 6 how it was important that the Apostles lay their hands on the men chosen for this honorable rank.
So Roman 16:1-2 DOES NOT mean that Phoebe received the priestly rank.
Next Verse
6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard among you. 7 Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before
Certainly, Mary is not a man. St Paul is saying that they are of good reputation and NOT among the apostles.
Note: It is important to reference several translations to get an exact meaning.
Next Verse
6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard among you. 7 Greet Androni'cus and Ju'nias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before
Certainly, Mary is not a man. St Paul is saying that they are of good reputation and NOT among the apostles.
I am not sure how you came to this conclusion? Please read the quotes of the fathers that I provided.
to summarise all the great Bible quotes you already all gave;
there are important roles for women in church.
there were women who 'followed Jesus from galilee' and provided financially for Jesus. the wife of pilate interrupted a roman tribunal to tell pilate about her bad dream and to warn him not to be the one who unjustly judges Jesus (i'm sure that kind of thing was against protocol!)
the 'ideal woman' at the end of the book of proverbs not only is a great mother, but also has 1 or 2 good businesses going and works outside the house to bring honour on the whole family.
mary sat at the feet of Jesus listening and being educated instead of assuming the traditional woman's role of being busy in the kitchen and not really knowing what was going on.
of course there were many female prophets. they would give their message to a priest or bishop and allow him to decide what to do with it; they did not start their own churches.
but there are no female priests, because God has given this role to men. if you look at the role of assisted conception, women are trying to invent a system of having babies where they don't need men at all! maybe God is just having pity on men by not allowing women in, a kind of 'positive discrimination' so woman don't take over. women have uteruses, and that can make them feel they can do everything!
if you look at churches today, you don't see that the majority are men, so women are certainly not excluded.
personally, i would like to see a wider role for deaconesses and female singers. but they must take care not to take over and exclude the men. how many women have you met who moan that the 'deacons' (singers/readers) aren't pronouncing the words properly or the tune? i have met plenty. i worry that if women were in charge it would all be more 'professionally done' and less from the heart. in many eastern orthodox churches, women have a much wider role than in our church.
but even in our churches, women can be on the church council (making major financial decisions and planning church events) and can read the Bible during apocalypses (Good friday night/saturday morning) and they can also co-lead (eg. with their husband) Bible studies, and of course, teach sunday school, which is a really important and very serious leadership ability.
so there is plenty to do, and if anyone is doing all this and is still bored, please send me a personal message, i am sure i can think of something to keep you busy!
i. personally, always feel the urge to rearrange the 'deacon's' tonia (and sometimes abouna's) as they are not always zipped properly on the shoulder, or the badrashiel (don't know the english word) is slipping off all the time.
can you imagine what a disruption to the liturgy it would be if the deacons were 'tidied up' by a woman and checked to see if they were presentable before being allowed out from the curtain (men's side, not altar!) i think it would be very bad and i am glad i am not allowed to interfere in this way ;)
i hope, unworthy 1 you get enough material for your professor. is he religious at all?
actually....not even a man can read something on the mangaleya in any liturgical service. must be a deacon who is dressed and is serving.
I'm not sure how one can necessarily equate leadership with the priesthood. Women, to this day, have leadership positions in the church. There are women sunday school teachers (a leadership position). There are women in charge of church upkeep (a leadership position). There are women on the church board (a leadership position). There are women who head the planning of various church functions (a leadership position). To be called an equal to the apostles does not imply they were in the priesthood. It simply means they served with as much fervent love as the Apostles themselves. Leadership is not just about being a priest. There are many important functions in the church outside of the priesthood, that are no less vital. It seems your professor has a clear agenda, I'd urge caution. Another thing, as St. Paul says, there are numerous gifts of the Spirit. They have nothing to do with a perceived 'status' in the Church. They are just that, GIFTS of the Spirit offered to ANYONE God chooses to bestow that grace upon. In the end, however, it is not the gifts of the Spirit that matter but the fruits of the Spirit that define us as Christians, and thereby, leaders in this fallen world.
But specifically for the Apocalypse, deacons are not dressed. So, men can read.
Of course the correct rite is for the arch priest should be the one to read but this is not practical. So, they allowed the laity to read and now women!!!!!!!
I agree menatasgeel.
But specifically for the Apocalypse, deacons are not dressed. So, men can read.
Of course the correct rite is for the arch priest should be the one to read but this is not practical. So, they allowed the laity to read and now women!!!!!!!
hehe.....there's a debate on that. BUT, despite all those debates, there are many books that say we must were tonai from the beginning. and that's what my church have been doing for the last couple of yrs.
Well put, thank you for the thoughtful replies.
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
Not a contradiction, it is a misinterpretation by a person either unwilling to search the church fathers for commentary or interpreting scripture for yourself. Women are not to have authority over a man in church, therefore they cannot enter into the priesthood. You are interchanging the words authority and leadership as if they are the same thing in order to try and be more "Politically Correct" with the ladies.
Now I will ask the same question I asked several times: How do we reconcile that with the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, if we say these passages are normative. According to these passages women should not have leadership roles or even speak in the assembly. So either these passages are case and time specific, or we need to change our current practices. Doesn't anyone see the contradiction? Most (if not all) of the church fathers' writings on this issue revolve around those two passages. What is ignored are all the descriptive passages of woman prophesying and being called apostles. How can one be an apostle or prophesy if they must keep silent?
And on the issue of equating leadership roles in the early church with that of the priesthood. . .how do you separate the two? No one is referred to as a priest in the New Testament (according to my knowledge). If all are being called apostles, how can you say some are priests and others are 'just apostles'?
The professor argues that because of the passages he outlines, there was no real patriarchal structure. He argues that Jesus and Paul fought against patriarchal authority and gender roles and formed a community of brothers and sisters. Some were elders but they were all equal.
Can anyone provide evidence of the priesthood in the first century?
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137331#msg137331 date=1304527665]
So you all seem to agree that women can have leadership roles.
Now I will ask the same question I asked several times: How do we reconcile that with the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, if we say these passages are normative. According to these passages women should not have leadership roles or even speak in the assembly. So either these passages are case and time specific, or we need to change our current practices. Doesn't anyone see the contradiction? Most (if not all) of the church fathers' writings on this issue revolve around those two passages. What is ignored are all the descriptive passages of woman prophesying and being called apostles. How can one be an apostle or prophesy if they must keep silent?
These verses must be put in their proper historical context. They do not exist in a vacuum. As far as I can tell, St. Paul request that women should remain silent in the context of the Church so they refrain from idle chatter and gossip. This also, implicitly, goes for men, though women are often (for better or for worse) associated with idle chatter and gossip.
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137275#msg137275 date=1304483347]
Well put, thank you for the thoughtful replies.
What I want to get at is how we reconcile the seeming contradiction. On the one hand (as shown in my original post), women are in leadership roles. But in the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, they are not. If the two are normative and applicable to all churches then that is a clear contradiction. Thoughts?
Not a contradiction, it is a misinterpretation by a person either unwilling to search the church fathers for commentary or interpreting scripture for yourself. Women are not to have authority over a man in church, therefore they cannot enter into the priesthood. You are interchanging the words authority and leadership as if they are the same thing in order to try and be more "Politically Correct" with the ladies.
Me trying to be "politically correct"? Lol - far from it.
But women do have authority over some men in the church. My sunday school leader is a women. . .
I would assume (justifiably so) that leaders have authority. Is that so far-fetched?
+ Irini nem ehmot,
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=11375.msg137331#msg137331 date=1304527665]
So you all seem to agree that women can have leadership roles.
Now I will ask the same question I asked several times: How do we reconcile that with the passages of 1 Cor 14:33-35 and 1 Tim 2:8-15, if we say these passages are normative. According to these passages women should not have leadership roles or even speak in the assembly. So either these passages are case and time specific, or we need to change our current practices. Doesn't anyone see the contradiction? Most (if not all) of the church fathers' writings on this issue revolve around those two passages. What is ignored are all the descriptive passages of woman prophesying and being called apostles. How can one be an apostle or prophesy if they must keep silent?
These verses must be put in their proper historical context. They do not exist in a vacuum. As far as I can tell, St. Paul request that women should remain silent in the context of the Church so they refrain from idle chatter and gossip. This also, implicitly, goes for men, though women are often (for better or for worse) associated with idle chatter and gossip.
So if we are putting them in context then you are saying that they were corrective passages. They were written to address a specific problem at a specific time. So they cannot be normative. Unless we are talking about cases in which women are being 'chattery' and gossiping.
They are both corrective and normative. The same standards apply today in Church. While they may address a specific problem at a specific time, this problem still exists and the corrective solution is still found in these Epistles. If you can get your hands on it, there is a very good textbook called: The New Testament: A Student's Introduction. I used this book when I took a first year introductory course on the New Testament in university. It has, what I feel to be, a fantastic section discussion St. Paul's epistles. In particular, it helps put into historical context what St. Paul writes. Pages 341 - 343 would be particularly useful to you.
I am afraid what is not being addressed is that if these passages are normative and corrective, how do we reconcile them with the passages about women who WERE in leadership and DID speak in the assembly and even PROPHECY?
Is their evidence of the priesthood and male authority in the first century?
i hope, unworthy 1 you get enough material for your professor. is he religious at all?
He seems to have his own type of Christianity ;) It is clear that he admires Jesus and the early Christians for the moral values they emphasized and for the social injustice they attacked. I think he basically believes that after Constantine everything went down-hill. .
He is now working on a book about calling no man father. Maybe I can get him to change his stance before its published - however unlikely that may be :)
I think what I referenced will help answer your question. Allow me to type an excerpt for you: Excerpt taken from The New Testament: A Student's Introduction (Box 15.1 pages 342-343)