Women pastors

[desmalia]

OK, I'm not trying to start a heated debate by any means, but this subject seems to be an ongoing issue, and even stumbling block in the church. Just looking for some constructive feedback here.

Should women be pastors?

Based on my research over the years I've had to conclude that they are not to be teaching men in the church. Womens' and childrens' ministry is fine. But I cannot get around the verses (Such as in 1 Timothy 2)that so clearly tell us women are not to be teaching men. The only way I've ever heard this explained away is that "it only applys to that culture", which is just not satisfactory in my eyes. We could use that exuse any time we don't like something we see in Scripture. Thoughts?

[oliveplants]

I think you summed it up pretty well.
:thumbsup:

[mont974x4]

That's pretty much it. Women can be deaconess's but not an overseer.

This by no means makes women any less important or less useful than men. It just means God has designed us for diferent uses.

[Mashavu]

Based on my research over the years I've had to conclude that they are not to be teaching men in the church. Womens' and childrens' ministry is fine. But I cannot get around the verses (Such as in 1 Timothy 2)that so clearly tell us women are not to be teaching men. The only way I've ever heard this explained away is that "it only applys to that culture", which is just not satisfactory in my eyes. We could use that exuse any time we don't like something we see in Scripture. Thoughts?

Let me first say that I am not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. I certainly don't have all the answers, but the 1 Tim. verse, which seems to be the strongest (or, at least, most frequently cited) verse used to confirm that women should not be teaching, is problematic for me.

I'm not sure whether or not women should be pastors; but I don't think that the 1 Tim. verse necessarily supports that they should not.


I Tim. 2:12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self restraint.


The basic argument people make for this verse seems to be that Paul did not permit women to teach or be in a position of authority over men because women are more easily deceived than men.

I think this is a pretty big and inaccurate exegetical leap....and one I don't believe that Paul was trying to make. Paul's reference to Gen. 3 here shows only that Eve was, in fact, deceived. It doesn't infer that being more easily deceived is an attrubite of all who share her gender. Also, first hand experience shows us that men are just as likely to be deceived.

Further, it is a logical error to take an isolated incident and attribute it to an entire class of people. How many of us would dare make the assumption (out loud, or in mixed company, anyway) that because, for instance, one (or even two...or three...or twelve) black men robbed a liquor store....all black men are prone to doing so?

If Paul has some special knowledge from God about women being more deception prone than men, he didn't cite it....he referred, instead, to Gen 3; and Gen 3 certainly doesn't make the inference that many people are wrongly, in my opinion, asserting based on 1 Tim 2.

Also, if the traditional mindset is true that Eve was more deception-prone than Adam BEFORE the fall, this would mean that Eve was created by God with this weakness as an INHERENT trait. How does one reconcile this belief with the fact that, before the fall, God said that his creation was "very good"? Before the fall, there was no flaw in Adam and Eve.

It is possible (and here is the part that seems to trouble you, Desmalia) that Paul was, in fact, referring to a specific (though not necessarily cultural) situation with the women at Ephesus.

The women at Ephesus were, quite frankly, "trippin' ". The women, giddy with their new found freedom after living in a particularly opressive environment, were abusing their new found freedom in Christ and creating havoc within the church by trying to exert undue influence and possibly usurp control.

This was a special situation that was threatening a split in the church. So Pau's solution was, "Y'all shut up! I'm not allowing you to teach publically or to have any authority over a man because it's clear you are easily deceived and can't handle it." The argument being made relates only to women domineering over men....not over their ability to teach. In dealing with a special situation, Paul is not making this an absolute, abiding, wide-sweeping mandate.




To be fair, I do not have the original idea here. I have struggled with this, read many things, and had numerous discussions with many people on both sides of this issue, so I'm sorry that I cannot cite direct references, people, or links, for the original ideas because I cannot remember from where they came. I am merely going from my memory of what I've learned from personal study and from dialogue with others (though, I expect that no one I know had the original idea either....this is old skool stuff).

There is a particularly interesting article I read (somewhere) about the language Paul used in the original text when he said that he would not allow women to have "authority" over a man. There are two different words used for "authority" in the original text. The word "authority" as used in this verse is different and has a negative connotation (to be "domineering" or to "lord over") as compared to how the word is used in much of he OT and NT.

Unfortunately, I cannot remember the orignal words nor the article where I saw this conept explained in a much more articulate manner than I could ever muster with my pea brain. If I find it I'll post it with a link.

I'm still not sure whether women should be Pastors. Somtimes, I think "yes", but because I am more of a traditionalist at heart, often times I think "no".

Still, I don't think that this is a sufficient verse on which to hang such a weighty issue.

Just my two cents.

[arunma]

OK, I'm not trying to start a heated debate by any means, but this subject seems to be an ongoing issue, and even stumbling block in the church. Just looking for some constructive feedback here.

Should women be pastors?

Based on my research over the years I've had to conclude that they are not to be teaching men in the church. Womens' and childrens' ministry is fine. But I cannot get around the verses (Such as in 1 Timothy 2)that so clearly tell us women are not to be teaching men. The only way I've ever heard this explained away is that "it only applys to that culture", which is just not satisfactory in my eyes. We could use that exuse any time we don't like something we see in Scripture. Thoughts?

I think you have outlined the issue quite well. Personally I believe that women are able to teach as well as men, so I am not sure why God inspired the Apostle to write as he did. Alas, the word of God cannot be broken, and the Scripture states that women are not to teach or preach in church. While I personally don't understand why this is the case, I would not presume to argue with God. As such, I fully agree that women should not be pastors.

As anyone can tell, I have rather progressive views on this. So my opinion is that the church ought to give as much responsibility as possible to women without violating the Scripture.

[No Swansong]

Curiously then should women speak in church at all? I am completely sure that Paul didn't mean women were not to utter a word, but isn't it the same portion of Scripture given in the same context? If women are not to teach men or have any authority in the Church then it also follows that they should not say anything at all. Obviously I don't believe this is true but how do you honestly accept one and not the other?

[desmalia]

Curiously then should women speak in church at all? I am completely sure that Paul didn't mean women were not to utter a word, but isn't it the same portion of Scripture given in the same context? If women are not to teach men or have any authority in the Church then it also follows that they should not say anything at all. Obviously I don't believe this is true but how do you honestly accept one and not the other?
Oooo, interesting challenge! I'll start. I'm sure there are others who will want to comment, but I'll take a crack at it. I think the key here is to consider the original text to make sure we have the correct meaning of "silence" as used in the KJV. The original Greek is the word "hesuchia" which translated to English means:

1) quietness
a) description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others 2) silence

So suggesting that women were not to "utter a word" seems to me a bit of a liberal translation and not terribly accurate. I think it is more contextual to consider this phrase to relate back to women needing to be in submission. That's my take anyway. Anyone else?

[mont974x4]

I think it was in Strong's Concordance (or perhaps a complete word study dictionary) that I found a possible definition was more along the lines of "to keep the peace" and the aiuthority issue was tied to "usurp" as in, a woman is not to usurp authority over a man.

Does that fit into the context of the passage and what was occuring in the local church at the time? How would that effect (apply to) us today?


just tossing stuff out there for consideration

[desmalia]

Mashavu, thank you for your thoughtful response. You've made some excellent points here. I really appreciate you taking the time to try and piece together your studies like that. I know how hard that is when it's been a while! And I do appreciate that you are presenting arguements that may or may not be your own beliefs. I would like to discuss a few issues further if you don't mind. I'm sure you've struggled with these issues as well.


I'm not sure whether or not women should be pastors; but I don't think that the 1 Tim. verse necessarily supports that they should not.

The basic argument people make for this verse seems to be that Paul did not permit women to teach or be in a position of authority over men because women are more easily deceived than men.

I think this is a pretty big and inaccurate exegetical leap....and one I don't believe that Paul was trying to make. Paul's reference to Gen. 3 here shows only that Eve was, in fact, deceived. It doesn't infer that being more easily deceived is an attrubite of all who share her gender. Also, first hand experience shows us that men are just as likely to be deceived.

Further, it is a logical error to take an isolated incident and attribute it to an entire class of people. How many of us would dare make the assumption (out loud, or in mixed company, anyway) that because, for instance, one (or even two...or three...or twelve) black men robbed a liquor store....all black men are prone to doing so?

Interesting... I think that within the context of the passage, Paul is referring to not only how women can be deceived, but how they naturally have a certain influencial power over men to join them in sin, just as Eve so easily seduced Adam to join her. I don't think it's a concidence that he mentioned that reference right after discussing how the women were dressing at church. Maybe I'm off base here, but I know that Paul had a reason for referencing Eve in this verse and that God wanted it included in His Holy Scripture for a reason.

Also, if the traditional mindset is true that Eve was more deception-prone than Adam BEFORE the fall, this would mean that Eve was created by God with this weakness as an INHERENT trait. How does one reconcile this belief with the fact that, before the fall, God said that his creation was "very good"? Before the fall, there was no flaw in Adam and Eve.
I don't think Paul is suggesting that Eve was created with a special weakness. Satan knew exactly how to get at Adam's weakness, by first exploiting Eve's. In that there is no suggestion that one is worse than the other. Of course we could now get into discussions about Peter's reference to women as the weaker sex, but I'm not going to go there just now.

It is possible (and here is the part that seems to trouble you, Desmalia) that Paul was, in fact, referring to a specific (though not necessarily cultural) situation with the women at Ephesus.

The women at Ephesus were, quite frankly, "trippin' ". The women, giddy with their new found freedom after living in a particularly opressive environment, were abusing their new found freedom in Christ and creating havoc within the church by trying to exert undue influence and possibly usurp control.

This was a special situation that was threatening a split in the church. So Pau's solution was, "Y'all shut up! I'm not allowing you to teach publically or to have any authority over a man because it's clear you are easily deceived and can't handle it." The argument being made relates only to women domineering over men....not over their ability to teach. In dealing with a special situation, Paul is not making this an absolute, abiding, wide-sweeping mandate.
I have heard this suggestion a few times in the past, and yes it does trouble me because it's quite a broad assumption that it only refers to one specific instance in the Bible. One then has to ask, "then why is it in the Bible, and specifically why is it a command in the Bible?". To believe that this passage only refers to that instance, I would need to see clear evidence that it contradicts the rest of Scripture to enforce as a real command for all of us. But instead, in my research I see references to women being submissive, which seem to support the concept of women not being in leadership positions. In addition, I fail to see how the attitude of those women differs from that of today's women. Women's lib is alive and well in society and even in the church. I would think that passage has as much relevance today as it ever has. Maybe even more so.

There is a particularly interesting article I read (somewhere) about the language Paul used in the original text when he said that he would not allow women to have "authority" over a man. There are two different words used for "authority" in the original text. The word "authority" as used in this verse is different and has a negative connotation (to be "domineering" or to "lord over") as compared to how the word is used in much of he OT and NT.
Interesting point. If you can remember anything else you have learned on this I would be interested to know it.

I'm still not sure whether women should be Pastors. Somtimes, I think "yes", but because I am more of a traditionalist at heart, often times I think "no".

Still, I don't think that this is a sufficient verse on which to hang such a weighty issue.

Just my two cents. I really appreciate that, and your taking the time to try and remember the issues. I get the feeling that you have other verses in mind that you might like to discuss on the issue. If you get time please do!

Excellent responses here, thanks everyone!

[arunma]

Curiously then should women speak in church at all? I am completely sure that Paul didn't mean women were not to utter a word, but isn't it the same portion of Scripture given in the same context? If women are not to teach men or have any authority in the Church then it also follows that they should not say anything at all. Obviously I don't believe this is true but how do you honestly accept one and not the other?

I recall a passage from 1 Corinthians in which Paul mentions women uttering prayers and prophecies in the church. Unfortunately I can't remember the verses off hand, but this is an often-used example of why the Scripture does not say that women shouldn't speak at all.

You know, I'm beginning to think that Paul thought much as I do on this issue: personally believing in the competency of women, but adhering to the Lord's dictum that women ought not to teach men. For example, he chose a female disciple to deliver an inspired letter to the Romans (see Romans 16:1-2), even calling her a deaconess of the church. This seems to suggest that while women are not to teach men, they are nonetheless free to serve in quite a few other ways.

[No Swansong]

Oooo, interesting challenge! I'll start. I'm sure there are others who will want to comment, but I'll take a crack at it. I think the key here is to consider the original text to make sure we have the correct meaning of "silence" as used in the KJV. The original Greek is the word "hesuchia" which translated to English means:

1) quietness
a) description of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others 2) silence

So suggesting that women were not to "utter a word" seems to me a bit of a liberal translation and not terribly accurate. I think it is more contextual to consider this phrase to relate back to women needing to be in submission. That's my take anyway. Anyone else?
Makes sense but that is not the only definition of the word Hesuchia. (I can't remember where I read it so take the following as hearsay) I remember reading that it was also used as a command to those charged with a crime that they were to remain "silent" until the appropriate time for them to speak. In other words they were not to talk at all until it was their turn to answer the charges. In this case absolute silence is an accurate translation. I'm not advocating one or the other I just want to know how others approach this.

[No Swansong]

I recall a passage from 1 Corinthians in which Paul mentions women uttering prayers and prophecies in the church. Unfortunately I can't remember the verses off hand, but this is an often-used example of why the Scripture does not say that women shouldn't speak at all.

You know, I'm beginning to think that Paul thought much as I do on this issue: personally believing in the competency of women, but adhering to the Lord's dictum that women ought not to teach men. For example, he chose a female disciple to deliver an inspired letter to the Romans (see Romans 16:1-2), even calling her a deaconess of the church. This seems to suggest that while women are not to teach men, they are nonetheless free to serve in quite a few other ways.
However many would point to the fact that Paul did refer to women praying and prophesying in the Church to indicate that he was only speaking of a specific situation in the Corinthian Church which required a response that would or could have been different in other circumstances.

[Project 86]

However many would point to the fact that Paul did refer to women praying and prophesying in the Church to indicate that he was only speaking of a specific situation in the Corinthian Church which required a response that would or could have been different in other circumstances.

Where did women prophesy in the church?

[No Swansong]

I would have to look for more references but the Evangelist Philip spoken of in Acts 21 had four virgin daughters who did prophesy. I remember there being more references I will have to look.

[oliveplants]

However many would point to the fact that Paul did refer to women praying and prophesying in the Church to indicate that he was only speaking of a specific situation in the Corinthian Church which required a response that would or could have been different in other circumstances.
I think our friend Kenneth would remind us that 1 Cor 11, which says a woman should have her head covered when praying or prophesying, was talking about behavior outside the church.

As for "silence" in the church, I always took this to be about addressing the church as a whole. Not sure if there is real evidence for this view, though.

[Project 86]

I would have to look for more references but the Evangelist Philip spoken of in Acts 21 had four virgin daughters who did prophesy. I remember there being more references I will have to look.

The four virgins daughters were never mentioned to have prophesied in the church which I think is important to point out.

[No Swansong]

The four virgins daughters were never mentioned to have prophesied in the church which I think is important to point out.
However there is no evidence that they did not prophesy in Church either. But you are correct there is no evidence that they prophesied in the Church. However what would be the difference?

[Project 86]

However there is no evidence that they did not prophesy in Church either. But you are correct there is no evidence that they prophesied in the Church. However what would be the difference?

It makes a difference because we have multiple verses supporting that women shouldn't be teaching men in the church and we have no verses that say anything to the contrary so we can't claim it was just a cultural reasoning Paul was giving.

[No Swansong]

It makes a difference because we have multiple verses supporting that women shouldn't be teaching men in the church and we have no verses that say anything to the contrary so we can't claim it was just a cultural reasoning Paul was giving.
So which are you claiming that it was Ok for women to prophecy but not within a specific building? or that it was OK for women to prophecy but not within the Body of Christ? What would be the difference?

[cubanito]

However many would point to the fact that Paul did refer to women praying and prophesying in the Church to indicate that he was only speaking of a specific situation in the Corinthian Church which required a response that would or could have been different in other circumstances.

I'm back. I do apologize for leaving y'all for so long without my guiding wisdom and discerning acumen. I am again ready to answer all questions, and lead y'all by my example: all :bow: to JR, the most Macho Poster.

You cited that the word used was typically used for someone to remain silent UNTIL it was their time to speak. This it seems is quite consistent with someone under authority having to wait until they are given an opportune time to speak by those who set the agenda. Thus, it would seem quite reasonable that the elders would decide who is to speak, and when, but they themselves kept control of the "parliamentary preocess" as it were. This section is tied into the need for orderly worship, and such is not possible unless authority to set the agenda rests with a very limited group. This was clearly to be male only.

In action, when one of the women comes up to the podium to make announcements, to share her testimony, or for some other pre-arranged purpose, she is speaking in Church, but under authority and silent until the appointed time is allowed her to speak. Obviously this also goes for most men at attendance as well. Only a select few elders set the order, and are free to alter it as they see fit.

I am not however certain this is the correct interpretation.

As to the weakness of Eve, I am now going to get into big trouble. I do believe that, in general, women are more easily deceived. Look, neither gender is "better" than the other, but clearly there are tasks for which, in general, one gender is better suited than the other. In general women have better "people skills" and are much more clued into subtle verbal and non-verbal clues. Men are less aware of these many stimuli, in part because they are less capable at multi tasking, and instead focus on only the facts presented them. Also men are less tied into the extended family structure, even less tied into their friends. Ask yourself this, if you by accident hurt a kid, whom would you rather explain this to alone, the mother or the father?

now before you call me a sexist, this is the plain reading of Scripture, is it not? And remember, all the religions of that area, and almost all religions of all time, blame women for the ills of the world. Remember Pandora's box, the fact that in all eastern religions the "female" energy is dark, destructive, chaotic, and so on. One has to look hard to find a world religion were women are not charged with the evil in the world, or made clearly inferior beings.

BUT IT IS NOT SO IN SCRIPTURE

According to Scripture, it is precisely BECAUSE she was deceived, that Eve did NOT cause the fall. It is among these very same verses of the supposedly mysogynist Paul that one finds all the blame for the fall resting squarely on Adam. Considering the cultural setting, it can be attributed to nothing short of Direct Revelation that this Paul removes the blame from Eve and charges Adam with it.

No, women are barred from positions of authority in the Church, and like it or not, it is directly tied into their being more easily deceived.

When I was younger and unmarried I found these passages troublesome. Now at 48, half that time married, and learning the intimate lives of many patients, I am not at all troubled.

Vive la difference, men :preach: and women :tutu:

JR

[jlujan69]

In addition to 1 Tim. 2, consider also the role of the wife in a marriage. The wife is to willingly submit to her husband as head of the house. The church family is a parallel to the nuclear family, so it would stand to reason that the shepherd of the church would be male. It's been argued that Deborah and Phoebe prove that either gender is allowed leadership in the congregation. However, it could be argued just as persuasively that Deborah and Phoebe show that women are capable of leadership, but they remain the exception rather than the rule. Consider this: if a man must submit to a female elder or pastor in his church family, what's to say he shouldn't do that with his own wife? I believe that the Bible shows an overall pattern of male leadership from the male priests in OT Israel to Jesus and the male apostles in the NT to God, who is called Father. If memory serves, the man is to be priest (spiritual headship) in his family. As far as the argument goes that says male leadership in the Bible is a cultural thing, let's not forget that God is hardly bound to culture. A well known Bible teacher supposed that God was simply catering to the male ego by saying that only men are to be pastors. Somehow, I find it hard to imagine God catering to anybody's ego.

[mont974x4]

In addition to 1 Tim. 2, consider also the role of the wife in a marriage. The wife is to willingly submit to her husband as head of the house. The church family is a parallel to the nuclear family, so it would stand to reason that the shepherd of the church would be male. It's been argued that Deborah and Phoebe prove that either gender is allowed leadership in the congregation. However, it could be argued just as persuasively that Deborah and Phoebe show that women are capable of leadership, but they remain the exception rather than the rule. Consider this: if a man must submit to a female elder or pastor in his church family, what's to say he shouldn't do that with his own wife? I believe that the Bible shows an overall pattern of male leadership from the male priests in OT Israel to Jesus and the male apostles in the NT to God, who is called Father. If memory serves, the man is to be priest (spiritual headship) in his family. As far as the argument goes that says male leadership in the Bible is a cultural thing, let's not forget that God is hardly bound to culture. A well known Bible teacher supposed that God was simply catering to the male ego by saying that only men are to be pastors. Somehow, I find it hard to imagine God catering to anybody's ego.
Good point.


Sadly, many men allow their wives to run rough shod all over them and don't take the lead. This sets the stage for all aspects of their lives.

Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and wives are to see to it that they respect their husbands. Notice, my wife can not force me to love her anymore than I can force her to respect me. It is a choice we each must make on our own because we want to be obedient to Him and honor and glorify Him.

[cubanito]

Deborah did not lead by choice. Barak would not go to battle unless she accompanied him. Deborah afterward mocked Israel for there not being a man among them fit to lead. She clearly understood she was in this position from an abysmal failure of the men of her time, and not because it ought be so.
I do not understand your reference to Phoebe. That a woman should have a meaningful and responsible position in Church is not contested by me or the Scriptures. That in her ministry for the Church she should receive the support of others, including men, is also not objectionable. Only that she should not lead. I see nothing in Scripture to indicate a leadership by Phoebe, or any other godly woman save Deborah.

JR

[jlujan69]

I thought Phoebe was listed by Paul as a deaconess. If that position back then is what it is today, then she would have had leadership over men.

[mont974x4]

I thought Phoebe was listed by Paul as a deaconess. If that position back then is what it is today, then she would have had leadership over men.
True, but a deacon or deaconess today is not what it was then...at least in a lot of churches.


Elder is an overseer/leader while deacon is more service oriented.


This is how I have understood it. The elder or overseer is the spiritual servant/leader while a deacon is more about the nuts and bolts

[jlujan69]

I think the reason women may be afraid of the idea of submitting is that in relationships, they're more likely to come out on the "short end of things" should the man act in an ungodly way (abusing or abandoning the kids and her). If she's not married, it could be worse if the guy simply wanted "what she had", then afterwards, left her and she ended up pregnant. Because men (of course, not all) have been known to take advantage and exploit women throughout history (more so than the reverse), sometimes in the name of religion, it's understandable a woman's reticence to make herself more vulnerable. That's the sad sad legacy sin has left in the family household. That is why it's so important, as some of you have pointed out, that while the wife is working on submitting, the husband is to be working on loving her as Christ loves the church. Sorry for going a bit off topic here.

[cubanito]

Not at all off topic. Exactly on topic as the Bible clearly draws the analogy of marriage and the Church. I have seen how men in leadership having abused it leave women in the more service oriented ministries to pick up the pieces of the shipwreck of egos colliding for all manner of ungodliness.

Most women naturally crave security far above significance. Where they provided with dependable, honest and loving leadership in either marriage or Church, they would not give a second thought to steering the ship. Now, of course there are exceptions, for both men and women who seek the role not meant for them even in the face of someone who can perform that function. But in general, methinks, women assume the roles not meant for them as a sort of vacuum effect. Men generally avoid Church, especially the liberal ones, leaving women to occupy positions by default, much as Deborah did.

As for those women determined to be pastors even when qualified men are available, they are wrong. It does not matter how strong the emotional "calling" they feel is. The plain meaning of Scripture should always trump our feelings, which are more often than not the disguized cravings of the flesh.

JR

[desmalia]

Wow everyone is so very politically incorrect here...
Love it!:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Excellent points made. It's so great to see men and women standing up for God's Word in a world where it is not considered cool.

I will add that I think most people in western culture are now raised to believe that women are not only allowed to do anything that men to, but that they should do it. So if a woman is born with the gifts of teaching and speaking, she can often be convinced that it is her calling to be a pastor. I think that is such a tragedy because acting in disobedience to God's word actually detracts from the great ministry and blessings that God has planned for her. In addition, when we consider that the position of authority in a church is also one of service and great sacrifice, it hardly seems like the "greatest" role in the church. In fact, those who serve in the background through prayer and other God-called ministries are actually the ones who have the most powerful roles. God does not give us commands in order to limit or restrict us. He gives them to us to bring great blessing to our lives when we obey.

[cubanito]

While some may differ, I see nothing wrong with a woman teaching and speaking, in public, in the Church, to men. A pastor does far more than give a sermon. Together with elders (depending on the Church structure) a pastor sets the tone oficially for what happens. This is what is not allowed.

This morning our adult Sunday School was taught by a woman. This is unusual, I guess to avoid even the appearance of female leadership, but I have no problem with this. She was teaching not on doctrine, but as a musician on how the Christmas story slowly changed and had all manner of unscriptural traditions added over the centuries. She was not "in authority", nor was she strictly speaking during the formal assembly (ekklesia=Church).

Quite frankly, I would be very uncomfortable with a woman delivering the sermon, though I am not exactly sure I can say this attitude is warranted. I would flatly oppose a woman elder, who would sit and make decisions for the Church in financial, doctrinal or other matters of policy. This is clearly holding authority, and thus unacceptable.

I respect those who may have a different opinion and would consider that a woman leading a mixed adult Sunday School to be contrary to Scripture. They may be correct. In the present attitude of pervasive feminism, it may even be best not to allow women to teach men even in this setting, to avoid a creeping accomodation with the world. I don't know.

I can tell you this, if we are going to claim that Paul's admonition is merely for a particular cultural milieu; then there is NO WAY to say that injuctions against any other sin are not also culturally limited. If the woman can lead the Church, why can she not also marry a Great Dane dog? I met a woman once who was quite open about the fact that she had 2 Great Danes as husbands. Why is she any more outside God's instructions than she who brazenly grabs power under the guise of "serving the Lord?" Why should I not steal? After all, taking something from Wall-Mart seems positively humane in some quarters. And of course, if I happen to think my tax dollars are being used for some immoral purpose, why not cheat on those too?

There are clear signposts in Scripture. We may quibble over this or that, but a woman in Church authority is clearly one of those signposts.

JR

[LittleladyinChrist]

First, Paul said that his instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 are the commandments of the Lord (verse 37). As such they must be obeyed by all Christians and by every church.

Second, the Apostle said that the instructions of 1 Corinthians 14 are a test of spirituality. He said that those who are truly spiritual must acknowledge that the instructions are the very commandments of God. “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). Those who are rejecting the teaching of 1 Corinthians 14 concerning a woman’s role in the church are proving themselves to be unspiritual.

Third, in 1 Timothy the Apostle gives the very same instructions concerning women, and this epistle was said to have been written to teach the proper order for churches in general. “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The things contained in 1 Timothy are general instructions about church order to be obeyed by all churches in every century; and it is in this book, the book which contains standards for church leaders, that God has forbidden women from taking authority over or teaching men.

Fourth, in giving the instructions about women in the church, the Holy Spirit referred back to the original order of creation--Adam first, then Eve. The Holy Spirit, in guiding Paul’s pen, used this order of creation to prove that women must not take authority over men. Therefore, since the order of creation has not changed since 1 Timothy was written, and since it does not change in our culture or century, we know that the instructions of the New Testament about the woman’s role in the church apply to us today.

Fifth, Paul referred to the Fall for support of his teaching regarding the Christian woman’s subjection to the man. “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. 2:14). Again this shows that the Apostle’s teaching about the woman transcends any one culture or generation. Though we have been saved from the eternal consequences of the Fall when we receive the Lord Jesus Christ, we are still living under the abiding consequences and conditions of the Fall as long as we remain in this world.

Redemption has three aspects that must never be confused--past, present, and future. The three are seen in Romans chapter eight. Romans 8:1-10 speaks of the past aspect of our salvation--we have been saved from the eternal consequences of sin. Because of what Jesus Christ has done for us on the Cross we have been made eternally free from any fear of the wrath of God or punishment for our sin by God’s holy law. Hallelujah! Romans 8:11-17 speaks of the present aspect of our salvation--we are being saved from the power of sin in our daily lives by the Spirit of God who indwells us. Romans 8:18-25 speaks of the future aspect of salvation--we will be saved from the very presence of sin when Christ gives us our resurrection body and comes to renew this fallen creation. We have eternal redemption right now as a present possession, yet we still “groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:23).

Likewise, the woman who trusts Christ receives eternal freedom in Him from the wages of sin, but she is not yet free from some of the consequences of Eve’s rebellion in the Garden of Eden. She still is to be in subjection to the man.

Sixth, Paul referred to human nature to support his teaching regarding women. “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. 2:14). The woman has a different makeup than the man. She was designed for a different role in life--that of a wife and mother. Her emotional, psychological, and rational makeup are geared perfectly for this, but she was not designed for leadership. In the garden of Eden the devil deceived her. This was not true for Adam. He sinned, but he was not deceived. Eve had allowed herself to be thrust into a position of decision making she was not supposed to occupy. It is no coincidence that women have been responsible for starting many of the false Christian movements and have played key roles in spiritism, new age, mind science cults, and such. Human nature has not changed and neither has God’s restrictions against women preachers.

Seventh, Paul commanded that his instructions were to be kept until Christ’s coming. “That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:14). This command is given at the end of the epistle in which the Apostle had so clearly required that women be in subjection to men in the church (1 Tim. 2:9-15). Since Jesus has not yet appeared, we are to continue to maintain these restrictions.

Eighth, Paul’s letter to Corinth, in which he spoke of women being in subjection to men, was for all Christians, not just those in Corinth. In his introduction to this epistle the Apostle tells us plainly to whom he is speaking: “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, WITH ALL THAT IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, both their’s and our’s” (1 Cor. 1:2). It is clear that Paul’s instructions were not intended merely for some peculiar situation at Corinth.

Ninth, while Galatians 3:28 says there is neither bond nor free in Christ, other passages teach that this does not mean there are no servant/master relationships. The Christian servant is free in Christ--free from the eternal wages of sin--but he is not free from his earthly position and responsibilities of servitude toward his master (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Tim. 6:1,2; Tit. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 2:18-25). In fact, anyone who teaches against these instructions regarding submission of servants to masters is labeled proud and evil:
“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. IF ANY MAN TEACH OTHERWISE, AND CONSENT NOT TO WHOLESOME WORDS, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; HE IS PROUD, KNOWING NOTHING, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of CORRUPT MINDS, AND DESTITUTE OF THE TRUTH, supposing that gain is godliness: FROM SUCH WITHDRAW THYSELF” (1 Timothy 6:1-5).
These are strong words, and they refer directly to those who try to contradict the Apostle’s teaching requiring subjection of servants to masters, such as those who promote communistic “liberation theology,” and those who stir up all sorts of strife between workers and business. These words also apply to those who are trying to throw off the apostolic teaching referring to woman’s subjection to man in the church and home. Such are proud, ungodly, and destitute of the truth, and are to be separated from! We can see how serious this matter is.

Galatians 3:28 says there are no servants and no freemen in Christ, yet other New Testament passages teach there are indeed Christians who are servants and Christians who are masters. Galatians 3:28 also says there is neither male nor female in Christ, but other passages show us that this does not mean all distinction between the sexes are done away in this world, nor does it mean that the original order of creation has been dissolved in Christianity.

--From Wayoflife. org - David Cloud--

[Mashavu]

Whoa....where to begin disagreeing with Mr. Cloud's scriptural exegesis? There are so many things wrong with that post.

I suppose, however, that since he is not here to further clairfy, it's pointless.

Still, Cloud's belief that women weren't "designed" for leadership gave me a wonderful laugh for the day. Whether or not women SHOULD be in positions of spiritual leadership is a debatable issue, but the idea that they simply aren't capable is laughable and insulting.

[LittleladyinChrist]

Whoa....where to begin disagreeing with Mr. Cloud's scriptural exegesis? There are so many things wrong with that post.

I suppose, however, that since he is not here to further clairfy, it's pointless.

Still, Cloud's belief that women weren't "designed" for leadership gave me a wonderful laugh for the day. Whether or not women SHOULD be in positions of spiritual leadership is a debatable issue, but the idea that they simply aren't capable is laughable and insulting.
You sound like over the years you have heard much woman's liberation philosophy. Of coarse we're capable, but God did not make us to be head's of our homes, or leader's over men, and if you want things to work you need to do them God's way or it will end up in turmoil. Women have certainly tried to prove a point that they are capable of doing anything a man does, but you can see the results of that through marriage issues and woman's mental health etc. I dont need to argue, because the Bible says it for all of us. If you want to debate it your debating the Bible and the excuses people come up with end up contradicting scripture. Thats what happens when people lean on their own understanding.
1Ti 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

[Mashavu]

Deleted.....sorry...accidentally posted this before I finished my thought!! Oops.

[Mashavu]

You sound like over the years you have heard much woman's liberation philosophy. Of coarse we're capable, but God did not make us to be head's of our homes, or leader's over men, and if you want things to work you need to do them God's way or it will end up in turmoil. Women have certainly tried to prove a point that they are capable of doing anything a man does, but you can see the results of that through marriage issues and woman's mental health etc. I dont need to argue, because the Bible says it for all of us. If you want to debate it your debating the Bible and the excuses people come up with end up contradicting scripture. Thats what happens when people lean on their own understanding.
1Ti 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Hi, Littlelady,

It seems that you think I was adressing you, personally. I wasn't. Nor was I asking you or challenging you to argue. It was a comment made more to the air than anyone in particular. You're right; there's no reason for you to argue or defend what you didn't even write.

What I was referring to, generally, was what appears to be the AUTHOR'S improper hermeneutical and exegetical methods....I did not go into an analytical break down of the mistakes in his arguments (of which there were many) because he did not personally post his thoughts on this website, and it is impossible to have a one-sided discussion.

Now, more specifically, I was addressing his alluding that women are not capable of being in roles of leadership outside of bearing children and raising children at home. You and I both agree that women are capable...the author, however, appears to not agree.

You're right that I, like most everyone who has been raised in this day and age, have been exposed to much of the women's lib system of belief in some form or another. I do not, however, happen to believe in most of what the women's lib movement teaches. They most certainly do not speak for me....most of what they believe is in direct opposition to my decidedly biblical worldview.

In an earlier post on this thread, I have said that I'm a little on the fence with this issue. I'm a traditionalist at heart, but I'm not sure that the 1 Tim verse that was quoted in the OP (and the same one that you quoted above) necessarily proves that women should not be in teaching positions of authority over men (nothing was mentioned in the OP about the home and marriage). It's very possible that it is God's will that women never be Pastors (frankly, if that's the truth, that's fine with me), but the point of my very first post on this thread was that the 1 Tim verse doesn't cut it as a proof.

The only things I'm absolutely certain about are: I have not been called to be a pastor. I happen to want a husband who is the spiritual head of our home and our family. This is not an issue that overhauls the historical fundamental tenants of the Christian Faith. This is not an issue affecting salvation. Therefore, it is not an issue over which I loose much sleep because it is a non-essential and, therefore, an issue over which disagreements and debates are not earth-shattering.

If someone believes that women absolutely should be pastors, then that is an issue between them and God. I may or may not agree...and that's okay. Thank God for His Grace and that I don't have to have all the answers.

[arunma]

Whoa....where to begin disagreeing with Mr. Cloud's scriptural exegesis? There are so many things wrong with that post.

I suppose, however, that since he is not here to further clairfy, it's pointless.

Still, Cloud's belief that women weren't "designed" for leadership gave me a wonderful laugh for the day. Whether or not women SHOULD be in positions of spiritual leadership is a debatable issue, but the idea that they simply aren't capable is laughable and insulting.

It's important to remember, here, that the Bible only addresses women's capacity for spiritual leadership. In the secular world, women currently act as capable secular leaders. It is undeniable that many women have leadership capabilities. So I think you are correct to point out that we must address the appropriateness of women in spiritual leadership roles instead of their capabilities.

Of course, I think the Bible is ultimately clear that women ought not to be spiritual leaders.

[cubanito]

Now I understand the helmet!

As a Democrat with that opinion you certainly need protection.

JR

[kobuk]

Only men are ever called by YHWH to preach and to be the senior Pastor of any Church Congregation.

[cubanito]

Yes, but what is your opinion on women pastors kobuk?

[CooL_Genesis]

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Seems pretty clear from God's Word what His will is for women in the churches. I've never understood how some people can't grasp the plain writing on the wall. For me, if the Word says it... it's so... without question. Just as I believe the world was created in a literal 6 days, I believe what God says about women's roles in the church. If these were the only 2 verses in the entire Word of God that dealt with the subject, I would still believe it.

In peace and grace,

-Genesis

[MavMin]

When a woman can become a husband of one wife she can pastor, but since is woman is not allowed to teach but a pastor must be apt to teach we have a second disqualifier.

Women cannot be deaconesses in the sense we have deacons. A man is a deacon but his wife must have good character, as does the wife of a pastor, for him to do his ministry.

I could be the greatest pastor on the planet but if my wife walked into church drunk, cursing and nearly naked my ministry would be destroyed.

[DeaconDean]

OK, I'm not trying to start a heated debate by any means, but this subject seems to be an ongoing issue, and even stumbling block in the church. Just looking for some constructive feedback here.

Should women be pastors?

Based on my research over the years I've had to conclude that they are not to be teaching men in the church. Womens' and childrens' ministry is fine. But I cannot get around the verses (Such as in 1 Timothy 2)that so clearly tell us women are not to be teaching men. The only way I've ever heard this explained away is that "it only applys to that culture", which is just not satisfactory in my eyes. We could use that exuse any time we don't like something we see in Scripture. Thoughts?

I must say sister, in my opinion, it is very refreshing to see a woman with this particular viewpoint. God Bless you Sister.

Now, let me clairify some on this matter.

It goes without saying, that after Moses led the Hebrews to Mt. Sinai, he gave commandments concerning the priesthood. Ex. 28:1 tells us the Moses was to set Aaron and his sons apart to minister to Him in the role of priest. And after establishing the priesthood through Aaron and his sons, in Ex. 29:9 God said that the priesthood through Aaron and his sons would be a perpetual one. Which means, that it would last forever.
The OT type of priesthood was done away with Christ's death on the cross. In effect, He has become our High Priest.(Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:1,5; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1,3; 9:7,11,25; 10:21)
The disciples in effect, became the undershepherds to Christ. Since they were divinely charged to: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" -Mt. 28:19 Further proof of this is found in Jesus' command to Peter to "Feed my sheep." (Jn. 21:16)
After Jesus ascended into heaven, the disciples became Apostles. According to Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, apostle does mean messenger, but it means more than that, it also includes: "the idea of the authorization of a messenger." The role of the disciples has evolved. A disciple is one who is a student of someone. After the ascension, the disciples evolved into Apostles.
The Apostles went forth and established churches throughout the lands. And in doing so, they established "bishops" or "overseers." Paul was the only apostle to give the qualifications for "bishops" and it seems to have the "rule-of-thumb" down through the ages until here recently.
In 1 Tim. 3:16, notice that in each instance Paul uses the masculine term to describe whom should fulfill this role: man, he, 3:1, husband of one wife v. 2, "his" twice in v. 4, man, he in v. 5, he, v. 6-7.So what we are left with is this; the priesthood was established by God through Aaron and his sons in the wilderness of Sinai. It was to be a perpetual priesthood. This perpetual priesthood found its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the Son (note the masculine term) of man, who is now, and forever our High Priest. The "bishops" or "overseers" of the church, if our belief in the inspiration of scriptures is correct (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17), then according to scriptures, "bishops" or "overseers" can only be men. I'm not in the least being chauvenist by that statement, and please don't take it that way. I believe that women play just as important a role in church as do men. The "elder" women in the church are to be "ensamples" for the younger women: "The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity." (1 Tim. 5:2)

God set the divine order regarding men and women. The same applies to the church. I do believe women should minister to women. Women should teach other women, esspecally those new to the faith. And women can be used to evangelize. Suprised by that statement? You shouldn't be. Jesus used a certain woman to evangelize. When Jesus met and taught and set the woman at the well, she was used to evangelize a whole town: "The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? Then they went out of the city, and came unto him." (Jn. 4:28-30) Notice here that she did not go and preach, but rather went into the city and evangelized the city: "Come, see a man" So yes, women can evangelize, but to minister in the church as a "bishop" or "overseer," I'm sorry, but scripture does not place it that way.

I hope this helps.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[diamondjoust]

#6
The Bible teaches that women are to be allowed to keep silence in the churches, and in the context of speaking but not singing; for they are specifically not permitted to speak in the churches, the word "speak" there meaning just exactly what a dictionary of the English language says it means. Women are also to be allowed to learn in silence with all subjection, and are not to be suffered to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, because Adam was first formed then Eve. When Christ ascended up on high he only gifted men as pastors, because one of their qualifications was that "he" must be the "husband of one wife". Women can be "servants of the church" (which is not holding a formal office as a so-called "deaconess" as some would have us believe), but cannot speak in the churches; and they may prophesy outside the churches, but not in the churches, for that would contradict other plain verses of scripture. The exhortation from Paul that women are not permitted to speak in the churches is not his own opinion, but is specifically called "a commandment of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14.37).