Mom, I am a very, very bad methodist. I can see an argument for a separate order in the church called "deaconesses," but I simply can see NO scriptural basis for a female elder. I keep getting slammed for this.
Jesus wasn't afraid of the crowd or of what folks thought. He had lots of women following him. If he'd wanted to make one an apostle, he would've done so in a heartbeat. He was fiercely courageous and was not moved by the opinions of men.
That he did not appoint a woman to an apostleship says a lot to me.
I just put on my asbestos suit, so flame away....anyone who wants to.
In all seriousness, would Calvinists flame you for this? Or are their differences of opinion?
It's not an issue I want to debate. I'm just curious.
I enjoyed my friendship with this lady..It was nice to have a Christian sister..but I would NEVER place myself under a woman's spiritual authority .
Do not expect many flames from this crew..( unless Wade disagrees)
Actually, X, the denomination I grew up in (and since left) recently OK'd women to all church offices. Some in the denomination argued that Paul was a wuss and didn't want to ruffle feathers, which is why he proclaimed for women to keep silent -even though he really knew better.
Jean
Furthermore 1 Cor 11:1-16
Concerning the latter, the several churches that were in the apostles' time had different customs in things that were not essential; and that under one and the same apostle, as circumstances, in different places, made it convenient. And in all things merely indifferent the custom of each place was of sufficient weight to determine prudent and peaceable men. Yet even this cannot overrule a scrupulous conscience, which really doubts whether the thing be indifferent or no. But those who are referred to here by the apostle were contentious, not conscientious, persons.