Just curious as to everyone's view on women's roles in the church. I grew up in (and still attend occasionally) a Disciples of Christ church where women play a big role in the church and church service. I know there are many churches where women play little or no role in the church. Can someone explain this to me?

First of all, I want to put up a big disclaimer by saying that I am a firm believer that women are just as capable as leaders as men are. Don't mistake that.

 

Regardless of my opinion, I have read a few fairly thorough studies of Christian denominations across the board that show pretty clearly how as female leadership roles in church congregations has increased, the church service attendance and parish participation by males has decreased at a near directly-proportional rate. I'll try to do some homework in the next day or two and come up with the actual studies to reference them, but I couldn't find anything on them as of yet on Google.

Interesting topic. I am curious to hear other BGP opinions and comments. I have never thought too much about it, as the church that I attend has always had male leadership.

A "Role?" or as a "leader?" the Church would suffer if not for women. The children ministry is hugely ran by women, Fellowships are ran by the women, Children's ministry most of the teachers are women, instruments and singers who help the worship leaders are women.

 

You have to refer back to scripture as a "role of leaders", usually these are men, but women can serve on panels inside the church. Paul tells us "women should be silent in Church and have no authority over men", but is he speaking to a certain group of ladies who were causing problems in the Church of Corinth?

 

Just for us we would no go to a Church with a woman as the preacher, its just a question of feeling the way I feel. But what if the man Preacher left the Church and no man stood up to take over and a women did?

 

Paul mentions ladies as his helpers many times. As Jesus was dying on the cross the men who followed hin ran and hid, the women never left him.

Haven't read any posts in here yet, thought I would give my opinion before doing so.

 

I find it humerous how churches openly discriminate against women, and hide behind the "its always been that way" or "it's in the Bible excuse". Why can't a woman be a preacher or a rabbi or a priest?

 

Would God/Christ really object to a woman leading his congregation? I tend to think he'd be okay with it. :idunno:

I tend to think he'd be okay with it. :idunno:

 

Maybe just to be argumentative here... but what makes you certain God cares what you think?

Maybe just to be argumentative here... but what makes you certain God cares what you think?

 

:confused: He probably doesn't. Why do you think God cares what any of us think?

I find it humerous how churches openly discriminate against women, and hide behind the "its always been that way" or "it's in the Bible excuse". Why can't a woman be a preacher or a rabbi or a priest?

 

There are women rabbis and women preachers. I don't think there are women priests. I could be wrong.

There are passages of Scripture that seem to speak against women taking certain leadership roles. One of the primary ones is when Paul says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12).

 

The difficulty in interpreting some of these passages, IMO, stems from this problem: When Paul wrote about some of these restrictions, were they meant to be applied to his culture or a specific situation in his culture only... or are they intended to be permanent principles?

 

There's more to the issue than I've just stated here, but that is the main sticking point. Is it a permanent principle or a temporary, cultural one? The truth is, no one knows for sure.

I'd love to hear the Catholics take on this regarding women priests...

There are women rabbis and women preachers. I don't think there are women priests. I could be wrong.

 

I never said that there wasn't. I was simply meaning that it's looked down upon and far and few between in most cases.

 

Women are not allowed to be priests in the Catholic faith.

Speaking from the Catholic perspective, the reason for not ordaining women as priests, specifically, is a tradition instituted by Christ. Pope Paul VI further explained this in a papal encyclical called Inter Insigniores, which was released in response to the ordination of females as priests in the Anglican church.

 

The encyclical defends six main points, stating that:

1. The Roman Catholic church has maintained a constant tradition of male priests following directly in the ways set forth by Christ in selecting his 12 Apostles, and the Apostles in turn choosing men to carry on after them, etc. etc. etc.
   
2. The "Jesus chose men as apostles because of the time and place he lived in" argument is not a valid one. Jesus was never known to be one who followed convention or obeyed the cultural customs in his society.
   
3. The Apostles acknowledged Mary with a privileged place amongst them, yet she was not chosen to play any role in the election that resulted in the choice of Mathias to replace Judas Iscariot.
   
4. The church cannot allow themselves to depart from the attitudes and examples set forth by Jesus and the Apostles. This would compromise their position as true followers of Christ.
   
5. Male priests stand as a outward, perceptible sign of Christ in his sacramental nature. They are men, representing the role of Jesus, a man, amongst His followers.
   
6. The decisions of The Church are not able to be truly made by people. Therefore, it's by following in the path set forth by Jesus and his Apostles, that we guarantee God's will and his inspired hand participating in the decision.
   

:confused: He probably doesn't. Why do you think God cares what any of us think?

 

My certainty comes from the evidence found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which you seem to find of no value in the discussion. My point is that your argument is one I hear constantly from people who don't like organized religion to begin with; it strips any defense down to nothing by instantly robbing the other side of its core beliefs. You can't claim that one side "hides behind 'it's in the Bible'" or that tradition is irrelevant and expect any explanation to be satisfactory when it comes from someone for whom Scripture and tradition are everything from a religious perspective. You ask "Would Christ really object to a woman leading his congregation?" Perhaps the answer is "He already has." To which you reply "Show me where... and you can't use the Bible or tradition."

 

What do you want from us?

Let's not forget the woman's all important role of cracking the whip at home and getting the family to church! Priceless.

My certainty comes from the evidence found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which you seem to find of no value in the discussion. My point is that your argument is one I hear constantly from people who don't like organized religion to begin with; it strips any defense down to nothing by instantly robbing the other side of its core beliefs. You can't claim that one side "hides behind 'it's in the Bible'" or that tradition is irrelevant and expect any explanation to be satisfactory when it comes from someone for whom Scripture and tradition are everything from a religious perspective. You ask "Would Christ really object to a woman leading his congregation?" Perhaps the answer is "He already has." To which you reply "Show me where... and you can't use the Bible or tradition."

 

What do you want from us?

 

:lol:

 

You think God would be okay with treating women inferiorly in the church?

 

Christians preach tolerance, but then won't even tolerate a woman in a leadership role? Not very Christ like.

 

I don't "want" anything from you. I gave my opinion on the topic. You, for whatever reason, decided to take offense to my belief.

 

And just for the record, you're saying that God doesn't care what I think, but that he does care what you think? That's comical.