Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Great Places!
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(319)
-
▼
February
(36)
- Beaches and Baseball
- NOTHING!
- A New Week
- Letting Go
- Negativity in the United States
- I Need to Do Better
- Little Women
- Life Lessons
- Now, Now, Let's not Argue!
- Why So Shy?
- You May Be Surprised to Know...
- Addition to Wonderful Worship...
- Wonderful Worship
- Horrible
- What's Your Passion?
- This is Steve!
- Not my problem...or is it?
- Answered Prayer- Part II
- Happy Valentine's Day Sweetie!
- Answered Prayer
- Safety
- It is over!
- The Greatest Show on Earth
- More Prayer Please
- The Other Side of the Coin
- 2006 Grammy Awards
- Brighten Someone's Day!
- To everyone reading this...
- Protein
- Switching Gears...
- Calling Elders and Deacons
- Not Gonna Blog Today
- More Questions About Commnunion
- What do you think?
- Worship Songs
- The State of the Union
-
▼
February
(36)
6 comments:
In a word.... NO! It's serving. We already serve in many other ways... I don't see the difference.
Well, i think that in order to prohibit the participation of Women in the act of serving communion, you need to do a couple of things:
1) you need to establish that there is a Biblical prohibition against it. . .using the old "women keep silent in the assembly" chestnut, is ONLY effective if you can extablish that Paul's mandate was simply culturally based, or if it was designed to legislate the role of women in the church for all time. Without being able to CONCLUSIVELY resolve that question (which of course we CAN'T. . .we must simply make our personal decisions based on faith)to prohibit a woman from participating in this intergral part of the worship of the church goes beyond the authority of the leadership of the church.
2) One must ALSO determine whether or not the needs of the congregation as well as the individuals will be better served by allowing or prohibiting participation or even PRESIDING in the communion (or ANY part of the aggregate worship service for that matter). The MAJORITY of active members in the church of Christ are women. . .it is the minority of men, many of whom may or may not be less qualified for leadership in the worship service than the men of the congregation.
3) The question also comes into play as to the role of "deaconesses". The text lists this position alongside Elders and Deacons. Tradition, fueled by 1500 years of Catholic patriarchy hints that this is not a postition of leadership, but the traits of the WIVES of deacons. . .this is unlikely, as there is no correlating description of the wives of Elders or Bishops. These women are described in the text (and forgive me, i do not have an open Bible in front of me to give the exact BCV) with the same emphasis that is given to the OTHER offices of leadership.
That being said, what was the ROLE of Deaconesses? Why does the church of Christ not appoint these female leaders or servants. If it was the job of the original Deacons to serve at the table (for the Grecian widows in Acts 7, i think), why is it unrealistic to think of "Deaconesses" being female servants fulfilling the same role?
Again, the argument from expediency would also question, In the absence of sound scriptural mandate, is the growth of the church and the glorification of God hindered or helped by the traditional church of Christ postition on Women? The answer should be based on honesty, not the desire for an outdated understanding of gender roles.
we are to live our lives and worship God today by the examples set forth in the new testament church. no where in the new testament do we find women taking on leadership roles in worship services. i believe that if God wanted women to have leadership roles in the church he would have given the qualifications of a woman leader just as he gave the qualifications of an elder or a deacon. In 1 tim 2:8-15 we are told that women are to learn in silence with all subjection, and not to usurp authority over a man. how is a woman who is leading communion in worship service being in subjection to a man? in verse 13 and following we are told why men are placed higher than women in this regard "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. and Adam was not decieved, but the woman being decieved was in the transgression." when you take the passage in context with the rest of the scriptures, we see that in chapter 2 women are told to be in subjection to the man, and then immediately following, come the qualifications of elders. in ephesians 5:21-24 women are told to be in subjectin to their husbands in all things? how is a woman who is taking a leading role in worship service being in subjection to her husband(especially if he is not leading).
also, if we cannot find concrete evidence as to the biblical stance on such issues, we should "speak where the bible speaks and be silent where the bible is silent"
I believe if this is a practice that divides a congregation it shouldn't be done. I personally don't see this as a "leadership" role-but I am still somewhat uncomfortable with it.
Is there a difference from women passing the plate sideways, as opposed to passing them from pew to pew? I would rather doubt it-if there is a shortage of men to do this-it probably comes from apathy and laziness from the men in the congregation.
I'm not sure I buy in to the "keep silent....." excuse on this one. I doubt Jesus would have tried to create a sermon on this issue, in order to set up who passes out the plates.
My viewpoints on communion also might be different than other members. If I could turn back the clock, I would have made communion available at our wedding. There were several Christians meeting together, and we were there not only to celebrate our union. We were there to Glorify, Honor, and Praise God for his blessings in each of our lives. Sounds like a scriptural reason to me, doesn't it?
i will address the items listed by the SECOND anonymous post. . .(I am the FIRST anonymous poster)
The Poster said: "i believe that if God wanted women to have leadership roles in the church he would have given the qualifications of a woman leader just as he gave the qualifications of an elder or a deacon."
1 Timothy 3:11, give the qualifications of the office of "Deaconess". The greek here is the feminine form o the word translated "Deacon" and there is NOTHING in the text itself which indicates that these criteria were for the WIVES of Deacons, but rather a woman holding the OFFICE of "Deacon". Again, the leap can be made that tradition idicates that it is speaking of the spouses of deacons, but would that actually BE "speaking where the Bible speaks"? To further contest that there is no biblical authority for women leaders, look at 1 Timothy 5:9-10 which talks about the "list of Widows":
"No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds."
How many congregations of the church of Christ do YOU know of who has a "list of widows"? What exactly WAS the function of an "enrolled widow"? There was OBVIOUSLY a roe of service going on there, as their aptitude for service in the church was listed as part of the criteria. "Washing the feet of the saints" is one of the duties listed. . .have you eVER been into a congregation of the c of C that has that as a specific duty assigned to someone in a specific office? Hmmm. . .curious how we take some Bible passages as authoritative for all time, while others we credit to "culture".
Here is ANOTHER example along those lines. . .you cited Eph 5:21-24. A wonderful passage to be sure, describing the marital relationship as Paul saw it. Keep in mind though, that Paul's instructions on submission go down into chapter 6:
"5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
I find it interesting that our modern culture prohibits the act of slavery while the first century culture was economically dependent upon it. . .and therefore w attribute this passage to being one where Paul is speaking within the context of "culture".
So, I will ask this, is slavery indeed a mandate from God? Was the Emancipation Proclimation a smack in the face to God? Should we continue to own people as slaves? In folowing the same rationale that we use to "keep women silent" in the assembly one would certainly think that the same rationale would apply.
Another interesting issue with the Role of women is the act of head covering in 1 Cor. 7. There, it is stated what the regulations for the wearing of hair for men and women are, however, i have been to VERY few churches where women are required to wear veils. . .i think of the old ladies in the church with their football helment haircuts, and while they may be sweet and Godly, they certainly do NOT follow the Biblical mandate. How do we know that THIS is related to culture, but the role of women is NOT?
To be honest, we DON'T.
To again quote Anonymous:
"if we cannot find concrete evidence as to the biblical stance on such issues, we should "speak where the bible speaks and be silent where the bible is silent"
Indeed, this is VERY true. . .RIGIDLY following this concept then, the church of Christ is as far from biblical as any other "denomination". If we are NOT going to rigidly follow it on ONE point, then it should behoove us to attemt to impose it upon OTHER points of a similar nature. If one leaves the covering of heads, fasting, enrolled widows, etc in the realm of "cultural opinion" then one must also, to be consistent, leave the leadership roles of women in the same realm, as they are discussed within the same context.
q3984piuto
No, not at all. A woman's role in the church is usually defined by the denomination in question, so it varies from denomination to denomination. However, the discussion is usually about "leading." Should a woman "lead" prayer, singing, the serivce itself?
Serving communion is not "leading" it is "serving." And, I have NEVER heard any group say a woman cannot "serve." Some groups say that the ONLY role a woman has is one of servitude, so I think that serving communion would be an EXPECTED role of women.
Just my opinion.
Post a Comment