Kapstadt 2010 Vorab-Dokument

Partnerschaft zwischen Männern und Frauen im neuen globalen Gleichgewicht

Autor: Leslie Anne Neal Segraves, Chad Alan Neal Segraves
Datum: 09.07.2010
Category: Frauen & Männer

Bewertung (5)

Currently 4.00/5

Bevorzugte (9)

Übersetzungen

Geben Sie eine neue Übersetzung ein
Erklärung zu Übersetzungen

Anmerkung der Redaktion: Dieser Vorabbericht zu Kapstadt 2010 wurde von Leslie Ann Neal Segraves and Chad Alan Neal Segraves geschrieben und stellt eine Übersicht dar zum Thema „Männer und Frauen: Ein starkes Team für die Realisierung des Weltmissionsauftrags“, welches bei der Multiplex-Sitzung diskutiert wird. Stellungnahmen zu diesem Bericht durch die Lausanner globalen Gespräche werden an die Autoren und andere Personen weitergeleitet und sollen dabei helfen, die endgültige Präsentation beim Kongress festzulegen.

„Dürfen wir Ihnen für $20 Ihr Fischernetz abkaufen?” Der kaschmirische Fischer blickte von seiner Arbeit auf, mit der er am frühen Morgen beschäftigt war, lächelte und hielt uns sein tropfendes, nach Fisch riechendes Netz entgegen. Wir waren nach Kaschmir gereist, hatten die Nacht auf einem Hausboot verbracht, waren über den Dal-See gerudert, hatten Fischern zugeschaut, deren Teamarbeit uns inspirierte und waren schließlich an einem Ort angekommen, wo wir einer Gruppe von Gemeindegründern beistanden, die sich mit internen Uneinigkeiten abmühten. Als wir über die Kraft der Einheit und Versöhnung lehrten, war das Netz für uns ein starkes Symbol der Absicht Gottes, dass Männer und Frauen, Junge und Alte, Menschen von der Stadt und vom Land zusammenarbeiten und jeder an seinem Teil des Netzes festhält, damit Seine Ernte eingebracht werden kann.

Jesus beschrieb das Reich Gottes als ein Netz, „das ins Meer geworfen ward und Fische von allerlei Art zusammenbrachte” (Matth. 13,47). Im Gegensatz zu Angelruten benötigen die Netze, die Jesus beschrieb, viele Menschen, die zusammenarbeiten, um den ganzen Fang einzuholen. So ist es auch mit der Erfüllung des Missionsbefehls: Alle müssen daran teilnehmen und dienen, die Jesu gehorsam sind. Einfach ausgedrückt: Gott ruft Menschen zu sich (Errettung) und sendet sie dann in die Welt (Dienst), damit sie als ein Leib zusammenarbeiten, ausgerüstet mit geistlichen Gaben, um Seine Herrschaft auf der Erde auszuweiten.

Trotz des dringenden Bedürfnisses der Gemeinde, mehr Arbeiter auszurüsten, zu befähigen und freizusetzen, weil es unzählige Millionen gibt, die einen Erlöser brauchen, stehen doch viele Fragen und Hindernisse im Raum, wenn es um die Partnerschaft zwischen Männern und Frauen geht. Die Gemeinde muss auf diese Hindernisse aufmerksam werden und biblische Antworten suchen: Teilt Gott geistliche Gaben aus aufgrund des Geschlechts? Schenkt Gott die Gabe des Leitens auch Frauen oder nur Männern? Kann eine Frau nur Kinder und andere Frauen leiten? Inwiefern heilt und erlöst die Kreuzigung und Auferstehung Jesu Gottes perfekte Absichten für Männer und Frauen? Beeinflusst die Einschränkung oder Freisetzung der geistlichen Leitung von Frauen den Weltmissionsauftrag?

Die Lausanner Bewegung, gegründet von Billy Graham, hat bestätigt, dass Gott Männern und Frauen Gaben schenkt, und dass ihre Partnerschaft für die Weltevangelisation notwendig ist. Das Manifest von Manila, entstanden durch den zweiten Lausanner Weltkongress 1989, erklärt: „Wir bekräftigen, dass die Gaben des Geistes dem ganzen Volk Gottes, Frauen und Männern, gegeben sind und dass die Partnerschaft von Frau und Mann in der Evangelisation zum gemeinsamen Wohl zu begrüßen ist.“ (Erklärung 14, 1989). Die Erklärungen des Lausanner Forums für Weltevangelisation 2004 beinhalten: „Wir rufen die weltweite Gemeinde dazu auf, die vollständige Partnerschaft von Männern und Frauen im Werk der Weltevangelisation anzustreben, indem die Gaben aller im höchstmöglichen Maß eingesetzt werden“ (Claydon: 2005).

In diesem Bericht halten wir an einem grundlegenden Verständnis für Partnerschaft fest. Partnerschaft bedeutet, dass sich jeder Teil einbringt, ein gemeinsames Ziel zu erreichen und die Gelegenheit bekommt, Freiheit und Ermutigung zu erfahren, um je nach vorhandenen Gaben einen Beitrag zu leisten, unabhängig von äußerlichen Kennzeichen. Jeder Partner bringt übernatürliche Gaben und natürliche Talente mit, wie von Gott für die Erfüllung des Ziels gegeben.

Trotz der globalen Bewegungen, welche die grundlegende Teilnahme von Männern und Frauen ermutigen, spüren Frauen im Westen wie im Osten Einschränkungen, die ihnen auferlegt sind. Dies nicht nur von der Welt, sondern genauso oft durch ihre christlichen Brüder und Schwestern. Aus Platzgründen wird sich dieser Bericht nicht vertieft mit den biblischen Schlüsseltexten befassen, wie 1. Kor.11,14; 1. Tim.2,3 und Eph.5. Stattdessen wird in diesem Bericht versucht, die biblische und missiologische Weltanschauung derer aufzuzeigen, die glauben, dass Gott Männer und Frauen mit Leitungs- und Lehrgaben ausrüsten kann (und es auch tut), die gebraucht werden, um Seine Mission zu vollenden.

Der Apostel Paulus instruierte Timotheus, das, was er gehört hatte (die Lehren von Paulus), „treuen Menschen (anthropos) anzuvertrauen, die fähig sein werden, auch andere zu lehren“ (2. Tim. 2,2). Paulus, der sorgfältig und brillant geschrieben hat, gebraucht das griechische Wort, das beide beinhaltet, Männer und Frauen, und nicht das Wort, das sich speziell auf Männer bezieht. Aufgrund dieser und anderer Tatsachen, die sich auf gründliche Studien einschlägiger Textstellen ergeben, glauben wir, dass Gott nicht nur Männern, sondern auch Frauen die Gabe des Leitens verleiht, und dass es den Weltmissionsauftrag positiv beeinflusst, wenn Frauen freigesetzt werden, ihre Gaben für das Leiten und Lehren einzusetzen.

Vor einigen Jahren wurden wir gebeten, ein Seminar für 100 indische Pastoren abzuhalten über männlich-weibliche Beziehungen zu Hause und in der Gemeinde auf der Basis einer streng biblischen Perspektive. Wenige Wochen später erhielten wir ein Email von zwei verheirateten Teilnehmern: „Preis sei dem Herrn! [Der Ehemann] ging zu einem unerreichten Dorf, predigte das Evangelium und 35 Menschen nahmen Jesus Christus an! Preis sei dem Herrn! [Die Ehefrau] ging zu einem anderen unerreichten Dorf, predigte das Evangelium und 315 Menschen nahmen Jesus Christus an!” In beiden Dörfern wurden Hausgemeinden gegründet. Das Ehemann/Ehefrau-Team freute sich, dass Gott sie beide gebrauchte, um geistliche Frucht zu bringen und zu helfen, mit der Guten Nachricht unerreichte Dörfer zu verändern.

Obgleich wir uns über die obige Geschichte freuen, dass beide, der Ehemann und die Ehefrau freigesetzt wurden für einen erfolgreichen Dienst, so schränken andere christliche Traditionen die Mitwirkung begabter Frauen im Leitungsdienst ein. Während es für die Einschränkungen unterschiedliche Gründe gibt (biblische Sichtweise, kulturelle Ausrichtungen, gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz, praktische Probleme), ist der Weltmissionsauftrag auf einer individuellen wie auch auf einer gesellschaftlichen Ebene beeinträchtigt, wenn wir die Gaben der Frauen beschneiden. Eine amerikanische Frau Mitte Dreißig sagte: „Ich wusste schon immer, dass ich klug bin, Talent habe und begabt bin. Aber ich dachte einfach, dass Gott mich nicht wirklich brauchen würde, weil ich eine Frau bin.“ Ein zehnjähriges Mädchen, das eine christliche Schule besucht, fragte stirnrunzelnd: „Liebt Gott Jungen mehr als Mädchen? Das habe ich gedacht, als der Lehrer diese Bibelgeschichte erzählte. Die Jungen sagten, sie seien besser als Mädchen und gebrauchten die Bibel, um es zu „beweisen“. Juliet Thomas, ein indischer christlicher Leiter, hält fest:

Frauen haben mit Bedauern bezeugt, dass, „obwohl ihre Leiterqualitäten auf säkularem Gebiet gesucht und gebraucht werden, schrumpfen sie zur Bedeutungslosigkeit, sobald sie in der Gemeinde sind“. Wir leben heute in einer Welt, in der Frauen Premierministerinnen, Botschafterinnen und Führungspersönlichkeiten auf Geschäftsleitungsebene sind, aber auch die Verantwortung tragen für ihr Zuhause. Deshalb stellen manche zu Recht die von der Gemeinde verordneten Grenzen in Frage, die oftmals für Frauen im Dienst Geltung haben (Thomas 2005:189).

Mit diesem Bericht erklären wir unsere ernsthafte Liebe für Jesus, unsere tiefe Hingabe an das Wort Gottes und unsere feste Verpflichtung für den Weltmissionsauftrag. Wir sind sicher, dass auch andere christliche Brüder und Schwestern eine ähnliche Liebe und Ausrichtung haben, obwohl sie vielleicht den Voraussetzungen und der Anwendbarkeit der männlich-weiblichen Partnerschaft, wie in diesem Bericht dargestellt, nicht zustimmen. Paul Hiebert erklärt: „Wir müssen unsere Studien mit Demut und der Willigkeit angehen, von der Bibel, von Erfahrungen und voneinander zu lernen“ (Hiebert 2008:308). Unser Gebet ist, dass christus-ähnliche Demut und Belehrbarkeit in dieser Frage dazu führen, dass sich christliche Zusammenarbeit exponentiell vermehren wird!

Die nachfolgenden Seiten behandeln in Kürze die Themen Dreieinigkeit, Reich Gottes und Gerechtigkeit, welche die Basis unseres Verständnisses der männlich-weiblichen Beziehung und ihrer Partnerschaft im Weltmissionsauftrag darstellen. Es ist unser Gebet, dass die Gemeinde Gottes Ebenbild, Gottes Reich und Gottes Gerechtigkeit widerspiegelt, damit alle ethnischen Gruppen die verwandelnde Kraft erfahren können, die uns durch die Kreuzigung und Auferstehung Jesu geschenkt wurde!

Partnerschaft zwischen Männern und Frauen reflektieren die nicht-hierarchische Dreieinigkeit

Während die meisten Christen glauben, dass Gott Mann und Frau als Gottes Ebenbild (imago Dei) geschaffen hat, und dass Gott kein „männlicher Gott” ist („Gott ist Geist”, Johannes 4,24), haben einige zeitgemäße evangelikale Theologen in den letzten 35 Jahren die Idee vorangetrieben, dass die Dreieinigkeit hierarchisch aufgebaut ist und der Sohn und der Geist in Ewigkeit dem Vater untergeordnet seien. Diese Position wurde entwickelt, um den „männlichen Leiter“ und die „weibliche Unterordnung“ in der Gemeinde und zu Hause zu begünstigen“.

Wir widersprechen dieser Sicht einer „Befehlskette” der Dreieinigkeit. Das Athanasianische Glaubensbekenntnis erklärt: „Und unter diesen drei Personen ist keine die erste, keine die letzte, keine die größte, keine die kleinste“ (Kelly 2004:79). Athanasius arbeitete unaufhörlich daran, die Gemeinsamkeit der Personen der Dreieinigkeit zu betonen, während er gleichzeitig gegen die arianische Irrlehre kämpfte. Alle christlichen Glaubensbekenntnisse und Konfessionen erkennen an, dass „die drei göttlichen Personen untrennbar sind in ihren Funktionen und ihrem Handeln und unteilbar in ihrer Macht und Autorität“ (Giles 2006:30). Im Besonderen stellen auch das Nicäanische Glaubensbekenntnis von 325 und das Nicäa-Konstantinopel-Glaubensbekenntnis von 381 heraus, dass „die Kirche erklärt, dass es keine abgestuften Ebenen der „Gottheit“ in der Dreifaltigkeit gibt“ (Scorgie 2005:43).

Wir erkennen das Geheimnis der Dreieinigkeit an. Doch die Bibel als Ganzes deckt das Wesen der Personen der Dreieinigkeit und den Charakter Gottes auf.

Jesus unterordnete sich Gott während der 33 Jahre, die Er auf der Erde lebte. Diese Tatsache verdeutlicht zwei wichtige Wahrheiten. Erstens: Jesus zeigt uns den wahren Charakter des dreieinigen Gottes durch Seine Worte und Taten. „Wer mich gesehen hat, der hat den Vater gesehen“ (Johannes 14,9). Das heißt, die Liebe Jesu bezeugt, dass Gott ein liebender Gott ist. Wenn Er heilt, vergibt oder Seine Macht zeigt, demonstriert Er die Eigenschaften Gottes. Wenn sich Jesus unterordnet, lässt dies einen demütigen und gehorsamen, doch in Ewigkeit machtvollen dreieinigen Gott erkennen. Zweitens: Jesus zeigte den Menschen, wie sie eine Beziehung zu Gott finden können: Durch Demut, Liebe und Gehorsam.
Jesus sagte: „Der Vater ist größer als ich” (Johannes 14,28), welches einige wieder auf Seine Göttlichkeit bezogen und dabei übersahen, dass Jesus auch sagte: „Ich und der Vater sind eins” (Johannes 10,30). Deshalb gibt es in der Dreieinigkeit keine kleinere oder größere Autorität oder Macht. Wir dürfen nicht Jesu Beschränkungen während Seiner Zeit als Mensch mit Seiner unbeschränkten Macht als der Allmächtige Gott verwechseln!
Obwohl der Vater den Sohn gesandt hat (Johannes 3,16), demütigte und erniedrigte sich der Sohn (Phil. 2,6-8).
In Matth. 28,18 sagt Jesus Seinen Jüngern: „Mir ist gegeben alle Gewalt im Himmel und auf Erden.” Wenn also Jesus Seine universelle Autorität dem Vater im 1. Kor. 15,24-28 übergibt, offenbart dies nicht deutlich ein Teilen der Autorität, ein uneigennütziges Bevollmächtigen des anderen und einen gegenseitigen und einvernehmlichen Austausch der Macht? (Mehr über diese Parallele s. Pannenberg 1991:312-313).

Diese Aussagen machen klar, dass jede Person der Trinität der anderen den Vortritt lässt und sie mehr als sich selbst ehrt und damit eine perichoretische Beziehung offenbart. Das Wort Perichoresis wurde ursprünglich von den kappadozischen Vätern geprägt und beschreibt die gegenseitige Durchdringung und Untrennbarkeit der Handlungen der trinitarischen Personen, d.h. wenn eine Person etwas tut, tun es die anderen auch. Also handelt keine der göttlichen Personen unabhängig von den anderen. Wenn der Vater erschafft, spricht das Wort und der Geist bewegt sich (1. Mose 1). Wenn sich der Sohn opfert, befiehlt Er Seinen Geist dem Vater an (Lukas 23,46). Wenn der Heilige Geist in den Gläubigen wohnt, nehmen auch der Vater und der Sohn Wohnung in ihnen (Johannes 14,23). Diese kurzen Wahrheiten helfen uns zu verstehen, dass die Dreieinigkeit als gleich ewig, gleichrangig und untrennbar existiert, ohne unterschiedliche Stufen der Autorität, Macht oder des Willens.

Wenn die Menschheit die Gemeinsamkeit innerhalb der Dreieinigkeit realisiert, kann sie Gottes Ebenbild besser wiederspiegeln. Die Personen der Dreieinigkeit, differenziert als Vater, Sohn und Geist, bleiben vereint als EIN Wesen. Menschen, differenziert als Mann und Frau, können ebenfalls vereint bleiben in der Verfolgung ihres Ziels, Gottes Willen auf Erden zu tun. Gemeinsames Handeln innerhalb der Dreieinigkeit deutet deshalb schon im Voraus die gemeinsamen und koordinierten Haltungen und Handlungen der erlösten Menschen an, die in Gottes Ebenbild erschaffen wurden (dem imago Dei).

Genauso wie die Abgrenzung und die Eingliederung der Dreieinigkeit den Vater, Sohn und Geist nicht hierarchisch strukturiert, kreiert Gott auch nicht die Menschen mit Hierarchie. Liest man das 1. und 2. Buch Mose, ist männliche „Führung/Leitung” in Gottes idealem Paradies weder explizit noch auch nur angedeutet im Text. In keinem dieser beiden Kapitel findet man die Worte rosh (hebräisch „Haupt”) oder kephale (griechische Septuaginta „Haupt”). Was wir finden ist, dass der Mann allein „nicht gut” ist, und weil er nach einem Partner sucht, kreiert Gott die Frau als eine „ezer k’neged”, was ebenbürtig/gleichwertige Stärke bedeutet. In 1. Mose 1,28-29 lesen wir, dass Gott dem Mann und der Frau dieselben Segnungen und Verantwortlichkeiten gibt beim Untertan machen der Erde, indem er zwei Pronomen in der Mehrzahl gebraucht (Gott segnete sie und sprach zu ihnen), fünf Verben in der Mehrzahl (seid fruchtbar, vermehrt, füllt, macht untertan, herrscht), und indem Er sie in der Mehrzahl anspricht (Ich habe euch... gegeben).

Der dreieinige Gott ist das ursprüngliche und ultimative Vorbild für die gemeinschaftliche Beziehung zwischen Männern und Frauen. Gott hat in den Mann und in die Frau „die Einheit in der Verschiedenheit und der Gemeinsamkeit hineingelegt, welches die ewige göttliche Wirklichkeit kennzeichnet... Menschen in Beziehungen oder Menschen in Gemeinschaft reflektieren letztendlich das imago Dei“ (Grenz 1994:171). Als Träger des Ebenbilds Gottes reflektieren erlöste Männer und Frauen die dreieinige Gemeinschaft, indem sie zusammen herrschen, die Erde verwalten und das Reich Gottes zu allen Volksgruppen bringen.

Partnerschaft zwischen Männern und Frauen widerspiegeln das Reich Gottes

Weil die Versöhnung das Wichtigste für die Menschen ist, ist das Kreuz Christi die Grundlage für erlöste Beziehungen, nicht nur zwischen Menschen und Gott, sondern auch unter den Menschen selbst. „Das Versöhnungswerk Jesu erstreckt sich heute auf menschliche Beziehungen. Am Kreuz hat Er die Hindernisse zerstört, welche die Menschen getrennt haben” (Eph. 2,11-22) (Grenz 1994:348). Der zerbrochene Jesus trug in Seinem Körper die Zerbrochenheit der Welt.

Die Mission Gottes (missio Dei) hatte ihren Höhepunkt beim Tod und der Auferstehung Jesu. An dieser Verbindungsstelle hat Jesus die Möglichkeit einer erlösten Menschheit wiederhergestellt. Das Kreuz Christi ist eine Herausforderung für alle Gläubigen, die in einer versöhnten Gemeinschaft zwischen Männern und Frauen leben wollen.

Was uns unser Herr gelehrt hat und wofür er ein Vorbild war in seinem Leben – nämlich, dass die Fülle der Gemeinschaft darin liegt, sein Leben zu geben – wird wunderbar dargestellt durch seinen Tod. Nicht nur macht er deutlich, was Leben in Gemeinschaft ist, sondern er ist auch der „Effektor” dieser Gemeinschaft. Weil er uns den Weg öffnet, an echter Gemeinschaft teilzuhaben, bewirkt unser Erlöser unter uns ein göttliches Design des menschlichen Lebens (Grenz 1994:351).

Der zerbrochene Körper von Jesus Christus fordert Männer und Frauen heraus, ihr Leben dafür hinzugeben, in einer Gemeinschaft zu leben, die gegründet ist auf Gottes ursprüngliche Absicht in 1. Mose 1-2. Mit einer Reich Gottes-Denkweise kann sich ein Mann demütigen, aus seinen Gaben heraus dienen, andere befähigen und sein Bedürfnis für eine relationale Partnerin erkennen, die mit ihm zusammen herrscht. Genauso kann sich eine Reich Gottes-Frau demütigen, der Ängstlichkeit keinen Raum geben, sondern aus ihren Gaben heraus dienen, auch wenn das eine Leiterposition beinhaltet und erkennen, dass Gott nicht nur möchte, dass sie sich in Beziehungen engagiert, sondern auch darin, die Welt zu regieren.

Leben Männer und Frauen Gottes Ideal aus in Bezug auf männlich-weibliche Partnerschaft, senden sie eine kraftvolle und prophetische Botschaft in die Welt hinaus. Jedoch: „Wenn das Evangelium seine prophetische Stimme verloren hat, ist es in Gefahr, sich an Glauben und Werten festzumachen, die seine Botschaft verdrehen“ (Hiebert 1985:56). Somit stellt sich die Frage: Hat die Gemeinde eine männlich-weibliche Beziehung demonstriert, welche die Kultur prophetisch beeinflusst, oder haben gefallene Kulturen das Verständnis der Gemeinde über männlich-weibliche Beziehungen beeinflusst? Auf dem Gelände der Universität Delhi wandte sich eine junge Frau an uns: „Ich habe zwei Fragen an Sie. In meiner Kultur sagen der Islam und der Hinduismus, das Männer „höher“ sind und Frauen „niedriger“ (sie zeigte dies mit ihren Händen an). Was glaubt Ihr Gott in Ihrer Religion über Männer und Frauen? Was praktizieren diejenigen, die Ihrem Gott nachfolgen?”

Wenn erlöste Männer und Frauen die prophetische Botschaft des Reiches Gottes demonstrieren, indem sie alle ihre Gaben zum Ausdruck bringen, wird ihre Partnerschaft die Gesellschaft immens beeinflussen, nach dem Muster der Hefe, die einen Teig durchdringt (Matth. 13,33). „Die transformierende Arbeit des Friedefürsten ist, eine Gemeinschaft zu kreieren, die menschlich nicht machbar wäre, wo es weder Jude noch Grieche, Mann noch Frau, Sklavenbesitzer noch Sklave gibt, als ein konkreter Beweis des hereinbrechenden Reiches Gottes” (Guder 2000:69). Möge Dein Reich kommen, Herr Jesus!

Partnerschaft zwischen Männern und Frauen stellen Gottes Gerechtigkeit dar

Im Jahr 2006 sagte ein christlicher Bruder zu Chad: „Dieses Argumentieren darüber, was Frauen in der Gemeinde tun können und was nicht, ist überflüssig. Das alles lenkt nur von Jesus ab. Frauen sollten einfach froh sein, dass sie Teil des Leibes Christi sind und sich keine Gedanken darüber machen, was man ihnen in der Gemeinde erlaubt zu tun.“ Chad schaute den Mann an und erwiderte: „Sag das Ganze nochmals, aber verwende anstatt dem Wort Frau das Wort African-American (afrikanischer Amerikaner – Begriff in den USA für Menschen schwarzer Hautfarbe). Deshalb ist dieses Thema wichtig.”

Die meisten Menschen in der Welt erkennen, dass es eine Ungerechtigkeit ist, einen Menschen aufgrund seiner/ihrer Ethnizität einzuschränken. Viele in der Gemeinde haben jedoch lange die Ungerechtigkeit übersehen, die Frauen mit geistlichen Gaben betrifft. Eine Frau aus dem Westen beklagte sich: „Sonntage sind die traurigsten Tage meines Lebens. Ich fühle mich wertlos und unerwünscht, wenn ich in meine Gemeinde komme.” Eine hochqualifizierte südasiatische Frau, die geschätzt wurde für ihren Einsatz und ihre fachliche Kompetenz auf Regierungsebene, rief verzweifelt aus: „Wenn ich nach Hause komme, bin ich niemand! In meiner Gemeinde werde ich zum Schweigen gebracht! Ich hätte mein Leben gegeben, der Gemeinde zu dienen, doch ist es mir nicht erlaubt zu sprechen oder an irgendetwas teilzunehmen“ (Thomas 2005:693). Eine Schwester erzählte, sie hätte an einer weltweiten Konferenz teilgenommen ohne ihren Mann. Auf der Fahrt zum Flughafen fragte sie ein Mann nach dem Dienst, den sie mit ihrem Ehemann zusammen ausübte. Als sie es ihm gesagt hatte, erwiderte er: „Welches sind die geistlichen Gaben Ihres Mannes, die ihn einen für solchen Dienst geeignet machen?“ Ein anderes Mal, wiederum ohne ihren Mann, saß sie an einem Tisch mit einem bekannten Apologeten. Auch dieses Mal, nachdem sie über ihren Dienst zusammen mit ihrem Mann gesprochen hatte, bemerkte der Apologete: „Ich sollte unbedingt ihren Mann kennenlernen. Welches sind seine geistlichen Gaben?“ In beiden Fällen fühlte sie sich „unsichtbar und ausgeschlossen“ vom Leib Christi.

Die Annahme der Frauen in der Gemeinde (und aller erlösten Menschen) beinhaltet das Potential, die Kraft und Wahrheit der Versöhnung einer zerbrochenen Welt zu demonstrieren, während die Ablehnung aufgrund von Ethnizität, Geschlecht oder gesellschaftlichem Stand lediglich die Ungerechtigkeit einer zerstückelten Welt nachahmt. Wir sollten uns an die historische Lausanner Verpflichtung von 1974 erinnern, die viele angesehene christliche Leiter aus der ganzen Welt unterschrieben haben. Darin heißt es, dass Christen berufen sind, „Gottes Sorge um Gerechtigkeit und Versöhnung in der ganzen menschlichen Gesellschaft zu teilen sowie auch die Befreiung von Männern und Frauen von jeglicher Ungerechtigkeit“ (Die Lausanner Verpflichtung, 1974).

Es gibt Theologen, die Frauen dazu ermutigen, „nicht darüber nachzudenken, was sie nicht tun können, und sich statt dessen darauf auszurichten, was sie tun können“. Doch kann die Diskussion, wie Frauen zu Hause, in der Gemeinde und der Gesellschaft dienen können, nicht in einem sterilen, akademischen Umfeld verbleiben, denn es bezieht sich auf ein Problem der Gerechtigkeit, das die Hälfte des Leibes Christi betrifft, und es schlägt tiefe Wunden in die persönliche Identität. Die Diskussion in einem theologischen Elfenbeinturm zu behalten, heißt, die Probleme der Ungerechtigkeit und Identität zu umgehen (der Schmerz bleibt erhalten), die Gaben des Heiligen Geistes nicht zu berücksichtigen (er verteilt die Gaben, ohne auf das Geschlecht zu achten) und die Arbeit der Weltmission zu verlangsamen (weniger Arbeiter können mit ihren Gaben dienen).

Wenn heutzutage darüber gesprochen wird, was Männer und Frauen zu Hause, in der Gemeinde und Gesellschaft tun sollen, hört man oft das Wort Rollen. Doch weder das Alte noch das Neue Testament, weder Jesus noch Paulus noch ein anderer biblischer Autor gebrauchte die Worte „Rollenverhältnisse” oder „verschieden und gleich“, als sie darüber schrieben, wie Gott Männer und Frauen für Seine Zwecke befähigen kann.

Seit den 1970er Jahren haben einige Christen dieses “Rollen-Wortspiel” gebraucht, um die Gleichberechtigung (gleich) zwischen Männern und Frauen zu untermauern, doch behielten sie die funktionale Hierarchie bei (verschieden). Christen, die diese Anschauung vertreten, versuchen oft, ihre Sichtweise mit einer ewig untergeordneten Dreieinigkeit zu begründen. Wir glauben jedoch, dass die Worte „gleich und verschieden“ und „Rollen“ nicht ausreichen, weder die männlich-weibliche Beziehung noch die Dreieinigkeit zu erklären.

Vor der Zeit der sexuellen Revolution in den 60er Jahren, hieß es in den meisten biblischen Kommentaren lediglich, dass der Mann zuerst geschaffen wurde und deshalb „wichtiger und übergeordnet“ sei, während die Frau nach ihm geschaffen wurde und deshalb „untergeordnet und minderwertiger“ sei. Das innovative „Rollen-Wortspiel“ erlaubte es bestimmten Christen, von der Gleichheit der Männer und Frauen zu sprechen (im Menschsein/Wert), während sie ihre abgeschwächte patriarchalische Struktur beibehielten (in der Funktion/Arbeit). Interessanterweise ergaben Forschungsprojekte in 2007-2008, dass Muslime in Nordindien dieselbe Terminologie benutzen, wenn sie Unterschiede zwischen Männern und Frauen im Islam benennen. „Männer und Frauen sind gleich…die Männer einen Rang höher” (ref. Sura 2:2228)

Genauso wenig wie die Dreieinigkeit in verschiedene Rollen aufgeteilt ist, sollten sich auch die Menschen nicht in verschiedenen Rollen sehen. Manch einer mag dem widersprechen und sagen: „Sie glauben also, es gibt keine Rollen oder Funktionen, die speziell auf Frauen oder Männer ausgerichtet sind?“ Wir würden antworten: „Natürlich ist es offensichtlich, dass es bestimmte biologische Abläufe gibt, die nur Frauen oder Männer tun können.“ Doch über die grundlegende natürliche Biologie hinaus glauben wir, dass der Heilige Geist Männern und Frauen übernatürlich Gaben schenkt. Vertieft man das „Rollen-Wortspiel“ noch weiter, resultiert das vielfach in stereotypischen Schlussfolgerungen. Außerdem sehen wir in der ganzen Bibel, dass Gott Frauen ausrüstet und in vielen Aufgabenbereichen und Diensten einsetzt, zum Beispiel als Prophetin, Lehrerin, weiblicher Apostel, Diakonin, Evangelistin, Geschäftsfrau, Hausgruppenleiterin und Anbetungsleiterin.

Ein Partnerschaftsmodell, das Männer und Frauen darin bestätigt, alle ihre Gaben in den Funktionen einzusetzen, zu denen Gott sie berufen hat, erfordert ein anderes Verständnis und einen anderen Wortschatz. Natürlich unterscheiden sich Menschen als Männer und Frauen, und wir heißen auf keinen Fall den Androgynismus oder die Homosexualität gut. Männer und Frauen sind nicht „dasselbe“, sie sind geschlechtlich eingeteilt als männlich und weiblich, welches sie deutlich verschieden macht. Doch diese Unterschiede entscheiden nicht, welche Gaben ihnen Gott geben kann oder wie er sie in seinem globalen Unternehmen einsetzt. Wir glauben, dass diese ganzen „Rollen“-Diskussionen mit einer falschen Ausrichtung auf Autorität begonnen hat, die sich auf den physischen Körper bezog, welches schließlich den Ausschlag gab, wie eine Person geistlich eingesetzt werden kann. Stattdessen sollten Gottes klare Berufung, Gottes gnädige Gaben und Gottes starke Befähigung die Autorität und das Handeln in der Gemeinde und zu Hause bestimmen und weiterführen.

Schlussfolgerung

Millionen warten darauf, die Botschaft des Reiches Gottes zu hören. Deshalb muss die Gemeinde mehr Arbeiter mobilisieren und freisetzen. Gemäss den Ethikern Stassen und Gushee verblasst die Frage des Geschlechts, wenn es darum geht, wer in der Gemeinde dienen soll, wenn man die enorme Aufgabe der Gemeinde sieht, die Weltevangelisation zu vollenden. „Das Kriterium dafür, wer diesen wertvollen Reich Gottes-Zielen nachgehen soll, ist ganz einfach der gesamte Leib Christi, wobei spezielle Aufgaben durch die geistlichen Gaben entschieden werden“ (Stassen und Gushee 2003:323).

Wie können globale Leiter nun ganz praktisch mehr Arbeiter, Männer und Frauen, freisetzen und befähigen für die Ernte und ein neues globales Gleichgewicht fördern?

Neue Möglichkeiten eröffnen. Frauen mit Gaben erkennen und ihnen Gelegenheit geben zu dienen.
Sich nicht widersetzen. Wenn gottgefällige Frauen mit ihren Gaben und dem Segen Gottes aufstehen, sollten Männer und Frauen dies erkennen und die Arbeit des Heiligen Geistes unterstützen.
Ausbilden, befähigen, ausrüsten und freisetzen. Alle Leiter, Männer wie Frauen, brauchen Training, Beratung und Bestätigung. Es ist wichtig, dass Frauen, die oft weniger Training erhalten, Gelegenheit zum Wachstum und zur Entwicklung haben.
Schüren Sie das Feuer. Wenn der Heilige Geist einer Person Gaben gegeben hat, dann lassen Sie diese Gaben zum Feuer werden. Löschen Sie nicht das kleine Flackern eines Feuers im Leben einer Person.
Geben Sie Kraft weiter. Vergeuden Sie keine Zeit und Energie, indem Sie ihre Kraft verteidigen und behalten wollen.
Anerkennen Sie die Ehe und Kinder. Ermutigen Sie die Ehemänner, sich an der Hausarbeit und bei der Erziehung der Kinder zu beteiligen, damit ihre Ehepartnerin ebenfalls ihre Gaben weiterverfolgen und einsetzen kann. Beide Ehepartner sollten einander ermutigen, alle ihre geistlichen Gaben einzusetzen. Beide sollten sich um die Kinder kümmern und die Frauen nicht auf ihre biologische Funktion eingeschränkt werden.
Die unverheirateten Frauen wertschätzen. Im Leib Christi gibt es mehr Frauen als Männer. Deshalb bleiben eine große Anzahl christlicher Frauen unverheiratet. Sie sollten nicht mit der Aussage belastet werden, nur Eheleute würden Erfüllung erfahren, könnten glücklich sein oder dass man verheiratet sein müsste, um einen Leitungsdienst zu übernehmen.

Eine Partnerschaft zwischen Männern und Frauen, die beide ihre Gaben einsetzen, hat einen Einfluss auf den Weltmissionsauftrag. Frau G., eine ehemalige Atheistin in China, lernte Jesus Christus kennen. Obwohl ihr Mann und ihre Kinder sie jahrelang lächerlich machten, glaubten sie mit der Zeit ebenfalls. Frau G., eine begabte Lehrerin, holte Menschen in ihr Haus und lehrte sie die Bibel. Es dauerte nicht lange, bis ihre Gemeinde auf 200 Menschen angewachsen war. Ihr Ehemann, ein großartiger Koch und weiser Ratgeber, diente der Gemeinde von ganzem Herzen.

Die Gemeinde wuchs weiter, bis ein Mann aus dem Westen dem Gottesdienst beiwohnte und sah, wie Frau G.s Gemeinde strukturiert war. Er ging auf Herrn und Frau G. zu und sagte: „Sie führen die Gemeinde nicht nach biblischem Muster. Es ist nicht richtig, dass Frau G. lehrt und leitet. Es ist nicht richtig, dass Herr G. kocht, bedient und nur als Ratgeber da ist. Sie folgen nicht dem biblischen Vorbild, welche Rollen Männer und Frauen haben.” Sie waren untröstlich, dass sie Gottes Regeln gebrochen hatten. Frau G. hörte auf zu lehren und Herr G. fing an zu lehren. Mit der Zeit verminderte sich die Anzahl der Menschen in der Gemeinde immer mehr. Schließlich kam ein anderes westliches Ehepaar und ließ Herrn und Frau G. die Bibel mit neuen Augen sehen. Sie verstanden, wie Gott möchte, dass Gaben benutzt werden. Frau G. fing wieder an zu lehren und Herr G. konnte wieder seine Gastfreundlichkeit und Weisheit einsetzen. Heute hat die Gemeinde über 1.000 Mitglieder und hat ihre eigenen Arbeiter an unerreichte Orte in China ausgesandt.

Beim Lausanner Forum für Weltevangelisation 2004 in Pattaya, Thailand, standen wir auf dem Podium. Wir stellten eine fünfminütige Zusammenfassung vor über die Arbeit der Issue Group 24 während des Forums, über das Thema: „Männer und Frauen zur Zusammenarbeit für das Evangelium befähigen.“ Mit uns auf der Bühne standen sechs Frauen und vier Männer. Sie repräsentierten die 60 Prozent Frauen und 40 Prozent Männer in der weltweiten Gemeinde. Jeder hielt einen Teil unseres großen Fischernetzes aus Kaschmir, Indien. Wir sagten: „Es gibt Gläubige, die Frauen daran hindern wollen, ihre gottgegebenen Gaben einzusetzen. Was ist das Resultat? Frauen, lasst euer Netz fallen!“ Die Frauen auf der Bühne ließen das Netz fallen und die Gewichte, die am Netz hingen, schlugen laut auf dem Boden auf. Den Zuschauern stockte der Atem, und wir sagten: „Fische sind verloren!“

N.T. Wright erklärt: „Wir müssen scharf darüber nachdenken und umsichtig darüber beten, wohin uns unsere eigene Kultur, Voreingenommenheit und unser Unmut führt und sicherstellen, dass wir uns anpassen – nicht an die verschiedenen Klischeevorstellungen der Welt, sondern an die heilende, freisetzende, „menschliche“ Botschaft des Evangeliums von Jesus Christus“ (Wright 2006 20.4:9). Für Männer und Frauen, die Christus nachfolgen, ist es an der Zeit, weltliche Stereotypen beiseitezulegen und statt dessen Gottes ursprüngliche Absicht der starken Partnerschaft und der vollen übernatürlichen Gaben aus Gottes Gnade zu reflektieren. Männer und Frauen, die das imago Dei widerspiegeln, das Reich Gottes leben und anderen gegenüber und in ihren Beziehungen gerecht sind, werden kraftvoll zusammenarbeiten mit Gott und miteinander, um Seine Mission in allen Volksgruppen zu vollenden!

Zitierte Werke

Ali, Yusef. 2006. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications.

Athanasius. 1885. Das athanasische Glaubensbekenntnis. London, UK: Gesellschaft zur Förderung des christlichen Wissens.

Claydon, David. 2005. Eine neue Vision, ein neues Herz, ein neuer Ruf (Volumen 1, p.xii): Unregelmäßig erscheinende Veröffentlichungen vom Lausanner Forum für Weltevangelisation 2004, red. von D. Claydon, Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Deddo, Gary W. 2008. The Trinity and Gender: Theological Reflections on the Differences of Divine and Human Persons. Priscilla Papers 22 (4):4-13.

Giles, Kevin. 2006. Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing.

Gill, Deborah M., and Barbara Cavaness. 2004. God’s Women Then and Now. Springfield, MO: Grace and Truth.

Grenz, Stanley J. 1994. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Guder, Darrell. 2000. The Continuing Conversion of the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Kelly, J. N. D. 2004. Early Christian Doctrines. Peabody, MA: Prince Press.

Hiebert, Paul G. 1985. Anthropological Insight for Missionaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

———. 2008. Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Die Lausanner Verpflichtung. 1974. Ersichtlich unter http://www.lausanne.org/covenant.

Deutsch Translation by: LGC_Translation
Erklärung zu mehrsprachigen Funktionen | Schlage vor, Übersetzung zu bearbeiten

Stichwörter: Partnerschaft, Führung, Geschenke, Gender, Partizipation

Gespräch Kommentar übermitteln

1 2 Next >>

Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten William_Lauesen (-1)

Bahrain

The Partnership of Males and Females: Comment

I was very disappointed in the Lausanne leadership in allowing the extremely one-sided viewpoints related to Men and Women in Christian ministry. A prime example was the Multiplex (the 4,000 delegates were given 4-5 Multiplexes on different topics to choose from during that time) on Men and Women. It was totally feminist, spent most of its time preaching feminism, and ignored that there is another viewpoint on the matter. In addition to the total lack of balance and Christian charity toward other viewpoints, how they handled scripture, twisting it to fit their viewpoints, was sad to see, and a terrible precedent to allow in the Lausanne movement which does not bode well for its future.

This is not to say that there was nothing good in the session. There were several examples of women active in ministry that complementarians as well as feminists could agree with and applaud. It was just a shame that we had to sit through the radical and explicit propaganda for the great majority of the session.

Teamwork and partnership are needed emphases, also among men and women, in the church as well as in marriage, but that does not mean that they have to be the same in all respects, even as the body of Christ is one even though we all have different gifts and different roles.

Some of the many problems in explicit biblical teaching during this session included:

It was stated that the command to not eat of the forbidden tree was given to the woman as well as to the man, but this is not what one sees in the passage in Genesis 2:15-18, where the command was clearly given to the man before the woman was created. (They were trying to avoid having the man tell his wife not to eat the fruit, putting her under his authority.)
It was stated that helper is not less than the one being helped (Genesis 2:18). While this is true in general and is a possible interpretation of this passage, and there are of course cases where God helps us (although God was not made to help us), it obviously is not the only interpretation, not the one that common sense would dictate, nor the one that Paul understands in 1 Cor. 11:9.
Ephesians 5 – where it makes clear that a wife should submit to her husband – this obvious and main message of the paragraph was not stated but was repressed. Eph. 5:21 “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” was made to fight against and overcome the clear teaching of scripture in Eph. 5:22, 24 and elsewhere. Equality was emphasized to the point that the scriptural commands were made naught, a very disturbing use of scripture.
It was stated with reference to Ephesians 5 that the wife and husband must equally submit to each other (Eph. 5:21) or else there would be no equality. Besides ignoring the specific teaching of scripture in the following verses, it also ignores the trinity, where the Son for example submits to the Father, and yet they are equal.
It was stated as a clear fact that Priscilla and Aquila led a church in their home, referencing Acts 18. While this can be supposed, it is only a guess. Of course we also know as a principle of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) that even if it did happen and was recorded in a historical writing, such incidents (which might have been wrong or a special case) cannot negate the teaching of scripture in the letters.
It was interesting how glibly the fact that Jesus selected 12 apostles who were all men – not 6 men and 6 women as feminists would expect today. How was this fact (which blows away the feminist case) explained away? They stated (without any proof or evidence) that Jesus limited himself by adjusting to his society; although he did many things which offended his society, for example: healing on the Sabbath, calling religious leaders hypocrites, speaking with a Samaritan woman, and calling himself God. If Jesus in his practices submitted to his society even when (as the feminists would say) the society is biblically wrong, then we cannot accept any of his actions as examples – although of course scripture does teach us to follow Christ’s example. (A further point: guess who carefully sculpted the Jewish society over many generations, for example with the priests who were responsible for teaching being all men?)
Regarding Paul’s teaching on women in I Cor. 11, where it speaks of women praying and probably prophesying, it was said that these are the tasks of priests. Interesting, but note two things: one, the main point of the passage was that there is a difference between men and women; two, priests sacrificed and taught. There is a difference between teaching and prophesying – they are two quite different gifts – and as we see in I Cor. 14, while Paul seems to allow women to prophesy, he does not allow them to judge prophesying, to teach men or to lead men.
Regarding I Cor. 14, the fact that men and women have different gifts that should be used does not mean that there is no difference between men and women and that they are interchangeable and simply take turns. Scripture teaches that women can have any gifts, but that women should not exercise some gifts in mixed groups with men.
Regarding I Tim. 2 (I Tim. 2: 12a: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man”), the clear teaching was repressed – not even mentioned – and suppositions were brought in to try to nullify this teaching. (Another implicit argument used: I Tim. 2:12a isn’t a command, so by implication it can be ignored.)
It was clearly being taught that we should allow women to be leaders (presumably over men, as no one objects to them leading women and children, which make up some 75% of the world’s population). Women were said to have the same leadership titles as men in Romans 16, ignoring that the word “servant” while sometimes used to refer to a church deacon (“servant”), is more often used not as a leadership title but as a very general word referring to a serving function. No one denies that women can indeed be servants and fellow workers. (In Rom. 16:7, there is that disputed passage – is Junia a man or a woman; is he well-known among the apostles or is he a messenger?)

May we grow up into the full teaching of Scripture, and submit ourselves to Christ and his Word. May we grow up beyond a “battle of the sexes” and a race to the top. May we not all grasp at being a leader; and may not many of us become teachers. May we better understand the example of Christ, who while being equal to the Father, did not mind submitting to him, with perfect love shown within the trinity even as they have different, complementary roles.

17.11.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten earnold (0)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ William_Lauesen: I do believe that the Gospel of Luke records women disciples who supported Jesus’ ministry and ministered with Himand to Him. Jesus chose women to reveal Himself after His resurrection and charged them to go tell His disciples. As a woman, I choose to believe what Jesus says about me: I am charged to carry the message of new life in Him to those who would be disciples. And it was men that the women were told to take the message to; Jesus did not tell them to restrict their message to children and other women. You criticize others for reading the Bible through their cultural lens, but your reading is also through yours. A bit of self-awareness is a necessary step for us all as we seek to understand the Scriptures both in the context of the time they were written and throughout time. This is a challenging task and we need to have grace for each other as we seek to understand the awesomeness of the Great Commission.
08.07.2012

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten William_Lauesen (-1)
Bahrain
@ earnold:
I agree with most of what you say: a) women disciples supported Jesus and ministered to him and others; b) women disciples were chosen and charged to testify to men of Christ’s resurrection; c) we should believe God’s word that we have worth and should minister to others, including bringing the Gospel to all; d) we are all affected by our own culture, often more than we realize; e) we need awareness of our own blinders (it’s often good to read commentaries from other eras to get a different perspective) and also grace and of course study to understand scripture. All good and reasonable points.

None of these touch my main point however: that we need to obey God’s directions for example in 1 Timothy 2 (ie, v. 12a: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (ESV)).

Of course we may have some disagreements around the edges on its application, but we should agree on the main idea as the word of the Lord. Note that not all spoken communication is teaching; women are not similarly limited in using gifts of prophecy, exhortation, wisdom and knowledge, and tongues and interpretation, nor in proclaiming, testifying and sharing. Note that the context here is in the household of the faith, ie, the church family, where the public teaching of the word carries the authority of the church. (What is teaching? I usually think of it as the exposition of scripture, instruction about God and His ways, explaining the word and applying it to our lives – perhaps you have a better explanation!) May the Lord help us to understand His word, especially where it is different to the spirit of the age, that we may better be salt and light in a dark world.

Where is the outrage over the systematic twisting of scripture that I mention above – so many examples? Do we no longer believe that wives should be subject to their husbands (and that husbands should love their wives)? Do we no longer believe that Christians should obey the Lord Jesus Christ and submit to his word? May the Lord save us all and this movement from moving away from the Word of the Lord!

10.07.2012

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten earnold (0)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ William_Lauesen: Okay. Here is a direct response to your main point. First, Paul’s letters were very occasional, meaning that he was usually addressing a certain church and their specific concerns. It is vital we remember that we are reading someone else’s mail; that should caution us to carefully consider making any few passages of Scripture hard and fast doctrine. Therefore, many of the issues are not only situational but cultural as well. If we were to take everything absolutely literally, women would wear coverings on their heads, all young widows would be required by the church to get remarried, and slaves would still be subject to their masters. Secondly, is this God speaking in this passage? I thought it was Paul. I know you are going to say that all Scripture is inspired by God and I believe that. But Lot having sex with his daughters is in Scripture and God does not audibly in that situation pronounce judgement. So just because someone in the Bible says something does not mean we are to apply it in the same way. Paul is stating that he does not permit it. But Paul also asks Timothy to bring him is coat. Is that an instruction for us too!? Of course not! That is where common sense and personal decision enter. First of all, if people are coming to Christ and Jesus Himself says that the workers are few, are we really going to turn away people who have received a calling? And for every passage of Scripture that does not support female teachers and pastors, there is one that does. There is a discrepancy! So you may choose which passages to view as more useful. Third, some of us are in denominations that do not see this as a hierarchical issue. I am Baptist. In the Baptist church, Christ is the head of the church, the congregation is under Christ, the deacons (servants) are under the congregation, and the pastor is...the least of these...serving the entire body. So how is this even an issue of authority when Jesus is in charge and the entire body is over the pastor.
10.07.2012

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten William_Lauesen (-1)
Bahrain
@ earnold:
Very revealing: a creative hermeneutic determined to achieve the desired result in spite of the “inconvenient truth” of God’s instructions. You say: 1) sometimes Scripture is specific or cultural and therefore not applicable to us; 2) sometimes Scripture records history that is not a command. All true in general, but also all not relevant to this particular text. You seek to cast doubt on these instructions as you do not want to submit to them. Why not instead seek to follow God’s instructions?
You argue that God might call people to violate God’s commands. Doesn’t seem like a very good argument to me – it is certainly one that could be turned against any of God’s commands – and Jesus didn’t take kindly to the Pharisees trying to get around commands such as to honor parents. Jesus said they should do the one without ignoring the other. Again, one can be a missionary and draw people to Christ without violating this command, as I already explained. It’s not either/or!
Next you argue that the Bible has discrepancies, so let’s ignore this text, and do what we want. Not a very good way to handle scripture – but a good way to deny the practical authority of scripture over our lives and ministries. By the way, a basic principle of hermeneutics is that NT teaching passages take precedence over historical passages, which as you mentioned might record good or bad actions. Most of the discrepancies you have in mind are debatable historical passages – we can gain additional insight from them, but only if our hearts are ready to obey scriptures we don’t like, and seek further understanding from the heavenly Author.
Third, you introduced the hateful “h” word “hierarchical” – which I did not mention, so it doesn’t affect my arguments. (I am also influenced by Baptist traditions, although of course if a church doesn’t have elders (who oversee and shepherd the church, whether one is designated a “Pastor” or not – and I totally agree with servant leadership, it’s vital – and it should be shared), it’s not the leadership structure taught in the NT. Sadly true of many different church denominations, in fact if not in name.) I did speak of authority, which is present in the church as in the family. Jesus Christ is as you say the Lord of the church – that certainly speaks of authority! The church leaders oversee the teachers in the church and in most churches who preaches week by week; at least the church leaders stand ready to correct any heresy that is taught (and to impose church discipline should it be necessary – that certainly speaks of authority, even if seldom used). Thus in general, what is taught in the church may be thought of as coming with the authority of the church: you should believe this, you should do that. I find this helpful to understand why a woman cannot teach men, but can prophesy, testify and encourage. If you don’t find this discussion on authority helpful, then leave it. I Timothy 2 does say that women can’t teach or exercise authority over men, so it is two things, not only one, that women are not to do to men in the church.
Speaking of hierarchy, note that the Son does submit to the Father. In the trinity, in the church, and in the family, there is structure, there is submission – and there is love and loving, servant leadership. This is something to bring to the world!
Women have great worth and importance, vital gifts and vital roles to play in the church and in the worldwide mission. Where would we be without them? Let’s not let any wrong understanding of Biblical instructions meant for our good by our loving heavenly Father take that away!

11.07.2012

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten earnold (0)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ William_Lauesen: Dear William, I really have no hope of changing your mind. That was not really my goal. I am simply asking for you to have grace for your brothers and sisters who are trying to be faithful to what they feel God has called them to do. When we stand before the Holy God and we are judged, would you not rather have erred on the side of grace? If this practice is not for you or your church, fine. But please refrain from pronouncing judgment on other Christians. The same measure we use will be used for us. I would rather be accused of letting too many people preach the gospel. By the way, I used to have the exact same position as you. I understand your desire to be faithful to the Word of God and be prepared to obey even the difficult to accept passages. I went to seminary to learn. I discovered that there is a difference between simply reading the Bible and studying it. I learned humility; I cannot possibly understand everything right now. I also was forced to read it without all my presuppositions, each and every book. What I learned was grace for those who are like Jacob, wrestling with God and with His word. We are all trying to understand the enormous task the Great Commission presents us. Please ask for humility and grace to empathize with your fellow believers and for things that are not "salvation issues," let’s not make the focus of our efforts.
11.07.2012

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten William_Lauesen (-1)
Bahrain
@ earnold:
I guess I’m a naive optimist – I was hoping based on the Word of God to change your mind! May we all be life-long learners, continuing to listen to the biblical arguments of those with whom we disagree, searching the Scriptures like the Berreans to see if these things are so.

I do seek to have grace for others – I would hope that that would not be a question. So I can say “amen” to having grace for those with whom we disagree. I do wish that the Lausanne organizing committee had had grace to select speakers on this topic who would have accepted me and those like me who take the Bible at face value! Note the 10 points I list above of the extremely one-sided presentation by multiple speakers, which in the opinion of many was very unbiblical.

12.07.2012

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten jdmarx (0)
Südafrika

Dear Leslie and Chad,

I am deeply concerned about the contents of your paper. Though I do not know Pierre217 I urge you to reconsider the theology of your paper.

You are in error. I say that as one child of God to another and I use such strongly language because of my concern for you and those who follow you.

Your statement "Just as the Trinity is not differentiated by roles..." seems to be at the heart of where you go wrong and you do that by confusing two dstinct concepts, namely hierarchy and equality.

Though the three persons of the Trinity are EQUAL they are differentiated. They are in a HEIRARCHICAL relationship because of their roles. The Father sends the Son and not other way round. The Son submits to the Father, not other way round. Yet they are equal in power, glory and "godness".

The image of God is impressed by God in two areas regarding humans: marriage and the church. Both of these are characterized by relations that are equal yet hierarchical regarding gender as asserted by both NT and OT. Men should love and lead their wives, wives should respect and submit to their husbands. This is not a statement of inequality for men and women are equal heirs of the kingdom but are placed in different roles.

I fail to see how in the example you mentioned a woman can be sent to the mission field alone, plant a church through teaching the Word and not have authority over men? This seems contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. How can a woman teach/lead her husband in the congregation not distort the order in the marriage?

That being said, I do believe that there is a definite place for woman to teach the Bible - women can teach over women and children. This doesn’t contradict the order of the church or marriage. A woman is thus only "limited" to teaching one third of the population. The fact that men are failing in their duty (such is seen by the lack of male missionaries) is no excuse for women to take over that role and also err.

I call on you to correct your view and repent or correct me where I am mistaken so that I can repent.

Kind regards,

jdm

Ps: Regarding the Nicene creed et al, the Nicene creed wasn’t written to clarify whether or not the persons in the Trinity have different roles; but rather to assert that Jesus is fully God and one with the Father. Hence the assentment is that Jesus is equal to God and no less god than the Father.

Pps: In my personal experience, the confusion about the role of women in ministry comes from confusion in the West regarding relationships and marriage. I am leading a Bible study on a medical campus which consists of 80 percent African women. These are very able young women who themselves are involved in different churches, yet none of them wants to lead or teach where they will have authority over men. It seems like the role of women in ministry issue only surfaces in the traditional white churches in our country.

15.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten davidson (0)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ jdmarx:
But Jesus didn’t pick any Gentile men either. Hence Paul writes no Jew nor gentile, male nor female..

19.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten earnold (0)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ jdmarx: I find this very interesting considering I have been married for eleven years and my husband is constantly telling me how grateful he is for what I have to teach him. I am in seminary and I come home to him caring for the children and he asks me questions and allows me to teach him. I am a teacher and guess what he is. A therapist! He works with people sharing their feelings (which makes him excellent with children) and I am a teacher. A good and godly husband is marked by humility and refusing to be taught by a woman is not exactly humble. If we had allowed cultural stereotypes to keep us in our traditional roles, we would not be good stewards of the gifts God has blessed us with. That said, this is an issue that I believe deals with personal conviction. Maybe you would not feel comfortable in a church led by a woman, but to say that God cannot use someone in the mission field because they are not married is presuming too much. In the Bible, we read countless stories about people that did not meet the qualifications of being used by God...and He did. Let God be the judge and if people are coming to the saving knowledge of Christ, other less important disagreements need to be set aside.
08.07.2012

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten William_Lauesen (-1)
Bahrain
@ earnold:
You make several good points: 1) husbands can of course learn from their wives; 2) husbands should be humble; 3) cultural and traditional stereotypes can hold us back; 4) we should use our gifts including teaching; 5) God can of course used women and all believers on the mission field; 6) preaching the Gospel is vital. No one would disagree with these points. We agree with common sense, positive experiences, godliness, and using our gifts and witness to transform ourselves, our society and the world. What we may disagree about is the plain teaching of scripture that women should not teach men (nor oversee them) in church meetings (1 Timothy 2). However, this is perhaps a narrower command than you might realize – and of course some may others may in error or from tradition broaden this command in a wrong way. So, rejoice that you can do the above things without violating God’s way; and at the same time seek to understand God’s instructions in ! Timothy 2 better.

10.07.2012

Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten William_Lauesen (-1)

Bahrain

Some of the many problems in explicit biblical teaching during this session included:

It was stated that the command to not eat of the forbidden tree was given to the woman as well as to the man, but this is not what one sees in the passage in Genesis 2:15-18, where the command was clearly given to the man before the woman was created. (They were trying to avoid having the man tell his wife not to eat the fruit, putting her under his authority.)
It was stated that helper is not less than the one being helped (Genesis 2:18). While this is true in general and is a possible interpretation of this passage, and there are of course cases where God helps us (although God was not made to help us), it obviously is not the only interpretation, not the one that common sense would dictate, nor the one that Paul understands in 1 Cor. 11:9.
Ephesians 5 – where it makes clear that a wife should submit to her husband – this obvious and main message of the paragraph was not stated but was repressed. Eph. 5:21 “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” was made to fight against and overcome the clear teaching of scripture in Eph. 5:22, 24 and elsewhere. Equality was emphasized to the point that the scriptural commands were made naught, a very disturbing use of scripture.
It was stated with reference to Ephesians 5 that the wife and husband must equally submit to each other (Eph. 5:21) or else there would be no equality. Besides ignoring the specific teaching of scripture in the following verses, it also ignores the trinity, where the Son for example submits to the Father, and yet they are equal.
It was stated as a clear fact that Priscilla and Aquila led a church in their home, referencing Acts 18. While this can be supposed, it is only a guess. Of course we also know as a principle of hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) that even if it did happen and was recorded in a historical writing, such incidents (which might have been wrong or a special case) cannot negate the teaching of scripture in the letters.
It was interesting how glibly the fact that Jesus selected 12 apostles who were all men – not 6 men and 6 women as feminists would expect today. How was this fact (which blows away the feminist case) explained away? They stated (without any proof or evidence) that Jesus limited himself by adjusting to his society; although he did many things which offended his society, for example: healing on the Sabbath, calling religious leaders hypocrites, speaking with a Samaritan woman, and calling himself God. If Jesus in his practices submitted to his society even when (as the feminists would say) the society is biblically wrong, then we cannot accept any of his actions as examples – although of course scripture does teach us to follow Christ’s example. (A further point: guess who carefully sculpted the Jewish society over many generations, for example with the priests who were responsible for teaching being all men?)
Regarding Paul’s teaching on women in I Cor. 11, where it speaks of women praying and probably prophesying, it was said that these are the tasks of priests. Interesting, but note two things: one, the main point of the passage was that there is a difference between men and women; two, priests sacrificed and taught. There is a difference between teaching and prophesying – they are two quite different gifts – and as we see in I Cor. 14, while Paul seems to allow women to prophesy, he does not allow them to judge prophesying, to teach men or to lead men.
Regarding I Cor. 14, the fact that men and women have different gifts that should be used does not mean that there is no difference between men and women and that they are interchangeable and simply take turns. Scripture teaches that women can have any gifts, but that women should not exercise some gifts in mixed groups with men.
Regarding I Tim. 2 (I Tim. 2: 12a: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man”), the clear teaching was repressed – not even mentioned – and suppositions were brought in to try to nullify this teaching. (Another implicit argument used: I Tim. 2:12a isn’t a command, so by implication it can be ignored.)
It was clearly being taught that we should allow women to be leaders (presumably over men, as no one objects to them leading women and children, which make up some 75% of the world’s population). Women were said to have the same leadership titles as men in Romans 16, ignoring that the word “servant” while sometimes used to refer to a church deacon (“servant”), is more often used not as a leadership title but as a very general word referring to a serving function. No one denies that women can indeed be servants and fellow workers. (In Rom. 16:7, there is that disputed passage – is Junia a man or a woman; is he well-known among the apostles or is he a messenger?)

17.11.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Shiela_Porter (0)
Grossbritannien

Thank you jlovela1 for your comments - it’s good to have scriptural engagement in terms of women in leadership in the church. We gave a standing ovation at Lausanne this week for a young korean girl who was believing she was being called to evangelise in north Korea and therefore likely to build a church.

It was good to have the writers of the paper not only do a seminar but also appear on the main stage on Sunday morning.

24.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 2 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten jlovela1 (2)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika

I appreciate this paper and its exegesis. I believe the theology is sound, and I can see where there is a connection with Grenz’s book, "Theology for the Community of God."

I believe women in ministry is such a large issue because of the lack of understanding the biblical languages and the social background of the Old and New Testament. We have to remember the prophetesses Deborah and Huldah in the Old Testament. Without Huldah, we might have not had access to Deuteronomy, which was found when King Josiah was reigning.We also have to consider than in Psalms 8 wisdom is personified as a woman.

In the New Testament, we misunderstand the word "head." Considering that all language is metaphoric, "head" had a different meaning in the Greco-Roman culture than today. "Head" was not "authority," but best understood as our term "heart". The father, according to Paul (Eph and Col), was to be the "life source" of his family in every way. What a difference that would make if we would apply it to marriages today! As men, everything we do produces life or destroys it in our homes. That goes for women in ministry.

We also must consider before Paul talks about the family in Ephesians, he uses the phrase "Submit to one another" which connects the two topics of church fellowship and family. When we become one in Christ, there is no male or female (Gal 3:28). We must encourage women to fulfill God’s calling. We also have to consider that Paul had connections with women who were over households (Rom 16).

Considering other passages that tell women not to speak in church, show their hair, the women is the weaker vessel, etc., all are cultural norms of the 1st Century Judaism, or can be explained with social exegesis. Women who were the weaker vessel were 15 years old. They were required to marry at puberty, and married a man 30 years of age or older. Women who showed their hair in that culture were saying that they were prostitutes. The rebuke of women to not speak in church probably originated with a problem concerning women who were causing trouble in the sanctuary. In essence, the New Testament was making a revolution for women in ministry. We also have to remember terms such as "bishop," "minister," etc. are not so clearly defined in the New Testament, since not much detail is given on how those roles played out in the early New Testament church.

23.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 1 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Ahoelke (1)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ jlovela1:
I really appreciate this comment. I think that, if we are to have strong opinions about women in ministry, we should truly have a solid understanding of what the Bible actually "has to say" about this issue. I personally believe that a more educated look at the biblical text unlocks quite a bit of freedom for women, and it certainly lends itself to realizing how revolutionary the Hebrew scriptures and our New Testament texts were in regard to women! If you look back at the story in Genesis 1 and then Genesis 2-3, it becomes apparent that it was never God’s intention that the female be "subject to" the male. This is a result of our fallen world, and in love we should work together to end it.

24.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 1 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten tepursley2010 (1)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ jlovela1:
I agree with you, but how do you get the common person to understand this? If someone has not studied Greek or Hebrew and have been told all their life that only Men can do certain things, how can you change the traditional view?

24.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten jlovela1 (2)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ tepursley2010:
That is why we go to seminary, in order to learn how to teach people and learn how to read the scriptures. We do not avoid the difficult passages in Scripture. We also realize that Scripture has ambiguity on certain issues, and we need to live in that tension. We, the church, have a tendency not to read the Bible as a whole. If we did, we would realize that not every issue discussed is black or white. We have a tendency to skip over scripture that challenges our theology. How many times do we come to the text with a blank mind and heart and ask, "What can you teach me about God?" We read the Scriptures with oursevles in mind, not God. As teachers, we are to help people to learn how to read Scripture, and ask the questions. When one reads Scripture, it is hard not to ask questions.

In essence, the only way to transform the traditional view is to allow God to change the leadership. If the leadership does not change, we live out our convictions. God will make a way. This is God’s buisness, not ours.

24.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen -1 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten William_Lauesen (-1)
Bahrain

I am disappointed in Lausanne inviting someone with such unbiblical views to present an advance paper. The complementarian view was not fairly represented at all. Lots of space for emotions and straw men, but very little for consideration of the Biblical issues. Lots of talk about gifts (count the references!) which of course no one denies; of justice and fairness, equality and freedom, with just a tiny bit of outrage and anger mixed in. The authors think they are standing against the cultural views of the traditionalists, but don’t seem to realize that their values are largely drawn from modern Western culture rather than from the Bible.

The lack of understanding of the trinity was alarming. God the Son doesn’t have to submit to God the Father? The authors allow for almost no differences in the persons of the trinity – just to prove their feminist position that male and female have almost no differences – other than only the strictly biological differences – not thinking that God may have not just given men and women different bodies, but other differences as well – why should God make two exactly the same, rather than a bit different, especially given the woman’s bodily functions in birth and nurturing of children? Christ did not grasp at equality with the Father, he voluntarily submits himself, as does the Spirit. The trinity is a perfect example of equality yet differences – call them what you like if you don’t like the word roles or functions. May each one of us likewise not grasp at equality and being the head, but be willing to submit, in the church as in the home, to God’s perfect plan for our life and ministry.

Likewise, the lack of insight into Genesis 1 and 2 showed either great ignorance of the complementarian position or willful neglect. Let me list some indications of differences: 1) God called them “man”, the same as the name of the male; 2) man was created first; 3) woman was made to assist man (which sounds like a particular role); 4) man named the woman; 5) Adam passed on the command from God to Eve; not to mention that God is called he, later revealed as Father and Son.

I couldn’t help but think of Psalm 2:3 as the authors talked about liberation: “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us”. We should be happy to be bound to the center of God’s will and design for us, showing in our equality and differences the beauty of the trinity, of the church’s union with Christ, and of the household of believers. Why settle for boring sameness? God is more creative than that!

14.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Ahoelke (1)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ William_Lauesen:
Interestingly enough, the word used in Genesis for the woman as the "helper" of the man is a word almost always used for God in the Old Testament. So God is our help in times of need, our hero in a sense. And this word is used for the woman in the Gensis account. How is it that we have turned this word into something that is considered lower than man? Perhaps a study of the Hebrew language could benefit us today!

24.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Pierre217 (1)
Südafrika

Hi jdmarx

Thank you for your post. I agree 100 % with what you are saying and I do hope that the authors of the paper will listen to you appeal and to what I and others have said in response to their paper.

Yours in Christ

Pierre

16.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten jlovela1 (2)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ Pierre217:

Here is my response to the paper:

I appreciate this paper and its exegesis. I believe the theology is sound, and I can see where there is a connection with Grenz’s book, "Theology for the Community of God."

I believe women in ministry is such a large issue because of the lack of understanding the biblical languages and the social background of the Old and New Testament. We have to remember the prophetesses Deborah and Huldah in the Old Testament. Without Huldah, we might have not had access to Deuteronomy, which was found when King Josiah was reigning.We also have to consider than in Psalms 8 wisdom is personified as a woman.

In the New Testament, we misunderstand the word "head." Considering that all language is metaphoric, "head" had a different meaning in the Greco-Roman culture than today. "Head" was not "authority," but best understood as our term "heart". The father, according to Paul (Eph and Col), was to be the "life source" of his family in every way. What a difference that would make if we would apply it to marriages today! As men, everything we do produces life or destroys it in our homes. That goes for women in ministry.

We also must consider before Paul talks about the family in Ephesians, he uses the phrase "Submit to one another" which connects the two topics of church fellowship and family. When we become one in Christ, there is no male or female (Gal 3:28). We must encourage women to fulfill God’s calling. We also have to consider that Paul had connections with women who were over households (Rom 16).

Considering other passages that tell women not to speak in church, show their hair, the women is the weaker vessel, etc., all are cultural norms of the 1st Century Judaism, or can be explained with social exegesis. Women who were the weaker vessel were 15 years old. They were required to marry at puberty, and married a man 30 years of age or older. Women who showed their hair in that culture were saying that they were prostitutes. The rebuke of women to not speak in church probably originated with a problem concerning women who were causing trouble in the sanctuary. In essence, the New Testament was making a revolution for women in ministry. We also have to remember terms such as "bishop," "minister," etc. are not so clearly defined in the New Testament, since not much detail is given on how those roles played out in the early New Testament church.

23.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Tiger_Lily (0)
China

Thank you for opening this discussion with a thoughtful paper. It is rather sad that this still remains a controversial issue!

20.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten timhyde (0)
Grossbritannien

It saddens me that this remains a controversial subject. Great paper, thank you.

19.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Pierre217 (1)
Südafrika

I just want to say thank you to those of you who have posted comments which are in support of the Biblical teaching on this topic of the partnership of men and women in the new global equilibrium. If I miss any names, forgive me but I do really appreciate the comments from Jim Harries, William L and Johnathan Pryke. I think you are agreeing with my posted reponse to this paper. Also in response to some posts by Joeynima (thank you for them) I would say there is a very important role for women on the mission field but the church does need to be sending more men out as missionaries and men should taking up more leadership roles in mission organizations. Where are the men? Are Christian men leaving over the task they should be doing to women? I have no problem with women in certain roles on the mission field but I do get disturbed when I hear statistics that in some parts of the world about 80 % of the missionaries are women? Where are the men and why are not more men being sent to the missiion field. I think the discussion of this paper should include a discussion of this important point

14.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Jim_Harries (-3)
Kenia
@ Pierre217:

Thanks to Pierre.

This topic is of course important. It also seems to be very hot. That makes it difficult to write to it. That is – who wants to speak to ‘the other’? As a man, I prefer to challenge men than to try to direct women. Unfortunately though, it is my observation that men frequently cannot function very well without supportive women behind them. If our ladies prefer going out on their own and doing their own thing rather than standing behind men, then that is one thing that will make men falter and fail. In this age of women’s liberation, that may be a factor that has / is contributing to there being fewer men on the mission field.

15.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten RagamuffinRese (3)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ Pierre217:
Many of the unreached people groups do not allow men outside of immediate family access to the women of their households and women and girls generally outnumber men and boys in most cases. Therefore, perhaps God sovereignly has raised up a large group of anointed women to reach this large population? Furthermore, in creative access nations, the most direct reach into communities is through education, medicine and social services - areas in which woman to woman contact is culturally acceptable.

Just food for thought.

15.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten joeynimi (0)
Indien

Hallo William,

Good to see your commemts..

As a man I am replying to you from the field...

I would be very happy if this principle is followed in the mission organisations also.... Why they send 90% women to serve rather than men....

Where are the men? Are they busy fighting for positions in the church?

Please remember when you talk about leadership of men.. It should apply to the mission organisations also....

I have travelled and worked in many countries and it is hard to find men in the mission field...

I feel women have faith in doing things than men....

Why men dont understand the sufferings the women go though in the field?

Leadership is giving and sacrificing....

we men has to give out life, then we can ask the women to follow...

God Bless..

14.10.2010

Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten William_Lauesen (-1)

Bahrain

Interesting points you make, Mere. Thank you for raising the discussion to the Biblical data – where the discussion should center. In pointing out the few apparent exceptions, don’t forget the general rules:

In the OT, the priests were the ones who had the main responsibility to teach the people. Guess what percentage of the priests were men?
In the NT, Paul is quite clear that he does not allow women to teach or to exercise authority over men in the church. Of course some try to find ways around this.
Of the 12 apostles that Jesus hand-picked, how many men did he pick?
It is well-known that there is a difference of opinion about Junia, whether he was a man or a woman – I’ve heard good arguments on both sides. I’ve also heard good arguments about whether he was notable among the apostles or in the view of the apostles. This one questionable case doesn’t negate the fact that every other apostle mentioned was definitely male.
Of course there were women disciples. Why shouldn’t there be? I would hope that some of them were teaching and leading others – other women and children – only 80% of the populations in many parts of the world with still growing populations. (Interesting how our Western society insists on mixing the sexes of the audience – in some traditional societies, men mix with men, and women with women, so this issue of who can teach mixed audiences doesn’t arise much.)
There were various women in the Bible that said and did different things. Each case could be debated on its merits, including whether they were prophesying or teaching (yes, there’s a difference, and yes both are educational, as everything said in church should be), but then of course what did happen doesn’t prove what should happen. Life is sometimes messy…
Deacon/minister is actually the word “servant”. Sometimes it is used generically (more often than not it is used to mean a servant, not the special serving church office – the women were most probably general servants of Christ and the church, which isn’t nothing, even if it’s not teaching and not leading other than by example, which also isn’t nothing). Elders are not to be women, as we see in I Tim. 2-3; there is more difference of opinion about deacons (which is not a teaching position, but a serving position; I suppose it depends on the extent to which they are serving versus organizing and leading the serving, whether there is one group of deacons or a male and female one as in the second generation church, and so on).

What our society needs is something different from what our culture is pushing – which is bland sameness rather than complementarity. Let men be men, and women be women – to the glory of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

14.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 1 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Mere_B (4)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika

I appreciate Pierre’s appeal to Scriptural authority, and would like to mention a few Scriptures that back up the Seagrave’s position. I am borrowing this material from a very wise theologian Dr. Ken Bailey, whom I heard speak to this topic at my theological seminary, where I studied for my MDiv in the earlier part of this decade.

This one talk by Dr. Bailey transformed my view of women in leadership and gave me so much confidence, courage and freedom as a female leader. Dr. Bailey is highly respected as a long-time missionary in the Middle East, a Canon Theologian in the Anglican Church, and a prolific speaker, writer and teacher. Bailey expounds on the Scriptural case for women in leadership in an article you can download here: http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/women-new-testament-middle-eastern-cultural-view

Here are Bailey’s main Scriptural citations in favor of women in leadership in the church:

1. Jesus had women disciples: Mt. 12:46-50, Lk 8:1-3, Lk 10:38, Acts 9:36

2. Women appear as teachers of theology in the NT: Acts 18:24-28 (Aquila was not the only teacher, but also Priscilla), Lk 1:46-55 (Mary’s magnificat is presented by Luke as a piece of key teaching material for the entire early church!)

3. Women are affirmed as deacons/ministers in the early church: Rom 16:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:8-11

4. At least one woman is specifically mentioned as an apostle, and not only that a notable one, Junia: Rom 16:7

In the article found at the link above, Bailey also makes a case that women appear to be affirmed as elders in the NT, and prophets.

Finally, Dr. Bailey addresses at length the 2 outstanding passages that would seem to argue against females in leadership, 1 Cor 14:33-36 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15. As one who has spent decades living in a Middle Eastern context and studying the texts within their cultural and historical origin, he makes clear cases that these passages are not meant to be universal directives, but are rather specific directions to churches in specific crises.

If Bailey is right, then there is ample Biblical evidence to back up the Seagraves’ case. I encourage everyone to read Bailey’s article and give it much prayer and thought before marginalizing the gifted believing women in your midst!

14.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Sarah_Breuel (0)
Italien

Amen, Amen and Amen! It was so refreshing and liberating to read this as a Brazilian missionary serving in Italy. I believe that both the Brazilian and the Italian church have still so much to learn regarding liberating the gifts of women, so that male and female can work together to advance the Kingdom of God! May God bless you as you encourage us to do so.

13.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 1 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Pierre217 (1)
Südafrika

I feel compelled to responded to this paper on a very important topic because a very important matter of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture is at stake. Article 2 of the original Lausanne Covenant states:

2. THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE BIBLE

We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without

error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We also affirm the power of God’s word to accomplish his purpose of salvation. The

message of the Bible is addressed to all men and women. For God’s revelation in Christ and in Scripture is unchangeable. Through it the Holy Spirit still speaks

today. He illumines the minds of God’s people in every culture to perceive its truth freshly through their own eyes and thus discloses to the whole Church ever

more of the many-colored wisdom of God.

(II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:21; John 10:35; Isa. 55:11; 1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16, Matt. 5:17,18; Jude 3; Eph. 1:17,18; 3:10,18)

Do we truly believe this statement.? If we do then we believe that the only infallible rule for what we do in evangelism, missions and the church is not pragmatism (what works) but the Word of God. If we are to honour God we must be faithful to his Scriptures and do what is Biblical not what seems to work in the eyes of men and women. In this paper several examples such as the Indian couple who went to preach the Gospel in two different villages (the husband in one and the wife in another) and the example of the Chinese house church where Ms. G preached and Mr. G. cooked and gave wise counsel are given in support of the role of women as leaders and preachers in the church. However, these should not be used as support for role of women as leaders and preachers in the church unless it has first been established from the Bible itself that this is indeed a Biblical position and I do not believe this paper has demonstrated this.

The authors of this paper admit that they will not delve into an exegesis of the key passages in Scripture on the topic but surely if our basis for what we allow in regard to this important subject is the Bible we need to properly understand these key passages and they should be addressed in the discussion of this topic at the Lausanne Congress.

I will not respond to all in this paper but will focus on the section under the heading, “Partnership between males and females reflects the non-hierarchical Trinity”

The authors state that since “God is Spirit “ (John 4:24) he cannot be a male deity. I agree that God as Spirit does not have physical male organs but that does not mean he cannot be male. Throughout the Old and New Testament God is revealed to be male. The First person of the Trinity is the Father not the Mother or the Father/Mother and the second person of the Trinity is the Son not the Daughter or Son/Daughter. How do the authors of this paper explain away these revelations of God as male in the Scriptures?

The authors then argue that there is no hierarchy in the Trinity i.e. no role distinction in the Trinity so since humans are made in God’s image there is no role distinction in the Trinity. They quote the Athanasian Creed which says , “In this Trinity none is before or after, none is greater or less than another.” I believe what the creed is saying is not that there is no role distinction of hierarchy in the Trinity but that each of the three persons in the Trinity are equal in glory and status. How do the authors respond to 1 Corinthians 11:3 which says, “Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (NIV) Surely this verse teaches a hierarchy in the Trinity. From eternity the Father has been the Father and the Son has been the Son and the Holy Spirit has been the Holy Spirit. The very names Father and Son indicate a hierarchy. Surely it was not only in his 33 years as a human man on this earth that Jesus was subject (not inferior) to the Father but throughout eternity. Surely if humans are created in the image of God they must reflect this aspect of the Trinity. Yes, men and women are very much equal in dignity and honour in the sight of God. Galatians 3: 28 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (NIV) I 100 % agree with this verse since it is part of God’s Word. However, I equally as strongly believe that just as there are different roles in the Trinity and a hierarchy so it is with humanity since we are created in the image of God. Women are not in any way inferior to men but they have different roles. The headship role in both marriage and the church is that of the man not the woman. I have already quoted 1 Corinthians 11:3. We can also quote 1 Timothy 2:12 – 14 which says, “I 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.” I know that a common view is that these verses simply refer to a cultural situation which was a problem in the church at Ephesus, where Timothy was a pastor, in the 1st century. However, no matter how you understand verses 13 and 14, which Paul uses as an argument for what he says in verse 12, we must agree that they refer to a time before there were different cultures and so what Paul says, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, should be applicable to all cultures and times.

As I have emphasized already I in no way believe women are inferior to men but I do believe they have different roles. Women and the ministry they are involved in is vital in the church, on the mission field, society as a whole and the family. However, in the church (including on the mission field) and family this ministry cannot involve preaching / teaching to groups of men (or men and women) or leadership over men. Men must not abuse their leadership role in the church and only suitable qualified men must be in leadership in the church (see I Timothy 3, Titus 1 and 1 Peter 5) . However women must not be leaders over men in the church and must not have teaching / preaching role except to women and children. However, there is still a lot for women to do that is invaluable in the Kingdom of God and women should be doing these things. In the local congregation where I am a member a number of women are prayer warriors, a number of women are actively involved in personal evangelism, women teach other women (both individually and we have a ladies Bible Study lead by a woman), women are active in hospitality, caring for and visiting the elderly and sick, most of our musicians in our worship services are women. I could go on with my list of how women are involved in the life of our local congregation. However, we have not women in leadership roles in the church and they do not preach in our Sunday Worship Services or lead such services.

Most likely my view will be in the minority amongst those at the Lausanne Congress in Cape Town. However, it has been the majority view of the church throughout church history and I know of some keynote speakers at Lausanne who would not be able agree with the paper to which I am responding. I will mention just two. John Piper and Vaughn Roberts. However, even if I am in the minority in my view I do not care as long as I am Biblical. I do not want the approval of men and women but the approval of God. I have responded to this paper because I believe a very important issue of the authority of the Bible in all we do in the church, including the role of men and women, is at stake. If we do not accept the authority of the Bible on this matter what will be next? What will be the next teaching of the Bible we will abandon?

07.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Shiela_Porter (0)
Grossbritannien
@ Pierre217:
A subject to always bring about passion! I too am passionate about holding to truth of scripture and believe that taken as a whole, the biblical text affirms women in leadership. Not time to go into all the individual texts but if I didn’t wholeheartedly believe I was called by God Himself and affirmed through His word to the ministry I have then I wouldn’t be doing it! I guess the issue is over contextualisation and interpretation of particular parts. i can recommend some really good books on the scriptural material. We have many women in leadership already so let’s try to affirm and encourage them in what they are doing for the gospel - even if we’re not sure it’s right they stepped into it in the first place.

Grace and peace in our Lord Jesus Christ.

08.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Julie_Mathews (0)
Australien
@ Shiela_Porter:
Julie Mathews

Australia

Thank you Sheila for you comments. It is a blessing and heartening to know that you are using your leadership and preaching gifts. As a professional Christian woman in Australia I have also envcountered the negativity towarsd women performing leadership roles, teaching etc. in the churches I have been a part of. It has been refreshing to be able to use my leaderhsip abilities in Christian education at the school and tertiary level. Like you, I have always felt compelleed by god to use my gifts and feel privileged to do so.

I found the paper compelling and refreshing. Let’s pray it can be used to further God’s work internationally.

09.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Shiela_Porter (0)
Grossbritannien
@ Julie_Mathews:
Thanks Julie - I’m sure the debate in CT is going to be interesting but I pray over the days of the Congress for us all to come afresh to the text of scripture, without preconceived ideas, and allow the Holy Spirit to speak into our hearts and minds - maybe with new insights. I feel incredibly privileged to be a part of the Congress and look forward to arriving on Tuesday.

09.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 1 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten chiwaiwu (1)
China

In Hong Kong, we did a church census every five years. From last year’s survey, we found out 1,250 churches here had 3,671 paid pastors, and 47.9% were female pastors. We had 22.2% of these held leadership positions as senior pastors. I don’t have the figures of mainland China, but i would say the churches in Hong Kong had affirmed and supported women to lead the congregation. For us, it is no longer a theological issue, but a matter of culture.

I serve in an international mission agency, the board in US can’t accept women into the board, but we already had women board members. I respect the US board, and i don’t push for more women leadership. I would like to see how many speakers are female on the platform in Capetown.

08.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten MarkAnderson (0)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika

I really appreciate the thoughts mentioned about partnership in all areas of life. I think that there is a major tendency to get both the husband and the wife so busy trying to minister that there is no longer a healthy family mentality. Then I think that marriges begin to suffer and kids don’t have the access to their parents that they need. The goal is not to get everyone as busy as possible, but to have really healthy relationships across the board where everyone is able to use their gifts for building up and expanding the Kingdom, and also fulfill their God given responsibilities to their familes. These should go hand in hand.

07.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Shiela_Porter (0)
Grossbritannien

A good paper taking some different perspectives than we come to expect on the subject. I lead a church alongside a man and we work as equals. Neither of us are made in what is sometimes termed the ’complimentary gifts’. My colleague has what many would see as feminine gifts and myself the opposite. The important bit isn’t that we are male or female but that with our combined gifts we bring a rounded ministry and leadership to the church. I too am passionate about the truth of scripture but believe that women are called to exercise gifts in equal proportion to men, including the gift of leadership. I take note of the comment re. women feeling they need to step into the liberal end of the church in order to fulfil their calling. I have seen the truth of this in individuals and the result being evangelical wing of the church losing good people.

The paper speaks of the prophetic nature of men and women working alongside one another. I know the truth of this first hand. It does indeed send a powerful and prophetic message to the world.

I was also taken by the comment ’the issue...strikes deep at their personal identity’. An excellent point to make.

Amen to the last sentence!

I look forward to this discussion at CT!

07.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Maryedemuth (3)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika

When I first started speaking, I worried because I knew I wouldn’t be able to speak to mixed groups. And I wondered why it was that if I were on the radio teaching about Jesus, that a man could listen to me, but if I stood behind a podium in a church, he couldn’t.

Things have changed. I speak to mixed crowds. But sometimes I still feel like I’d have more opportunity if I were a man.

That being said, the underlying motivation behind it all has to be God’s kingdom, and His working through my weakness. I don’t want to be "all that." I want to be the girl who listens and obeys. And if that means suffering (slightly) by not being allowed to speak, I’ll bear that.

07.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten Maike_Sachs (0)
Deutschland

Dear Leslie and Chad, I enjoyed reading your paper very much, because I found some new interesting statements for the call of women to be part in world evangelization. The picture of the fishing net touched me.

I come from a church where for 40 years now the ordination of women is possible. Besides the effect that more or less the liberal thinking women entered church service we now realize that the number of female theology students overruns the number of male students. What does this developement means for a church?! And why men draw back from responsibility as soon as they meet strong women? How can we develop our work into a real good partnership of men AND women?

God bless you,

Maike Sachs, Germany

06.10.2010

: Antworten Kennzeichnen 0 Daumen hoch Daumen nach unten RagamuffinRese (3)
Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
@ Maike_Sachs:
Thanks for bringing up the all too unfortunate link between denominations who recognize women as leaders while not recognizing the authority of Scripture in many areas. One does not necessarily lead to another. There are unfortunate but false links that can be similarly manufactured to link male-only or male-headship with abuse. We cannot fall for that one either. There are other factors in play in both cases.

Unfortunately, for we women who know we are called to leadership, and in particularly pastoral leadership, the liberal denominations represent the only choices. I am not called into pastoral ministry but have many strong evangelical, non-feminist friends who are and must put up with the ugly side of denominations in order to do their work. They do make waves about restoring biblical foundations but it carries a high price tag as it does for men who are trying to restore them.

As far as the number of seminary students, are they all divinity students or counseling? There were lots of women at my seminary but most of them were in the counseling program. Is that the same in Germany? I was one of fewer women in the MDiv track but enjoyed great collegial relationships and still do with evangelical men. I suppose it was due to the seminary’s century old policy about women and the fact we all realized that the bigger issue was God and His Kingdom and not gender and it’s division.

06.10.2010

1 2 Next >>

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben. Wenn Sie kein Konto haben, können Sie gleich hier ein Konto anlegen (es ist kostenlos und leicht zu bedienen!).