New Stanek column on WND: “Stained-glass ceiling”
Those who don’t know me may be surprised to learn I believe the Bible frees women to serve in church leadership just as men, provided they are gifted by the Holy Spirit and willing.
Those who know me know this is a passion of mine second only to my passion to stop abortion. In fact, this topic was No. 1 for many years until displaced by a particular aborted baby boy.
My position may sound feminist. But it is to the church’s loss, and I believe a colossal sin, if she allows the modern-day obfuscation of feminist ideals or deep-seated prejudice to keep her from following biblical principles that free women to serve as God determines.
My dander was raised when World Magazine’s editor, Marvin Olasky, stated in his June 17 column….
Continue reading my column today, “The stained-glass ceiling,” on WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Jill,
Let?s re-examine some of the scriptures you quoted in your WorldNet Daily article.
In I Timothy 3:14-15, Paul tells Timothy he is writing this letter so Timothy would know how to behave in the house of God, i.e. the church. These two verses put this whole book of I Timothy into perspective. So, when Paul says to Timothy in I Timothy 2:11-15 that the women are to be silent and not exercise authority over men, he is specifically referring to the realm of the church. He isn?t talking about school, work, politics, etc? he is specifically talking about the church! So, when Aquila & Priscilla taught Apollos, they did not break Paul?s command because it was teaching they did in private (By the way, the Bible never says Priscilla taught Apollos. It just says ?they? taught Apollos, speaking of the husband/wife team of Aquila & Priscilla. For all we know, Aquila may have done the majority of the teaching). Acts 18:26 says they ?took him unto them?, meaning they did it privately away from the church meeting. Also notice in I Timothy 2:11-15 why Paul says women should not teach or hold authority over men inside the church. Adam was formed first, and then Eve. In other words, man wasn?t created to serve the woman, but women was created to serve the man. Genesis clearly states this truth in its recount of creation. There is an order that God has put in place in his creation that should not be usurped. Secondly, the passage states that the woman was deceived by the serpent, but the man was not deceived (he willingly sinned, knowing he was doing wrong). It points out a common weakness among women: they are easily deceived and taken advantage of. That is not a good trait to have if you are a teacher or hold a position of authority in the church.
I Corinthians 14:34, Paul clearly states that women are not permitted to speak in the churches, but are to be quiet & obedient. In I Corinthians 11: 5, Paul states that women should have their head covered when they pray or prophesy. So, would Paul contradict himself in the same book? Would he give allowance for women to pray & prophesy publicly, but then give a direct command for women to be silent? First of all, nowhere in verse 5 does he say it?s a public prayer or prophecy. Don?t add to scripture what it does not say! Do not women pray silently? Is in not possible for women to teach and prophecy to other women inside the church? Women can teach and prophecy to other women within the church (Paul does give a direct command for older women to teach the younger women), but they cannot teach men inside the church? to do so would violate the direct command of the Bible.
What about deacons? The modern church has perverted the position of a deacon and made it a position of authority. In the Bible, the word deacon literally means ?servant.? A deacon is an appointed servant of the church, it is not a position of authority as an elder or bishop would be. In Acts 6, we see the first examples of deacons? seven men who were appointed to distribute money to the widows and wait tables in service of the church. Anybody can be a deacon (servant) to the church, but it would appear the only men can have the recognized, official title of a deacon in the church (I Timothy 3? husband of one wife).
The testimony of scripture is overwhelmingly clear in its commands concerning women?s roles in the church. To try to justify women in authority is to put your own agenda and personal desires above the clear teachings of scripture. Because a woman has a desire to be in authority doesn?t mean she has a gift to be in authority. Desires & gifts are not the same thing? don?t get the two confused! Not all of our desires come from God. Quite a few of them come from the influence of the world and our own sinful nature.
The teachings of the Apostle Paul are quite clear. Women should not teach or exercise authority over men in the church.
Years ago I wondered about the same issue………. even without Jill’s very valuable points. The problem (if you call it that) stems from the very core of Christianity itself imho. St. Paul also refers to men who are ‘free’ and those who are slaves. The institution of slavery was not in-need of abolishing because ‘freedom in-Jesus’ is so superior that all people in sin are just as slaves, not truely free.
Enter the gist of what Jill says. Think of how opening-the-ranks improves the God-human relationship. It doesn’t – only gives ‘more’ bodies, not better bodies.
To the confused: maybe an illustration to what we are called – Jesus insisted that we call God: ‘Abba’. The translation of this word is ‘Daddy’ or ‘Dad’ … we seem stuck in the formality of ‘Father’ or ‘the Lord’. Now compare these favoured words of ours to ‘Abba’ … now you will begin to understand how revolutionary Christianity is. Now go ahead and call your pastor by their first name … your bishop … are these not your brothers?
Why are we so stuck on authority as a God-demand? Doesn’t Jesus command us to love one another? Is it easier to love with your whole heart … ‘Abba’ or ‘Father’?
this is but a start … for Catholics is Mary ‘Mother’or ‘Mom’?
John
Thank you for your tireless work in defending the
unborn.
Thank you, too, for your “stained-glass ceiling” article. In charity, I send you the following link to you for more information. It is why I am a Catholic. We cannot each interpret the Bible according to what we think the Holy Spirit is
telling us. That leads to confusion and chaos; thus, we have literally thousands of Protestant denominations each claming they have it right.
God is perfect, not chaotic and confusing.
God bless you.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311frs.asp
Eugenia, I know you as a Catholic find these discussions and differences disturbing and confusing. I will say that Luther’s split from the Catholic Church did create an opportunity for much more evangelism in the world, which I hope we agree is a good thing. Adversity does that.
Take care.
I’m not sure I get what you are saying in your article. I’m just curious, though. What do you think of the Catholic Church? I’d be interested to know, as I am a devout Catholic and believe that the male only priesthood is exactly what Jesus wanted.
Jane,
We are going to have to agree to disagree on male only, unmarried priests. I’ve had this conversation with Catholics I respect and understand the Catholic Church’s position and how it came by it. I (and all Protestant denominations I’m aware of) just disagree with the Catholic Church’s analysis. Thanks for writing.
After reading your short commentary I did a little digging. Here is what I found.
You said,
Marco, Thanks for writing.
I said in my article that “husband of one wife” was in the text. By male nouns and pronouns I was referring to “man, he, his, him,” none of which are in Paul’s original Greek text when describing the qualifications of elder or deacon.
Diakonos is indeed a specifically masculine term. There is no feminine equivalent for diakonos. It was directly applied to only five individuals: Paul (Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23), Tychicus (Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7), Epaphras (Col. 1:7), Timothy (I Thes. 3:2; 1 Tim. 4:6) and Phoebe (Romans 16:1). Romans 16:2 lends support that Phoebe exercised some kind of official duty.
As for your interpretation of Galatians 3:28, it would be wrong to spiritualize the third pair of Paul’s comparisons while not spiritualizing the other two. We do not throw up our hands and allow prejudice against minorities in our churches. We do not throw open our hands and welcome rich people before poor people. Why is it so difficult to see that Paul is saying that neither should women be treated as subclassed people in the church? The three must be seen in parallel. Rather, Paul appears to be saying divisions can have no place in thought or practice of those united in Christ.
I take seriously the words I say. I believe the church is harmed by not allowing women into leadership. Women and men both equally portray the image of God. I think one important value of trying to get back to the creation ideal – God’s original plan, only achievable with the help of Christ – is that women bring components of God’s image to the table that are valuable and necessary for proper Church decision-making and shepherding, much as both parents are needed for the best child-rearing.
I read your article and I
Hi David,
You’re reading quite a bit into the order of creation. To assume being created first implies superiority would mean animals are superior to both man and woman.
In fact, that God created woman absolutely last could indicate quite the opposite – she is the cherry on the cupcake of His creation.
Nevertheless, neither man nor woman had anything to do with creation. This sort of argument is more fitting of the sons of Zebedee.
Chapter 3 discusses the consequences of the fall. Prior to that, both Genesis 1 and 2 show that Man as a whole consists of two parts. Their unity was stressed. Both were equally given instructions in verse 1:28 to lord over creation. There was no sin in the world. There was no sense or need for control. There would have been perfect agreement in everything.
There is not one Scripture where a nonJew was ordained as apostle. There is not one scripture where a slave was named apostle. Does that mean Gentiles and the lowly cannot aspire to church leadership? And actually, Junia was called an apostle.
You are making the template of marriage into the template of church leadership. The analogy is that the Church is the bride and Jesus is the groom, not that women in the Church are the bride and men in the Church are the surrogate groom until Jesus returns. We ALL comprise the bride.
I have spent many years searching the Scriptures on this, David. I started out thinking as you do. This topic is very serious. I know the consequences are grave if my teaching is wrong. Thank you for your concern.
Hi Jill,
there are a few presumptions in many peoples’ minds that causes all kinds of problems. The biggest one for us is that all men/women are created equal. This is in the preamble to the American constitution. It is NOT in scripture anywhere. It is true that we are created beings, but ‘equal’ … is really a put down.
There are two problems with the notion of ‘equality’: (1) how can anyone be unique and equal at the same time? (2) the word ‘equal’ is a mathematical term of comparison. When this is applied to humans, are we not going against Jesus’ admonition not to judge?
The problem is the word causes a shift to an idea of the human mind … as ‘superior’ to the actual. This becomes a huge problem when we preference our ideas over another person … so we designate ourselves as pro-lifers(an idea) and reserve our personal identity to the private.
My ‘weird’ post above implies that we build false walls of authority = superiority. Perhaps we all need to contemplate our Master’s washing of our disciples’ feet. He aspired/aspires to be servant … shouldn’t we too?
Jill,
I am also glad for all the work you do for the unborn. This is one of the few articles I will have to disagree with you.
Like a few other posters I am also Catholic. I have a couple of questions for you…
Don’t you think there was a reason why all the apostles chosen by Christ were all male?
Christ’s Church is known as His bride. Wouldn’t it be strange if a woman were a priest married to His Church (the bride)?
Do you believe there is one denomination/one church which holds all the Truths?
Doesn’t interpreting the Bible on our own believing we are all inspired by the Holy Spirit the reason we have thousands of Protestant denominations?
and a while ago I saw a couple of articles you had written on contraception. You were explaining how many forms of contraception can cause chemical abortions. Isn’t there just one church out there whose position has been and always will be “contraception is a serious sin” — The Catholic Church?
It was the contraception issue which changed the mind of one of the biggest anti-Catholics of our day. His name is Scott Hahn. It was the issue of the Catholic Church’s position on contraception which initially ignited both Scott and Kimberly Hahn to leave the Presbyterian Church and enter the Catholic Church. Scott Hahn’s famous conversion story is written in his book “Rome Sweet Home”.
Mike
I think that the back and forth Bible passage interpretations are missing the larger picture. Clearly the important question is: Why can?t women be Roman Catholic priests?
The answer to this question depends on how one identifies the priesthood. If one identifies the priesthood as something that is “institutional”, “functional” and which exists as a means to exert power and control over others, then there is absolutely no reason why women should not be priests.
If, on the other hand, the priesthood – and the Church – are identified differently, then one arrives at a different answer. Pope John Paul II’s view was that the institutional Church, the Petrine Church, would not exist without the Marian Church. With Mary, the first disciple, saying ‘yes’ to God’s will, there would have been no incarnation, no redemption, and no Petrine church. As George Weigel puts in in The Truth of Catholicism, the “‘Marian Church’, “formed in the image of a woman and her discipleship, precedes, makes possible, and indeed makes sense of the ‘Petrine Church,’ the Church of office and authority formed in the image of Peter.” The two are not in tension, but are complementary. Weigel continues:
“Then there is what we might call the ‘body language’ of the priesthood. In the Catholic sacramental imagination, maleness and femaleness are neither accidents of evolutionary biology nor cultural constructs, but icons pointing to deep truths about the nature of reality and the nature of God. The equality of men and women, made in the image of God and redeemed by Christ, does not mean that men and women are interchangeable as icons of God’s presence to the world. This insistence on taking seriously our sexual embodiness, our distinctive maleness and femaleness, is at the root of the Church’s sexual ethic. It is also involved in the question of the priesthood.
According to the ancient tradition of the Church, going back to St. Paul, Christ’s relationship to the Church is spousal, or nuptial: Christ loves the Church as a husband loves a wife. (Ephesians 5:25) That spousal giving in love is most thoroughly represented in the Eucharist, at Mass, when the priest, acting in the person of Christ and as an icon of Christ, makes Christ gift of himself present through the consecration of the bread and wine that becomes Christ’s body and blood. “The iconography of Christ’s spousal gift of self to his Church, most intensely embodied in his sacramental giving of himself in the Eucharist, requires, in the Catholic view of things, a priest who can iconographically re-present Christ in his male donation of himself to his bride, the Church.
None of this is easy to engage, much less grasp, in a culture that treats sex differentiation as accidental, not sacramental – a unisex culture, so to speak. Still, the truth of the matter is that the Catholic tradition of ordaining only men to the priesthood is an expression of the Catholic sacramental imagination. It is not a matter of misogyny. It is not a question of rights. It is a question of sacramentality.”
And this is also the priesthood that Christ himself intended for his Church. Jesus called the twelve apostles – all men – from hundreds of disciples, male and female. When Judas betrayed Jesus, Mattias was chosen as his replacement. Mary was not chosen as an apostle, and clearly, she would have been the best apostle of all. She was already the primary disciple.
While the argument is often made that in the historical context, no one would have accepted female leaders, Jesus threw out social customs when it suited his purpose. For example:
* Despite Jews shunning Samaritans, Jesus showed his concern for a Samaritan woman;
* He performed miracles on the Sabbath;
* He pardoned a woman caught in adultery (i.e., he forgave the sins of others against others, not against himself); and
* He challenged the chauvinism in Mosaic law that allowed men to divorce their wives;
* He could have chosen women apostles had He wished to do so. He did not.
It was certainly customary among the Greek and Roman Gentiles to have female priests, such as the Vestal Virgins and priestesses of other cults. It was at the First Council (of Jerusalem) in the first century (see Acts) that Christians decided that the customary Mosaic law need not be followed (for example, on circumcision). So if the early Church Fathers had thought that they could ordain women, they would have done so. They certainly had good female candidates. Obviously they didn’t think that they could do this and still follow Jesus’ teachings.
It should also be noted that the Eastern Orthodox teach unanimously on this point, despite differences in discipline. This signifies that the teaching is not in the realm of discipline or custom.
Some early heretical sects of Christianity did have priestesses. These were Gnostic sects. The Gnostics had a tendency to believe that the created world was evil and only the spiritual world was good. Since maleness and femaleness are part of the created world, the Gnostics were unable to see any meaning in our gender differences, and therefore, their priesthood was androgynous.
Given the way that the Roman Catholic Church identifies both herself and the priesthood, instituting female priests is an attempt to alter both the character of the Church and the priesthood as Jesus Christ instituted it.
More importantly, I think is that we women have a role that we often overlook in our rush to do whatever we see men doing. Without Mary’s service, without Mary’s yes, there would be no Church and no priesthood at all.
Frankly, that gives women a much higher place and calling than the priesthood.
Jill, we may disagree on this. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for all that you do and your service in the cause of life. My son is adopted. If even only one mother reads your columns/blogs and decided to give her baby up for adoption rather than abort, a life has been saved, a family created and made happy beyond the bounds of joy! Bless you.
Jill,
This has been something that I have had issue with for years!
When I was first married, I played the role of subservient wife and woman. There were quite a few things that I did not speak up about in our first years of marriage because I was to be a helper to my husband. I was content with that roll until I realized that if I would have spoken up and told my husband my views on a few things, we may have not been in a bad situation. (Not that I don?t make bad choices.) That was just the beginning of my walk through this issue of roles of women in the church, being pastors/teachers/etc.
I was feeling very confused about my role in the church and one day? I went to the premier of the Esther Veggie Tales video. Through this child-like video, I saw a girl (veggie) that thought she couldn?t do this impossible thing. But God gave her strength and purpose and she crossed over the lines of customs and rules? and accomplished something great for God and his people. It was something in those animated eyes looking at me in the end and saying something like? maybe this could be you! I cried at the end and thought that God does have a plan for me. It might be for something great or it maybe something small? but I have purpose and significance!!! I no longer felt the chains of what the world was saying I had to be but what God wanted me to be.
Some years later? I think it all came to a head when my husband was nominated and elected deacon of the church we were attending. I was so proud of him but at the same time wondered why couldn?t this job be held by some very Godly women in the church? Women had filled every job imaginable in our church except being deacon and ministering to other men. They were even allowed to go over seas as missionaries and be ministers to women and men, but not here. Then there came the deacon meetings. They sometimes were out until midnight or later. They started to figure out that they might be neglecting their families, so they had a meal before they met and the kids were looked after by babysitters and the women were to figure out what they could do to serve the church as deacon wives. Then the families without the husbands would go home. But? the husbands would still stay out until midnight or later with careers the next morning to get up for.
When you asked your husband how everything went? they could tell you what they talked about and you could give them council on what you thought and they might take that to the next meeting. They were also assigned a certain number of families and if one of them were female? we would have to go and visit them.
Are you getting the idea of the hypocrisy of this all? We ended up leaving that church because they burned up my husband and never took his suggestions. For me? I was just fed up with the roles that the sexes had to play there.
I want to write more to you, with scripture, to give all of what I write a Biblical foundation for what I have to say next. This post is already too long so if you would like, I can write something on our website on this subject so it doesn?t fill up your space. I’ll have something on it a little later.
I?ll post a link to it so you can click on it. Thanks for listening, Jill and others.
Yes, let’s move more men out of leadership within the church and move more women in. It is time to strike a blow against the patriarchy that has too long dominated the church.
In fact, the episcopalian church is on the forefront of this. They just recently elected a woman to lead the church. And now the patriarchy is trying to split the church. They don’t want a woman. These men are afraid of empowered women. It is time to knock off all of this ancient cultural traditon nonsense. Women need to rise up and take the reigns of the church and stop putting up with this patriarchal oppression.
I’m almost done. Sorry for the delay.
I would like to say a bit about the Episcopalian Church and the new woman bishop. It isn’t that I oppose her being a bishop, I oppose her view on same sex marriage. Which I would do… male or female alike.
More blows against the church controlling patriarachy!
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149188610450
The Presbyterian church (USA)has OK’s the use of other “phrasings” for the Trinity such as “Mother, Child and Womb”.
“This does not alter the church’s theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership,” legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during yesterday’s debate on the Trinity.
You will notice it took a woman’s leadership to address this mysogyny.
More blows against the church controlling patriarachy!
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149188610450
The Presbyterian church (USA)has OK’s the use of other “phrasings” for the Trinity such as “Mother, Child and Womb”.
“This does not alter the church’s theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership,” legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during yesterday’s debate on the Trinity.
You will notice it took a woman’s leadership to address this mysogyny.
Here is an example of the misogyny in action over the electing of a woman:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2233424,00.html
“The Anglican Church descended into “ecclesiastical anarchy” last night as American traditionalists refused to accept the authority of a woman and asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead them instead. Liberals celebrated the election of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church while the traditionalist Fort Worth Diocese appealed to Dr Rowan Williams for “alternative primatial oversight”.
Notice how they try to use the word ‘liberal’ to demonize the woman. The patriarchy is unbelievable! But then what else would you expect from men who think they are here to exercise their unearned privelage over women and twist the bible to try and prove it.
Jill,
Are you aware of your fellow WND columnist Vox Day? He refers to himself as a christian and thinks that women are supposed to be subservient to men! These wrong beliefs have be taught to the church for so long, it will be a long uphill battle to correct them. Thank you Jill for being so brave!
see this link:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006/03/dogmatic-contortions.html
And I can’t belive the comments which you can scroll down to the article and see in the comments section found:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_voxday_archive.html
Okay… here it is.
http://xbip.com/?p=684
Jill,
If you want me to post it over here I will. I don’t want to take away any of your traffic.
Jill told me to post. Warning… very very long! BTW… sorry about the funny looking things that are in place of the apostrophies and such from my second to last post. I recopied from “Word”.
Here is the rest of the post that I can’t really don’t do justice to. I just don’t have huge amounts of time to get into ALL the different aspects of this post. I will try to hit a few.
In Genesis 2:20 it says:
20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam, no suitable helper was found.
Here she was like Adam in the image of God… unlike the beasts. The word for helper here is ‘ezer which means “helper, support, assistant.” This same word is used many times throughout the Old Testament in Ex 18:4; Duet. 33:7, 26, 29; Pss. 20:2; 33:20; 70:5, etc… none of which is an inferior or subordinate.
In Genesis 3:17b-19 it says:
17To Adam he said,
“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
Notice what it says about what is cursed. Later it talks about the snake who is cursed. Does it say that Eve (woman) would be cursed to have Adam (men) to rule over her? NO, it doesn’t. But they are the consequences of the fall. In my opinion… a foresight into what was going to happen now that sin took over man’s/woman’s heart. Was this God’s plan? NO, it was not. Stay with me now… since sin has come into the world, man’s/woman’s heart has been selfish. Wouldn’t you say that is a very opposite of what Christ is? We see it all the time throughout history and even today. Classifying people in our minds and hearts to have a selfish, inferior look on others. The church is no stranger to this. Look at the Pharisees! They were their own gods! Why should we feel surprised to learn that it happens today?
Let’s talk a little bit about culture. You cannot dismiss what culture was for woman and how they were treated in the old and new testament. I guess my favorite illustration of the hypocrisy of men and women is the one about the woman who was going to be stoned. How did Jesus view that woman? A sinner, yes… worthless, no. May I ask you a question about that story? Was the man not a sinner too who committed adultery with her? As far as we know… he could have been the one who turned her in!
Matthew 7:3-5 says:
3″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
The way I see it… we all fall short (as the verse in Romans says) and we should not look at each other as less or greater. You will be in danger of having Thee Host sit you in a less comfortable spot if you try to put yourself at the head of the table.
One of the surprising things that I have encountered is other women shaming me for feeling that woman have just as important roll in the church as men! But this also happened in the New Testament to Mary and Martha. What did Jesus say to Martha? Did he compliment her on keeping a good home? No… He told her that Mary had the right idea to sit at Jesus’ feet. Which was something unheard of in Jesus’ earthly walking days. Where were the women supposed to be according to culture? Separate, uneducated, and quiet.
Which brings me to another point. Someone on Jill’s site said something about Paul telling the women to be quiet and ask their husbands. Yes… that is Biblical but don’t you see how the church was changing back then? Women… who were shunned to read or participate in Biblical teaching were now able to hear and speak and KNOW what the word of God was and who He was in Jesus Christ! It was as a huge light was going off and all of the sudden you heard the truth. Would you not have questions and comments on it? Their questions were disrupting the teaching about Jesus. That’s why Paul said… ask your husbands. They had a lot of catching up to do!!! They were hungry for the word of God!
Now let’s look at what Paul says about women as ministers. Well… I see in Galatians 3:23-29:
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Notice it doesn’t say women to Sarah’s seed and men to Abraham’s seed.
Lastly… I would like to talk about the verses that men (and women) always refer to when they make the argument that women aren’t to be ministers in the church. You can find the passage in 1 Timothy 2:11- 15. It says:
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 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. 15But women” will be saved” through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Again… he is talking to the women of those days who were just learning about God’s word. He did not want them teaching because they weren’t seasoned by the knowledge of God’s word yet. These two bible passages were not contradictory verses. Paul was steady in his teaching. He did not dis-allow Pricilla from teaching Apollos! Nor did he forbid other women from teaching. Like Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis.
There were so many women in the Bible that had very significant roles in furthering the church. As there were many men.
I personally think it’s time to stop classifying people and realize that we are all pond-scum compared to out selfless, loving Savior. Think of how Christ is. Why would he exclude women from teaching about Him because of their gender? I think that He is happy when male or female harvest the fields that are white. Don’t you? Because a woman might lead a man to Christ… do you think He would say, “well okay but… that woman will have two points off because she wasn’t supposed to witness to that man?” He is the seeker of mankind’s hearts, not their earthly shell. Praise be to God!
Good post Lisa!!!!!
It is good to see that there are women whose wills are not so eaily bent by the patriarchy! These men who have tried and tried to twist things in order to exert their unearned privelage upon women are seeing the end in sight. That is why they try and insist women can’t teach and be in postions of authority.
It is so good to see brave women in the church as Jill and yourself!!!
Why is it that men think they can oppress un and rule over us?!?
Thw church is headed in a super fabulous direction, as can be seen by the epipscopalians. Soon women will take over the church and then everything will be great. Soon we can rid the church of all the bad things that men have infused it with for too long.
Women you are not subject to men! Don’t let them try and tell you that you are! Women’s voices will not be held down and the corrupt patriarchy will fall! Men have been twisting things forever. Praise be to the Trinity that is Mother, Child and Womb.
And how do we even know that God is a man? The bible was written by men and copied by men. Of course they made God a man and blamed woman for the fall. They are only about controlling women and our choices!
I would like to say a bit about the Episcopalian Church and the new woman bishop. It isn’t that I oppose her being a bishop,
Posted by: Lisa at June 29, 2006 04:42 PM
The bible has also been twisted to hold women down and to justify slavery. Just look at he posts by then men above.
And with women outnumbering men in the church already, should women not be more represented in leadership? Of course they should. Women hold more voice in the pews and should hold more voice in the pulpit as well. Once women decide enough is enough, we can vote the men out and ourselves into power and control. Perhaps this will be the revival of the 21st century.
Thanks for being a leading voice in this cause Jill. We need more independent, non-patriachy dominated voices for a liberated, feminine voiced church like you! Don’t let the above detractors stop you in this pursuit!
Turin,
I hope that you don’t get mad at me for saying all of this. I respectfully disagree with some of what you said.
It is just my opinion… but I think you have gone too far the other way! Mother, Child and Womb? I just really don’t agree with that. I can understand how this whole subject can turn you to reacting like this, but you probably need to get away from this for a while. Pray, read scripture, and think about where your heart is. I say this from experience. I was quite spiteful for a while when my thoughts on women in the church were rejected by our Pastor and other people from my church. I wasn’t allowing God to work on them. I just kept forcing my thoughts onto them. My heart wasn’t right and it wasn’t good.
As I said above post: “I personally think it’s time to stop classifying people and realize that we are all pond-scum compared to out selfless, loving Savior.”
I think that once we start saying that Jesus was a women or whoever
Lisa, no offense taken!
Well, we have already seen that men manipulate scripture to suit their needs and desires. Lisa, you and Jill have shown this to be true in the postings above(as well as the typical male responses). They have been doing this forever. Have you truly prayed and thought about this enough? How do you know that is the only deception that they have led you to? Is that deception just a wee little deception or in fact a major one? And if they would deceive you in a major way, what else would they do to hold on to their unearned power and privelage? Think about it.
I mean, really, Jill has already done such a great job at showing the twisting of scripture and deception has occured.
Do we really believe that men are supposed to be superior to us? Either we do or don’t.
And I don’t know that being spiteful is how to be. Are you sure you were being spiteful, or were men making you think you were? Maybe you were being the true prophetess God has called you to be and their own spitefullness was coming out against you as you threatened their power?
I think all women need to start understanding this as Jill has. We are not called to let them bully women down. All women should stand up as Jill has here and not let this false teaching against women stand. Is it wrong to speak this Truth to power? If it is Truth(as the three of us agree) then to not use our voice to be heard would be to deny our leading and calling.
Obviously, there should never be spite. But standing for Truth in strength and power is not by itself spite.
Hope that made sense!
Jill writes,
“My position may sound feminist”
See women are made to feel that being empowered makes them some sort of “liberal” or “wacko”. There is a reason she has to use the qualifier. Men don’t like to have their twist of scripture challenged. They demonize us to keep us in our “place”.
Ms. Stanek,
You may find this article about a former Episcopal priestess named Alice Linsley who takes the opposite view of yours on this issue interesting-
http://www.gender-news.com/article.php?id=125
Would you be willing to debate her on this topic?
SD
Here are a few audio programs for those who are interested in what the Catholic Church teaches about priesthood…
Can Women Be Priests? by Monica Miller (on “Catholic Answers” dated 2-13-06)
http://www2.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php?type=month&calendar=1&category=0&month=01&year=2006
Priesthood by Don Timone
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm
and also you can type in the word “priesthood” in the second search engine on this website to get many more audio files on the priesthood
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/intro.asp
Jill,
I enjoyed your pro-life program today! How often will it be on the radio? I am Catholic and therefore wanted to respond to your article. I do not believe women should be priests. I found this article which should help non-Catholics understand why Catholics do not believe in women priests…
Women Priests – No Chance by Joanne Bogle
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0001.html