Ship of Fools: Male leadership

Thread: Male leadership - not a dead horse Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030838

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

I have posted on other threads that the Stokers have recently escaped the clutches of a Young Restless Reformed church/ cult (depending on your definition). However, one thing we are having to do is unlearn quite a few narrow and restrictive dogmas. What I'm trying to find out in this case is the case or defence or whatever you might call it for women leading and teaching in church. It never really bothered me too much, but was a key bit of teaching in our previous church and we only ever got one side of the story. I am aware there are interpretation all and translational issues, but without spending hours trawling the web, I'd like to see a summary explanation of how we can reconcile female leadership with some of the texts like 1 Tim 2 etc.. This may be better in Kergymania, but honestly not a sock or troll. Cheers in advance.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Stoker

I understand you are not trolling but I think this will end up in Dead Horses anyway. Trolls get sent to hell, repetitive heated discussions get sent to dead horses.

However, some verses to look at:
Genesis 1:27. Not the image of God is in both humans not just Adam. It could be argued Men only represent a partial image of God and we need women to complete the image.

Then there is Deborah in Judges.

New Testament there is Mary and Martha, what we miss is that Mary very clearly chose the role of disciple.

Then there is the awkwardness that the first people to bring knowledge of the ressurection were women. Men literally had to be taught by women on the first Easter morning in order to see the work of God.

Jengie

Posted by ElaineC (# 12244) on :

I'm female and a licensed lay minister in the Church of England. I preach on a regular basis and most Sundays I share in the leading of services.

Men and women are different. We have different outlooks on life and different concerns. The church is poorer from not hearing from both points of view.

Verses about women's roles are often taken in isolation and out of context. The culture that existed when the verses were written were very different from those in the 21st century and this needs to be taken into account when trying to apply them today.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Despite the thread title this is definitely a Dead Horse. Heading that way.

Barnabas62
Purgatory and Dead Horses Host

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

How do you classify "leader" as that is quite a broad term.

I would argue that the person standing at the front sharing the word is not leading everybody.

A Pastor who tends the flock and administers the church is also more a servant than a leader.

Once we move beyond the church into one of the numerous brands of Christianity then the hierarchy certainly contains leaders.

Some of the Pastors/Preachers ect.. do fashion themselves as leader but are they right or wrong to do this?

[ 02. August 2016, 11:56: Message edited by: PDA ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I'd like to see a summary explanation of how we can reconcile female leadership with some of the texts like 1 Tim 2 etc.

Here's a quick'n'dirty approach to this point.

One common way that people in favour of women's ministry deal with this verse is to argue, as I would to a great extent, that it was a temporary prohibition due to local circumstances.

Complementarians argue that this won't wash because (they allege) Paul appeals to a "creational hierarchy" of "man being formed first, then woman".

However, an almost identical argument is used by Paul in 1 Cor 11 in favour of head coverings: "for man did not come from woman, but woman from man", and in the context makes a similar appeal to "creational principles" ('does not nature itself teach you...?').

Despite which, these days all but the most obscure and arch-conservative congregations have abandoned head coverings for women - I should think your former outfit has - on the grounds that it had only a local, cultural application.

All other considerations aside, this puts a huge dent in insisting on current implementation as is of 1 T 2 on the grounds of such a "creational principle", which is the strongest grounds I can see - having formerly been on the other side of this issue.

[ 02. August 2016, 12:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

I would ask that given that there are a number of proverbs referring to common sense and finding the right way.
At what point are we to apply that?

I do not think that anybody would disagree that we have seen many a man do the job badly so when would we apply common sense if there was a situation where a women could do a better job?

Or are some saying that the job should go to the lesser person and the flock suffer because the bible says so.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Leadership in the church seems to be an ambiguous issue.

The clergy sometimes refer to themselves as being in place to serve rather than to give orders. This sounds very positive. However, as the public face and focal point of a church's vision and ministry it's hard to say that their 'leadership' doesn't count.

If a refusal to 'lead' is simply a way of turning a blind eye to problems and challenges then its not a helpful thing. Churches are often poor at dealing with conflict, and its hard not to see an inadequate understanding of leadership as part of the issue.

For churches that are serious about growth, it appears that having a clear and specific approach to leadership is significant. Some research looks at personality factors, i.e. the kinds of people who tend to arise in particular ministries and denominations, and whether they're suited to the goals that people want them to achieve.

As for women in ministry, I can't really talk about the biblical aspects, but it would be useful to examine the history of women in leadership positions in the church as well as expectations and fears surrounding women in leadership positions. For example, the importance of women preachers in revivals is interesting; they've often been sidelined or silenced as the movement becomes formalised and routinised. Respectability has often meant limiting women's ministry, even if that ministry has been spiritually dynamic and successful.

Nowadays, of course, women ministers are part of mainstream normality, and the fears about women in church leadership are somewhat different. Some suggest that women clergy are more likely to be liberal in their theology, or that they're less likely to steer a church towards growth. To what extent and in what contexts are these justified concerns?

In addition, some fear that a 'feminised' ordained ministry will lose status among men. Especially in churches where congregations are highly female, it may be thought that if men are less visible in the pulpit as well as the pews there will simply be even less male engagement with the church and the gospel overall. How should a small, conservative denomination deal with such fears?

Maybe if you went down the organic church route and not have ministers at all you could avoid these issues to a degree, but that would be even more contentious than having lady vicars!

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The argument from creation order does not work unless you are an adherent of the 'Genesis is literally true' belief, and also ignore Genesis 1.

Mayhem could be created if you actually tried to argue from biology, since the default state of development is female. This would clearly be ridiculous.

As I have come to see it, there is dependence in arguments for headship on a couple of ideas.
1. The differences between men and women are more important than the likenesses.
2. Those differences make men the better choice to lead in a religious context.

And when I feel stroppy for some reason, I find myself noticing that the major differences in behaviour do not seem to argue for a greater spirituality in the generality of the males of our species.

And a calmer argument is that, if it were so natural for women to be in a subordinate position in life, no culture would have had to spend its energies insisting on laying this down in laws about dress and behaviour for women, because women would not be able to step outside their place, or encompass the idea of doing so. Most cultures and religions have done that very thing.

This may mean that what is natural is for men to want women to be in a subordinate position, while being in position to insist on it. Despite all their endeavours, though, they have to keep on working at it through the millenia. Which seems to indicate that it is very natural for women not to be subordinate, since evolution would presumably have acted on the side of the men, and removed any freakish behaviour on the part of the women.

Where this puts the inspiration of the writer of Timothy 1 I am not qualified to assess, but it would seem to suggest that at some time God realised that a mistake had been made, and He had made women too like men for their own good, and used the opportunity of writing that epistle to correct it. Somehow I doubt this.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I'd like to see a summary explanation of how we can reconcile female leadership with some of the texts like 1 Tim 2 etc.
Here's a quick'n'dirty approach to this point.

One common way that people in favour of women's ministry deal with this verse is to argue, as I would to a great extent, that it was a temporary prohibition due to local circumstances.

Not to mention Paul's mentions of women actually holding positions of leadership in the church elsewhere. From blogger Fred Clark:

quote:
Can you spot the factual error in this Reuters headline? “US Catholics cautiously hopeful women may one day be deacons.”

Yep, you could read that whole piece and never encounter the fact that the church in Rome used to have women deacons. English-speaking readers of the Bible in translation might be confused about that since our English translations make up new and unusual titles to avoid acknowledging that the New Testament names women as deacons. The same word translated “deacon” or “minister” for Stephen and Philip gets rendered “servant” for women like Phoebe. (And in an acrobatic maneuver of double-think, that erasure-by-translation is sometimes itself cited as evidence that woman deacons are unthinkable.)

Since I’m a chapter-and-verse evangelical type, let me cite chapter and verse: Romans 16:1-16. There’s the deacon Phoebe. And Priscilla. And Mary. And Junia, an “apostle.” And Tryphaena and Tryphosa and Julia and, well, just way too many women for anyone to credibly pretend that women in church leadership is some kind of brand-new, unprecedented thing that it’s somehow “conservative” to oppose.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

One of the comments below that blog suggests that the word used means "only deaconesses" - but no-one answered.

[ 02. August 2016, 17:23: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
One of the comments below that blog suggests that the word used means "only deaconesses" - but no-one answered.

This comment?

quote:
Amaryllis

Women deacons in the early Church? Forsooth.

They were merely "deaconesses" which was nothing at all like being "deacons." And nobody ever thought they were. And anyway, the Pope is only setting up a commission to figure out exactly what they were. And anyway,whatever they were, they were certainly not ordained leaders, because that subject is closed. And anyway let's not make a big deal out of this, it just encourages false hopes in those misguided women who don't understand the fundamental truth and beauty of God's plan for women.

/PatheosCatholic

(Incidentally, Patheos Catholic is also running a group of posts from various authors on their disillusionment with the Pro-Life Movement as a front for the Republican Party. Which does not mean to say that they dispute the Church's position on abortion, merely that, judging by its actions, they've concluded that "protecting life" is not the actual goal of the pro-life movement. Small steps, I guess.)

I suspect the lack of response was due to the obvious sarcasm involved.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Yes. And sometimes I miss sarcasm. Especially in BTL comments. And when I have seen the comment made before somewhere or other in the past. Thanks for pointing it out. It seems completely obvious out here!

[ 02. August 2016, 20:54: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I'd like to see a summary explanation of how we can reconcile female leadership with some of the texts like 1 Tim 2 etc.
Here's a quick'n'dirty approach to this point.

One common way that people in favour of women's ministry deal with this verse is to argue, as I would to a great extent, that it was a temporary prohibition due to local circumstances.
Not to mention Paul's mentions of women actually holding positions of leadership in the church elsewhere.

quote:
From Fred Clark:

[...]
[There are] just way too many women [leaders in Romans] for anyone to credibly pretend that women in church leadership is some kind of brand-new, unprecedented thing that it’s somehow “conservative” to oppose.

I suppose the problem is, as people like to say, circumstances were different then!

I don't know how and why women deacons were accepted in Paul's day, but as someone has implied above, were the RCC to institute women deacons now it would most certainly be read as a victory for liberalising and modernisning forces in the Church. I'm sure that many ordinary RCs as well as the secular Western media at large would read it this way. And non-conservative Protestants would feel encouraged that the RCC's leaders were becoming more like themselves.

Less charitably, many non-religious observers would probably view it rather cynically as a sign that the RCC couldn't get enough men to do the job. (I wonder if Paul himself faced this issue? Possibly.)

A very clever (and expensive) PR campaign might be able to put a convincing conservative gloss on it, though....

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Where are deacons / deaconesses mentioned in the early church? I could only find two mentions in the NT (KJV) of the word "deacon" and all the other uses of the root word or its derivatives (G1247 if you must know, διακονέω) were verbs such as "minister unto" or "serve." The uses of "deacon" as a noun (both in 1 Tim 3) aren't gender-specific.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

People who like long blog posts about the meaning of greek words in 1 Timothy 2:12 might like to read this

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thank you for that link - very interesting stuff.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

And led me to read even more interesting stuff about what Timothy was doing in Ephesus, and who the Encratites were.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I'm pretty sure there are female deacons in Forward in Faith.

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

Many thanks for the link, a lot of interesting stuff [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0