Women in the church

[Simon_Templar]

I felt it necessary in light of some recent conversation to address a scripture that was brought up. I think most of you know where I stand on the issue of Women's ordination, but the discussion of this scripture needed comment.

First the scripture

1st Timothy 2:11-14

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Particularly addressed were the words "let the woman learn queitly"

This is often misunderstood by both sides of the debate. Quietly here does not mean "not speaking". "Quietly" here in greek is "hesuchia" (sp) which refers to a state of life, or a state of being in which a person minds their own business and does not meddle in the affairs of others. Thus there is no injunction here against a woman speaking in church or vocally being a part of worship etc. Indeed other places in scripture Paul makes it clear that women, just as men are supposed to prophecy in church, and sing etc etc etc.

Going on a little further in verse 12 we have

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."

The word quiet here is the same. It does not mean, not speaking, or not making any noise, it means not interfering and meddling. It means essentially minding your own business, or your own place.
In this verse Paul is actually using the term quiet, to set up a contrast with the greek word he used, here translated as "to exercise authority" the actual greek means "to act on your own authority". (which is why it is translated as usurp in KJV)

The point being that a person who is ordained to teach and exercise their authority in the church does so, not on their own authority, but on God's authority. When this is the case, an ordained leader is acting in God's authority to lead and teach the church.. God protects the church under that authority.

Here Paul is making the now very controversial statement that women are not given that authority by God and thus if they teach and exercise authority in the church, they are doing so on their own authority, not Gods. He then contrasts this by saying, rather than doing this, women should "be in quietness" they should learn and study (which in itself was a revolutionary statement in Jewish culture) in the place that God has given them and not try to take over the place of another.

In the verses which follow on, Paul gives reasoning from scripture why this order of authority is as it is. First, God created man first, then woman. Paul is indicating that God's spiritual order of authority is declared by the creation itself. He is not here talking MERELY about the numerical order in which man and woman were created, but also the position of authority in which they were created. He also addresses this same idea in the Corinthian letters where he talks a bout head coverings.

the next verse says
"and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. "

Now there is something interesting about this passage. Everywhere else in scripture (that I can think of) the blame for the original sin is laid upon Adam, not Eve. Why is this one different?
I'd have to get input from a better greek scholar than myself to know for sure, but I think that the greek here provides an answer. What is here rendered as "became a transgressor" could be rendered "caused the transgression to come into being" or something of that nature. The implication being that because Eve was in this case leading Adam and not the other way around, it opened the door to transgression because Adam was not decieved, he had God's protection of authority, but Eve did not. She was deceived because Adam was not doing his job. The transgression came to pass because Eve lead Adam into it.

No where in any of this is there a statement that women can not speak in church, or sing etc. Silence/quiet does not mean literal silence, etc.

I'm sure that what I put forward here isn't popular with all, but its not meant to be malicious or inflaming.

[gtsecc]

If we are not going to let women be Priests, we have to let them do everything but that.

[higgs2]

I think it would be interesting if every woman decided one day to "mind her own business" and completely stay out of running the affairs of the church. It would be very interesting.

[TomUK]

Well the flowers would go for starters.

[higgs2]

Well the flowers would go for starters.
:D

I should be highly offended at that but actually it's pretty funny. I need to take myself a little more seriously I guess.

[gtsecc]

Oh please, I am sure there are more male florists in ECUSA.

[TomUK]

Oh please, I am sure there are more male florists in ECUSA.

:D I've got a beer coming out of my nose.

[higgs2]

All right, you two. <flips hair>:mad: mumble men mumble just like mmmmmph :mad: grrrrrrrr.

[Inside Edge]

I think it would be interesting if every woman decided one day to "mind her own business" and completely stay out of running the affairs of the church. It would be very interesting.
Extend that to life in general, and what you have is: Heaven. ;)

For us men, anyway. :)

[higgs2]

<plugs ears>

LA LA LA LA LA LA

I can't heeeaaaaar you!

:P :P :P :P :P :P

:kiss: very funny.

[karen freeinchristman]

Oh, I'm so glad to see the thread go in this direction!

:)

[higgs2]

Oh, I'm so glad to see the thread go in this direction!

:)
Me too :)

Karen, would you hold this vase please?

<walks off to pick some flowers>

:D

[karen freeinchristman]

Me too :)

Karen, would you hold this vase please?

<walks off to pick some flowers>

:D
^_^ I would, except that I'm really not gifted in flower-arranging...

*CRASH*... :doh: there goes the vase. Sorry! :sorry:

[karen freeinchristman]

I think that what I wrote in the Women as Priests and Bishops thread (several weeks ago) would work here too.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Paul tells us that God our saviour “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4). Paul is encouraging the women to learn in a respectable manner in order that they are able to come to the knowledge of truth, and so that others can, too. In the synagogues in those days, the worship was often not orderly, and could be cacophonic. Jewish women were not required to learn the Torah. But here, Paul is saying that women should learn, in order that they learn the truth. They simply needed instruction on HOW to learn, since they previously were not allowed to do so. Some commentators claim that learning in silence was a positive thing that was looked up to, in rabbinic students.

In ‘full submission’ is referring to learning with a respect or deference to their teachers.

I have read that when Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man”, the Greek words used here are more accurately translated to mean, "I am not presently allowing a woman to teach.”

An excerpt from Aida Besancon’s Beyond the Curse:
”Paul does not command the women not to teach. He employs the present active indicative for “allow.” The present tense in Greek principally denotes continuous present action. It can refer to present necessity and obligation and to potential action. Greek has its own imperative mood which is not here employed. Commands can also be phrased in the aorist or the future indicative. Neither of these tenses is here used.”

The women at Ephesus had to learn; consequently, they were not ready to teach.
The women were also not to domineer over men (“have authority over”). The teaching here is against that kind of leadership that Jesus speaks against, namely, “lording it” over someone. In the Kingdom of God, leadership is to be of a servant nature.

1 Timothy 2:13-15
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

The Ephesian women in the church that Paul was advising Timothy about were being influenced and misled (deceived) by unorthodox or false teachers, and in turn teaching false teachings to others; reminiscent of Eve being deceived by the Serpent in Genesis at the fall. This is why Paul is so concerned that the women first be instructed properly in the faith and not do any teaching (before they have learned the true faith).
The reference to “childbearing” doesn’t mean that women will be saved once they have a child (and what about those women who aren’t able to have children?). It is referring to the child that Mary bore, Jesus.

I came across another interesting quote from Irenaeus (second century), in Against Heresies:
And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

[Finella]

I'd have to get input from a better greek scholar than myself to know for sure, but I think that the greek here provides an answer. What is here rendered as "became a transgressor" could be rendered "caused the transgression to come into being" or something of that nature. The implication being that because Eve was in this case leading Adam and not the other way around, it opened the door to transgression because Adam was not decieved, he had God's protection of authority, but Eve did not. She was deceived because Adam was not doing his job. The transgression came to pass because Eve lead Adam into it.



Wait.

Adam had authority over Eve.

Adam was not doing his job "supervising" Eve.

So Eve gets the blame for the transgression, and for leading Adam (her superior) into sin.

:scratch: Doesn't seem to follow any chain-of-command rules I'm familiar with.

[PaladinValer]

"I do not"

That's St. Paul talking, not the Holy Spirit.

In addition, he's talking about a particular circumstance for a particular area. His letters are not catholic but place-specific.

In addition, back then, men were considered the dominate gender. For a woman to teach a man was considered cultural taboo.

For Jews, it was thought that women were considered lesser because Eve was tricked. Fact of the matter is, they were both tricked. Yet, it is because of this, that women were under greater scrutiny in Judaism than men.

Thanks to Christ, all that is meaningless.

But what of St. Paul's meaning? Like I said: particular problem in a particular area.

Women deacons have been mentioned in Scripture. And before someone says, "no, deaconesses," by that logic, all the ladies in this forum, guess what? All of you are not really teachers, scientists, accountants, or anything else, you are teacheresses, scientesses, and accountantesses.

Hate to say this, but what really blocked women's rights was the same logic used to deny women clergyhood. A man educator is a teacher and a woman a teacheress. Women can only teach other women and are not equal to a teacher. That's the same logic.

Its "logic" I reject.

Both genders are equal in Christ, and St. Paul was exactly right. Why? Both were created equally in Genesis 1. Men and women. Women and men. It could be worded either way and have the same meaning. Both are equally human. The entire Genesis 2 was the basic for the ritual/holiness laws that said men are unclean for X whereas women are unclean for X+5. As Christians, we are not under those laws. Judaizers think we are, but that was declared heresy in the 1st Century by the Council of Jerusalem.

The Law may be intact, but only in the way God meant it to be, and He made it easier by summing it up in two ways: The Two Great Commandments and, of course, the other way is none other than Christ Himself.

Ladies, you are not teacheresses but teachers. You are not soldieresses but soldiers. You are not engineeresses but engineers.

Ladies, you are not deaconesses but deacons; not priestesses but priests; not bishopesses but bishops; and what has been proven today, not primatessesbut primates.

[karen freeinchristman]

"I do not"

That's St. Paul talking, not the Holy Spirit.

In addition, he's talking about a particular circumstance for a particular area. His letters are not catholic but place-specific.

In addition, back then, men were considered the dominate gender. For a woman to teach a man was considered cultural taboo.

For Jews, it was thought that women were considered lesser because Eve was tricked. Fact of the matter is, they were both tricked. Yet, it is because of this, that women were under greater scrutiny in Judaism than men.

Thanks to Christ, all that is meaningless.

But what of St. Paul's meaning? Like I said: particular problem in a particular area.

Women deacons have been mentioned in Scripture. And before someone says, "no, deaconesses," by that logic, all the ladies in this forum, guess what? All of you are not really teachers, scientists, accountants, or anything else, you are teacheresses, scientesses, and accountantesses.

Hate to say this, but what really blocked women's rights was the same logic used to deny women clergyhood. A man educator is a teacher and a woman a teacheress. Women can only teach other women and are not equal to a teacher. That's the same logic.

Its "logic" I reject.

Both genders are equal in Christ, and St. Paul was exactly right. Why? Both were created equally in Genesis 1. Men and women. Women and men. It could be worded either way and have the same meaning. Both are equally human. The entire Genesis 2 was the basic for the ritual/holiness laws that said men are unclean for X whereas women are unclean for X+5. As Christians, we are not under those laws. Judaizers think we are, but that was declared heresy in the 1st Century by the Council of Jerusalem.

The Law may be intact, but only in the way God meant it to be, and He made it easier by summing it up in two ways: The Two Great Commandments and, of course, the other way is none other than Christ Himself.

Ladies, you are not teacheresses but teachers. You are not soldieresses but soldiers. You are not engineeresses but engineers.

Ladies, you are not deaconesses but deacons; not priestesses but priests; not bishopesses but bishops; and what has been proven today, not primatessesbut primates.

I like that post, PV. :)

[Anij]

.

[Simon_Templar]

Wait.

Adam had authority over Eve.

Adam was not doing his job "supervising" Eve.

So Eve gets the blame for the transgression, and for leading Adam (her superior) into sin.

:scratch: Doesn't seem to follow any chain-of-command rules I'm familiar with.


That was kind of my point actually... that everywhere else in scripture Adam gets blamed for the transgression, but here it says that the transgression came through Eve. The reason Adam gets blamed everywhere else was because it was his responsability to be the spiritual leader and he didn't do it. Wether or not he fulfilled his responsability it was still his, thus the blame for it always falls on him.
In this scripture I don't think it is laying the blame on Eve, I think it is conveying that the transgression was able to come to pass because both of them were acting outside God's ordained order of authority, thus they were outside the divine protection that comes with that.

[Colabomb]

"I do not"

That's St. Paul talking, not the Holy Spirit.

In addition, he's talking about a particular circumstance for a particular area. His letters are not catholic but place-specific.



He appeals to Genesis, which is about as Universal as you can get.

[Simon_Templar]

"I do not"

That's St. Paul talking, not the Holy Spirit.

In addition, he's talking about a particular circumstance for a particular area. His letters are not catholic but place-specific.

In addition, back then, men were considered the dominate gender. For a woman to teach a man was considered cultural taboo.

For Jews, it was thought that women were considered lesser because Eve was tricked. Fact of the matter is, they were both tricked. Yet, it is because of this, that women were under greater scrutiny in Judaism than men.

Thanks to Christ, all that is meaningless.

But what of St. Paul's meaning? Like I said: particular problem in a particular area.

Women deacons have been mentioned in Scripture. And before someone says, "no, deaconesses," by that logic, all the ladies in this forum, guess what? All of you are not really teachers, scientists, accountants, or anything else, you are teacheresses, scientesses, and accountantesses.

Hate to say this, but what really blocked women's rights was the same logic used to deny women clergyhood. A man educator is a teacher and a woman a teacheress. Women can only teach other women and are not equal to a teacher. That's the same logic.

Its "logic" I reject.

Both genders are equal in Christ, and St. Paul was exactly right. Why? Both were created equally in Genesis 1. Men and women. Women and men. It could be worded either way and have the same meaning. Both are equally human. The entire Genesis 2 was the basic for the ritual/holiness laws that said men are unclean for X whereas women are unclean for X+5. As Christians, we are not under those laws. Judaizers think we are, but that was declared heresy in the 1st Century by the Council of Jerusalem.

The Law may be intact, but only in the way God meant it to be, and He made it easier by summing it up in two ways: The Two Great Commandments and, of course, the other way is none other than Christ Himself.

Ladies, you are not teacheresses but teachers. You are not soldieresses but soldiers. You are not engineeresses but engineers.

Ladies, you are not deaconesses but deacons; not priestesses but priests; not bishopesses but bishops; and what has been proven today, not primatessesbut primates.

give me a break. Your entire argument here is premised on two things #1 denying the inspiration of scripture
#2 muddling the linguistic distinctions within the english language between words which have specific masculine/feminine forms and those which do not. There is no substance in any of this.

Wether or not you call a woman a deacon or a deaconess is simply a matter of if you use correct grammer or not. It has nothing to do with ordination. Likewise, we don't call women "teacheresses" because its incorrect grammer, the word teacher doesn't have a specific feminine or masculine form. Some words do.

What is seen here is the fact that feminism has even gone so far as to attack language itself in its crusade to destroy the identities of both masculine and feminine.

[higgs2]

give me a break. Your entire argument here is premised on two things #1 denying the inspiration of scripture
#2 muddling the linguistic distinctions within the english language between words which have specific masculine/feminine forms and those which do not. There is no substance in any of this.

Wether or not you call a woman a deacon or a deaconess is simply a matter of if you use correct grammer or not. It has nothing to do with ordination. Likewise, we don't call women "teacheresses" because its incorrect grammer, the word teacher doesn't have a specific feminine or masculine form. Some words do.

What is seen here is the fact that feminism has even gone so far as to attack language itself in its crusade to destroy the identities of both masculine and feminine.
No way. I think Paladin has a good point. I don't believe that his explanation denies inspiration of scripture.

Have a flower. :)

[Simon_Templar]

No way. I think Paladin has a good point. I don't believe that his explanation denies inspiration of scripture.

Have a flower. :)

Thank you for the flower :)

But "this is Paul talking not the Holy Spirit" means that you do not think that particular statement was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The only reason to say this, is to call into question the authority of the passage. Which is evidenced later on as PV attempts to construe the entire passage as simply Paul's way of dealing with specific cultural issues. Further suggesting that the passage is no longer relavent or authoritative.

What PV is doing here is avoiding the real crux of the argument.
For example, he makes a huge issue out of calling women Deconesses as opposed to deacons. This, however, is irrelevant to the real issue. The fact that its evident in the history of the church that the church appointed women to serve other women in the church in order to prevent circumstances where male servants (which is what deacon means) were put in inapropriate situations. This fact doesn't change wether you call women deacons, or deaconesses.
Insisting that women be refrenced with masculine terms is just a subterfuge to escape the real issue. Calling a woman "man" doesn't mean she is going to have more testosterone, likewise calling a man "woman" isn't going to enable him to give birth. Its just an attempt to get around the fact that the sacrament of ordination, both in scripture and in church tradition has only ever been confered upon men by saying that women should be addressed with masculine terms.

Further this kind of logic (because paul said "I do not" means its not the Holy Spirit) would essentially invalidate most of the scriptures.

[PaladinValer]

He appeals to Genesis, which is about as Universal as you can get.

Genesis 2, which is the basis for Jewish holiness/ritual laws.

As I said however, he also appeals to Genesis 1, which is not the basis for the holiness/ritual laws, but to how God actually did something.

Are we Judaizers or are we Christians? I don't doubt that St. Paul was right in the case he was dealing with, but I believe it was Karen who provided an alternative translation that was linguistically sound that would also fit St. Paul's appeal to Genesis 1.

Are there times in which barriers must be issued? Absolutely; I agree with the desired temporary barrier asked of my ECUSA (heck; I've been saying that for 3 whole years now, though I bet people prejudged me otherwise [no, I'm not saying you did, Colabomb]). However, this is not a universal case and furthermore, with all due respect, you really didn't argue the major points of my case.

give me a break.

Nope.

Your entire argument here is premised on two things #1 denying the inspiration of scripture

That's pure nonsense and you darn well know it. Where in my post did I even imply that?

#2 muddling the linguistic distinctions within the english language between words which have specific masculine/feminine forms and those which do not. There is no substance in any of this.

There is a very good substance in it.



I hope you call all women who hold positions with the suffix -ess, since that is the traditional way of genderizing English words feminine a great deal of the time.

[quote]It has nothing to do with ordination. Likewise, we don't call women "teacheresses" because its incorrect grammer, the word teacher doesn't have a specific feminine or masculine form. Some words do.

It is not incorrect grammar. For example, do we not call women sorcerers, sorceresses? That there is actually right from the Hebrew. The Hebrew uses a feminin for sorcerer and many modern translations use sorceress.

What is seen here is the fact that feminism has even gone so far as to attack language itself in its crusade to destroy the identities of both masculine and feminine.

Because in Christ, according to St. Paul, there is no destinction of masculine or feminine in Christ. And if you want to call Christ a feminist, you'd probably be right.

[Colabomb]

Are we Judaizers or are we Christians?

We are set free from the Law. Last I checked, Genesis two was not Law, but narrative.

[PaladinValer]

It is the basis for gender issues in the Law.

[Vasileios]

Forgive me for intruding your board, I was curious about the recent election and its reception in your community so I was reading this thread and I felt like sharing something I read concerning Adam and Eve.

Unfortunately, I do not remember which Church Father it was but he was saying that Eve was deceived as she was the one who listened to the serpent. The serpent chose her to tempt because she had not heard the command of God directly by Him, it was Adam who told her. Adam, having heard the command first-hand would probably not be as susceptible to the temptation.

However, as it was noted here by someone, it is always referred to as Adam's sin. He was indeed responsible for Eve and failed to protect her.

The same Church Father says that Adam was there when the serpent talked to Eve, he was watching. So, not only he could have refused Eve but also tell her (as he should have) that she should not eat.

So, the deception and the first heeding of temptation as it were, was from Eve, as Paul says. Adam, as the head, is responsible.

Being the head and the authority is meant to be unpleasant. A fact overlooked by us, modern Christians, because we instinctively associate authority with power and dominion.

I wont expand on my Orthodox beliefs because I already feel intrusive but in short I think of the authority as any other authority in the church. Like the bishop, who has authority and is responsible of preserving the truth but in his everyday life he is the servant of his flock, must tire and sacrifice his comfort for the sake of the church.

Likewise, a husband should be responsible for the direction of the family (a direction mutually and in the love of Christ agreed however) and sacrifice himself for his family.

I believe that is the role of man. Woman is blessed with the miracle of childbirth. Creating life together with God.
Men cannot experience this even remotely as women.

So, man resembles God as the head (which as Christians means the humility of Christ) and women as creators of life.

My apologies for intruding again, I talked a bit more than I should, if I violated any rules or offended I am sincerely sorry, it was not my intention.

[Naomi4Christ]

I think it would be interesting if every woman decided one day to "mind her own business" and completely stay out of running the affairs of the church. It would be very interesting.

Indeed ;) :D

[ContraMundum]

give me a break. Your entire argument here is premised on two things #1 denying the inspiration of scripture
#2 muddling the linguistic distinctions within the english language between words which have specific masculine/feminine forms and those which do not. There is no substance in any of this.

Wether or not you call a woman a deacon or a deaconess is simply a matter of if you use correct grammer or not. It has nothing to do with ordination. Likewise, we don't call women "teacheresses" because its incorrect grammer, the word teacher doesn't have a specific feminine or masculine form. Some words do.

What is seen here is the fact that feminism has even gone so far as to attack language itself in its crusade to destroy the identities of both masculine and feminine.

A-MEN!

:amen:


Don't let the modern nay-sayers destroy the Christian exegetical rule "theology must conform to the rules of grammar".