对话 发表评论

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 William_Lauesen (-1)  
巴林

I wrote the below shortly after LCWE and posted it elsewhere, but now for the first time see that I should have posted this here. Sorry for the delay. Hope you don’t mind some controversy! First let me say that as a complementarian I’m all for women using their gifts, fulfilling their calling, and working together to accomplish the great commission. No argument at all there - how can anyone disagree with that? There’s just one small point from the Word of God that should also be taken into consideration: Christ’s commands in I Timothy 2. See more below.

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:

1. It was stated that the ommand 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.)
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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?)
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.)
10. 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.

20.08.2012

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Nastoshea_Cherea_Jefferson (0)
美国

yes women and men are created in the image of God with a unique call to serve one another and to serve the world. I do believe that ministry should be based on women and men working together. I am so waiting for the day when i marry my soon to be husband and we are able to serve toegther. This has been my dream since i was a little girl. I want a husband who will be the head and i want us to serve toegther.

12.07.2012

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Gardner-Webb_University (0)
美国

I believe that women and men in ministry together is God ordained, and beautiful!

09.07.2012

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Julia_L (4)  
加拿大

I’m currently sitting in the multiplex right now, and I suspect that most of us sitting in this multiplex are either rather agnostic, or in support of, using women in ministry. I am also of this camp.
However, I do have to play devil’s advocate - many men at my own church would tell me that Paul’s passages in I Corinthians, etc especially when Paul uses creation order as part of his rationale also is binding and one cannot simply pick some passages and not include others. I certainly am aware that those who say only men can serve in certain positions have certain passages that they love best, but similarly, those of us in this multiplex have certain passages that we love best. Is this right? What was the rationale of the working group to come to the conclusions that they have? How did they also wrestle with the (in my opinion) problematic passages that explicitly restrict the amount of responsibility that women are allowed to hold?

23.10.2010

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 JediMasterReed (0)
美国
@ Julia_L:

Reading this, you are certainly correct in the observation that those on both sides of this issue each have a different set of scriptures which they like to use.  One of the issues that I always observe is that most of these come from Pauline literature, just one of the strands of voice and tradition in the scriptures (and of course, Paul offers opinions on both sides, as well.)

It is interesting to note how little other biblical voices and traditions are used in discussing this issue.

25.04.2011

回复 标记 0 支持 反对 Tim_Gunn (0)  
联合王国

The presentation team were all very much of one persuasion. There was an appalling lack of interpretation of the relevant scripture passages and NO CHANCE for questions at the end.
Although I am totally committed to the joint working of men and women in ministry, this session did not really help at all. Basically, the message was, "We’re all equal, so get on with it"
Not very helpful for a decent consideration of the subject.

23.10.2010

你必须登录后才能发表评论。如果你还没有用户名，请在此注册（免费、易用！）。