women in ministry.

I'm really tired of people who truly believe men are the only ones called to a position of leadership.

what a joke.

The logic behind this argument is terrible and based on irrational feeling and general discomfort.

I've decided to write a short list of the reasons why I think women IF called to ministry should be welcomed and encouraged.... 

and why people who think this goes against biblical teaching are stupid.

(this is NOT however an argument that WOMEN SHOULD BE IN MINISTRY [vocational ministry that is]... everyone is called to his/her own field and my argument is simply for those who feel they are called to be pastors...)

clarification: understand that when I use the phrase "called to ministry" i do mean vocationally.  I understand full well that I am called to ministry and it is in the artistic field and mission field.... just as I understand a man who is called to run his business in a christlike manner is called to ministry.

1. the first point i would like to make is what seems to be the final blow someone has against women in a leadership position.... "i just can't follow a woman."

to this i would like to use what my friend michelle repeats all the time "I do not follow Paul.  I do not follow Peter... I follow Jesus."

If you cannot submit to anyone bearing a message from the Lord to you that is something very much hindering your soul from being vulnerable to God.

This feeling is not an indicator that there is something innately wrong with listening to a woman but the old as time proof that we are a fallen and proud people who will harden our hearts towards conviction.

We will look for any reason to dismiss the messenger of the Lord.

2.  the verses commonly used by men and women who believe women are never called to vocational ministry are:

1 Tim. 2:11-12

"The proper way for any novice to learn was submissively and 'quietly' (a closely related greek term appears in 2:2 for all believers).  Women were less likely to be literate than men, were trained in philosophy far less often than men, were trained in rhetoric almost never , and in Judaism were far less likely to be educated in the law.  Given the bias against instructing women in the law, it is Paul's advocacy of their learning the law, not his recognition that they started as novices and so had to learn quietly, that was radical and countercultural. (In the second century, Beruriah, wife of Rabbi Meir, was instructed in the law, ut she was a rare exception.  Women could hear expositions at the synagogues and did sometimes attend rabbinic lectures, but the vast majority of rabbis would never accept them as disciples and Hellenistically oriented Jews like Josephus and Philo were even more biased against them than the rabbis were.  There is evidence for a few women filling higher roles in some Diaspora synagogues, in local cultures were women had higher social positions, but the same evidence shows that even there prominent women in synagogues were the rare exception rather than the rule.)

Given women's lack of training in the Scriptures the heresy spreading in the Ephesian churches through ignorant teachers and the false teachers' exploitation of these women's lack of knowledge to spread their errors, Paul's prohibition here makes good sense.  His short-range soution is that these women should not teach' his long range solution is let them learn.  The situation might be different after the women had been instructed (2:11; cf. Rom 16:1-4, 7; Phil 4: 2-3.)

TO BE CONTINUED.... 

sorry i have other homework.