Thanks to all who posted on my previous post about communion. In recent days I have been trying to study on this issue. As a result, I have come up with several questions, and I figure that this is as good of an avenue as any to try to get my questions answered.
1. How (and why) have we selected the pulpit area (a non-biblical term) as the domain of men only and the pew (another non-biblical term) for women?
2. What Scriptural basis do we have that proves that a woman serving communion is somehow exercising dominion over a man or usurping their “authority?”
3. Do servants (in any capacity) somehow create dominion over those that they serve?
4. As one of my anonymous guests pointed out, what difference is there in serving the communion trays from a standing position, and serving the communion tray in a seated position to the person next to us?
I have multiple questions about this issue, but for today, I will leave you with just these 4. I appreciate your insight, and your willingness to share your knowledge as I continue to study this issue. Blessings to all!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
passing out communion doesn't involve public prayer, but instead is a service, isn't it
I am glad that we are continuing the conversation. You all are giving me much to think about....
I wonder why it is okay for a woman to vacuum the pulpit area, paint the auditorium, clean EVERY area of the church, prepare trays and carry them to the "pulpit" area but they can't actually stand in the pulpit area...well, at least not during a worship service.
By the way... is WORSHIP SERVICE a biblical phrase?
Connie,
I am glad that you are questioning and searching. Good for you! Many of us don't want to look deeper than what we know already because we are afraid of change. Tradition is much easier. I'd like to answer your questions.
1. I don't know. I have never thought about it and now that you mention it, it doesn't make much sense.
2. We don't have a scriptural basis that proves that ANYONE serving communion is exercising dominion over anything or anyone.
3. I don't think so.
4. I have asked this question many times myself. There is NO difference in my opinion.
Connie, I guess it all comes down to faith. But as you and I have talked about and agreed on before, if it will split the church, we may need to think twice before making such a big change.
Keep studying, and searching. You inspire me, and others I am sure.
well, said, Conni.
One of the most unscriptural doctrines that I have heard taught in the church of Christ is that there is as such thing as "aggregate worship" or a "Worship Service". This is an idea that is completely FOREIGN to the New Testament. The distinction that the modern religious world makes upon the "worship service" and the rest of our lives misses the entire point of the transition between the Old Covenant and the NEW Covenant. Take note of Romans 12:1-2:
"1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."
For the Christian, the renewal of one's mind and a life of service IS their "worship service" The ONLY distinction placed upon the First day of the week is that of the partaking of communion (and even THAT could be debated, but i will leave that for another post). Therefore, there is no difference in ANY of the assemblies of beleivers, whether a sunday morning communion service, a thursday night devotional, a wednesday prayer breakfast, or three friends gathering together to clean an old lady's house.
The concept of the "worship service" is merely a sociological idea. . .a tradition that we have inherited due to our innate need for ritual. The founders of the church of Christ (by that I mean those in the so called "Restoration Movement"), were so steeped in the traditions that they inherited from the protestants, who in turn inherited it from the Catholics, who were heavily influenced by the pagans AND the jews. At some point, someone needs to recognize the difference between scriptural authority and traditional authority.
All due respect, Lisa, Using that rationale, there are sects within the church of Christ that say that they can't have kitchens, or church affiliated colleges, or childrens homes.
There is no Scripture saying that a congregation can evn OWN a building, or have pews, or songbooks.
In fact, what scriptural authority do we even have FOR the Bible? (if that makes sense) At what point in the Bible do we see that the canonization of the NT was intended. . .to include certain books and exclude others?
How far do we go with all of this? If we sit back and say that we are ONLY going to do things the way the Bible says, then we will ALWAYS take communion in the evening, and in an upper room, as the ONLY scriptural examples of taking communion were under these circumstances.
I think that the "speak where the Bible speaks" concept is a slippery slope. The mainline churches of Christ tend to only apply it with traditions that feel comfortable to them. . .the more "conservative" churches of Christ (read my lips: the "Antis") apply it far more consistently, and the result is an emotionally abusive, restrictive environment that makes people crazy.
So, tell me, how far do we go with the idea of "silence of the scriptures"?
wq98peti
be careful Lisa. . .Acts 20:7 is a double edged sword for th etraditional c of C doctine.
If they got together on the first day of the week to break bread, that was sunday, when they met. Paul preached until after midnight, Eutychus fell out of the window, paul raised him, and then they went up and broke bread AFTER MIDNIGHT. This would have been early monday morning.
Now, there is the question. . .was this reckoning of times and dates done by the JEWISH calendar or the ROMAN calendar. . .this is a significant point. . .as it determines how you reckon it: The Jews considered a day from lasting from sunset to sunset, while the Romans considered midnight to midnight. . .So, if they reckoned by the Jewish Calendar, they would have met on the first day of the week with the intention of breaking bread. . .this would have been, by our modern standards, Sunset on Saturday evening, Paul preached until after 12:00am on Sunday, Eutychus took the plunge, communion, Viola!
However, if they reckoned it by the ROMAN calendar, they would have met on Sunday, Paul preached until after midnight (keep in mind, the verse says they MET on the first day of the week), Sleepy eutychus, communion on early monday morning.
Now, we do not REALLY know whether or not the church in acts 20 was reckoning by the Roman calendar or the Jewish calendar. . .period. . .there is evidence either way. . .many first century christians were Jewish prosylites converted to christianity. . .However, Troas was a Greek province and there is no real indication that the converts there were predominately Jewish in background. Luke, the writer in the book of acts was CERTAINLY not a jew. . .he was a gentile. . .would HE be determining the episode from a jewish perspective or a Gentile perspective. His reader, the person named "Theophilis" was ALSO most likely a Gentile, as Luke takes care to explain certain jewish customs throughout the books of Luke and Acts.
I said all of this to say this: We need to be careful when we try to rely on pat answers for these questions. The silence of the scriptures is not necessarily a good stance to come from, as I stated above. . .we also need to be careful in picking and choosing what we attribute to culture and what we take as hard and fast law (again, I have addressed this as well). The difficulty with a fundamentalist approach . . .that is an approach that attempts to ascribe RIGID absolute authority to the biblical examples and directives . . .is that every time you box yourself into ONE corner (say the womens role in the church issue) you leave yourself wide open to be accused of inconsistency on other issues (again, as I have elaborated on before) It would seem prudent to me, that rather than trying to take an absolutist view of ANY of these issues, that christians would be in a better situation focusing on the "weightier matters of the Law" such as grace, peace, benevolence, etc.
Does it REALLY matter? I mean, really. . .will the world REALLY collapese if a woman stands up and passes the communion, or leads a song, or a prayer, or, God forbid, preach a sermon. Does the God you worship REALLY get so wound up about stuff like this?
Did God send His son to die for people, just so they could be damned over nit-picky little stuff like this?
983qhreapodsgfae
Well, again I will say that I believe there is nothing wrong with a woman serving communion.
I have touched on this topic on my own blog, and made my feelings clear on the entire subject of women's roles in the Church.
My personal opinion is that I don't want to go to Church and listen to a woman preacher, but that is just my personal preference, not a belief that it is wrong. As for a woman reading from the Bible, leading singing, saying a prayer in front of the group, serving communion, I believe that this is all legitimate areas for women to contribute.
My belief about what Paul had to say in Corinthians is that it was a statement to a specific group in a specific time. I don't believe that is a command for everyone all the time. I think we should look to Christ for our commands. Christ says we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength AND we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.
My personal belief is that we should spend more time following Jesus' commands and less time on Paul's rules, that were directed to specific groups in specific circumstances.
Post a Comment