Women as officers

[ry_dar]

Hello. I'm a new member to this forum and I am very excited about participating. Everyone seems very well-read and informed. Thank you in advance for your thoughts on my question.

During his sermon on Sunday, our pastor made passing reference to the Bible's "teaching" on women not holding office within the church. This really confused (and upset) my fiancee. I'd like to learn as much as I can about this topic. Could someone please help with the following questions? Thanks!

1. What does the Bible have to say? Cites?

2. How do you think we should view this teaching today? That is, should we contextualize or modernize the Biblical teaching?

3. In your opinion, what does this mean for female Christians today?

Thank you and God bless.:smile:

[dizzle]

This is always an interesting discussion.. thank you for bringing it up. I will add more as I can, and bring in passages, but ultimately my position is that final spiritual authority in an organization should not vest in a female, but in a man. However, that does not preclude women from holding a number of offices. Even in the home, where the man is to be spiritual leader, the wife still holds an "office" in the hierarchy of the family. I guess I would hold to moderate complementarianism.

[John Reece]

Let me recommend a superb book on the subject, Women in the Church's Ministry: A Test Case for Biblical Hermeneutics, By R. T. France, published by Paternoster in UK and by Eerdmans in the States.

As so often is the case, Amazon gives conflicting information about availability of the book, listing it as "out of print", and saying "Availability: Usually ships within 1-2 business days"

If the link carries through, here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802841724/qid=1046718955/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1983765-7870500?v=glance&s=books

[Talulah]

Admin note: This post has been deleted as falling outside the parameters of the purpose of the Liberal Arts Department and the original thread starter's implied intentions. However, the text was preserved and sent to the author by Private Message so that it can be reposted in a more appropriate area if the author so desires. Thank you.

[undead]

03-03-2003 @ 04:51 PM
ry_dar:
1. What does the Bible have to say? Cites?

1 Cor 11;2-> (noting that this is NOT ecclesia teaching. which does not commence until 1 Cr 11:17 )
1 Cor 14;34-> (noting that this IS ecclesia teaching)
(The "law" referred to in the above is Gen 3;16 "and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"; which is as universal, as "one flesh" - Gen 2;24)
1Ti 2;11->
Col 3:18; Eph 5:22;1Pe 3:1;Eph 5:24 (Wives' obedience)

2. How do you think we should view this teaching today? That is, should we contextualize or modernize the Biblical teaching?

I believe it should be held fast.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

It is clear that to disobey the command of an apostle was an excommunicable offence, and this teaching has never been withdrawn. Any deviation can be seen as "loving the world".

Of course, this teaching was early abandoned by the gnostic churches, and likewise it is legitimate to view as gnostic or semi-gnostic any church which dispenses with the teaching.


3. In your opinion, what does this mean for female Christians today?

Exactly the same as it did in the era of the apostles.

Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; :smile:

[themuzicman]

! Tim says that overseers or elders must be the husband of one wife. Not much grey area there. How youdefine "overseer" could be somewhat flexible, but whatever body oversees the local church would definately be included.

Michael

[HerodionRomulus]

Those varied prohibitions against women are a result of cultural attitudes, mores and practices. It was not uniform throughout the ancient world, which is why there are some variations such as Phoebe the Deacon and Priscilla teaching Apollos of Alexandria.

The principle of Christianity is however one of equality. Gal. 3:28. Ac. 10:34.

Women are equally capable of leadership---uhhh see Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir or St. Teresa de Avila or St. Catherine of Siena, and no authentic calling should be rejected.

One of the best sermons I ever heard was about 6yrs ago by Episcopal Bishop Barbara Harris. :yipee:
A heck of a lot better than the sermon I heard 3 years later by the Archbishop of Canterbury! :help:

[John Reece]

Yes.

The most powerful, life-changing sermon I have heard in 70 years was delivered by a female evangelist.

God was pleased to manifest his Spirit in me by means of the Spirit working in her public ministry.

[undead]

03-11-2003 @ 01:30 AM
John Reece:
The most powerful, life-changing sermon I have heard in 70 years was delivered by a female evangelist.

God was pleased to manifest his Spirit in me by means of the Spirit working in her public ministry.

So, the fruit of the working of the Spirit is for you to go out and tell people that the bible is "cultural" and to be ignored. Personally, I don't regard that as any sign of Spirit manifestation, but rather simple unbelief in Paul's message, and personal contempt for the apostle.

[John Reece]

undead,

Your posted this quote of my words:

John Reece:
The most powerful, life-changing sermon I have heard in 70 years was delivered by a female evangelist.

God was pleased to manifest his Spirit in me by means of the Spirit working in her public ministry.

In response to which you wrote this:
So, the fruit of the working of the Spirit is for you to go out and tell people that the bible is "cultural" and to be ignored. Personally, I don't regard that as any sign of Spirit manifestation, but rather simple unbelief in Paul's message, and personal contempt for the apostle.

How in the world do you make any connection between what I wrote and your response to it?

What makes you think that I "go out and tell people that the bible is "cultural" and to be ignored"?

By the way, I do not believe in having women as governing
officers in the Church.

You jump to conclusions from an sufficient basis.

[undead]

03-12-2003 @ 01:16 AM
John Reece:
By the way, I do not believe in having women as governing
officers in the Church.

You jump to conclusions from an sufficient basis.

I agree that the amount of imformation you communicated was spartan and that I read a few things into what you said. However, it is a common argument by supporters for the disregard of 1 Cor 14;34,35 and 1 Tim 2 that "they heard a woman preacher and it was a wonderful ministry of the spirit".

I'm just pointing out that it is inherently unlikely to be the Spirit of Christ. There are many spirits and Paul commands the spirits to be tested tosee whether or not they are of God. If that woman had been tested against the word of God, she would have failed for it is forbidden a woman to teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim 2).

Women are notorious for putting on feigned airs of spirituality.

[flipper]

Women?

In positions of leadership?

Absurd! Ludicrous!

The very idea!!!

[John Reece]

undead.

Re your statement
Women are notorious for putting on feigned airs of spirituality.
So your misogyny got the best of you in this case?

If that woman had been tested against the word of God, she would have failed for it is forbidden a woman to teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim 2).

She was not teaching, nor having authority over men. Here you are, still on a rant attacking a woman you do not know, condemning her without any accurate information about her.

I'm just pointing out that it is inherently unlikely to be the Spirit of Christ.

By their fruit shall you know them. Hers is precious beyond your ability to imagine.

There are many spirits and Paul commands the spirits to be tested to see whether or not they are of God.

I see, and you have tested the spirit in this case, which you have already admitted to pre-judging - without knowing the facts, and without knowing the person?

[John Reece]

flipper,

Re

Women?

In positions of leadership?

Absurd! Ludicrous!

The very idea!!!

:bow:

:smile:

I love women.

But I have seen the fruit of feminism, and it differs somewhat from the fruit of the Spirit.

[undead]

03-12-2003 @ 10:26 AM
John Reece:
So your misogyny got the best of you in this case?


When you tell me what you mean by misogyny, I'll give you an answer.


She was not teaching, nor having authority over men. Here you are, still on a rant attacking a woman you do not know, condemning her without any accurate information about her.


Quite clearly she was teaching for according to you she delivered a "life-changing sermon".

Do you take me for a fool?


By their fruit shall you know them. Hers is precious beyond your ability to imagine.


She sounds like she deserves a very large kick up the backside, out of the church door and into the street.

She would certainly be excommunicated from my church.


I see, and you have tested the spirit in this case, which you have already admitted to pre-judging - without knowing the facts, and without knowing the person?

On the contrary, you told me the only facts worth knowing - she delivered a "sermon".

[HerodionRomulus]

Undead.

:doh: Of course we alter our Christian lifestyle at times without regard to cultural influences manifested in the Scriptures.

Or do you advocate human slavery? Do you support the Sudanese government? They are practicing slavery just like Paul and Abraham.

[undead]

03-13-2003 @ 12:16 AM
HerodionRomulus:

Undead.

:doh: Of course we alter our Christian lifestyle at times without regard to cultural influences manifested in the Scriptures.


And where precisely does it say in the scriptures that any one of Paul's teaching is cultural?

Please show me where the word "culture" occurs in the bible.

(Yes, I know when you look in your bible commentary you find the word culture, but Christians live by the bible and not their bible commentary. If I was dictator, I would probably have substantial numbers of the authors of these so called bible commentaries stripped of all their wealth and thrown in jail until they confessed their many and varied sins.)


Or do you advocate human slavery? Do you support the Sudanese government? They are practicing slavery just like Paul and Abraham.

What's that got to do with the bible? Paul recommends that slaves gain their freedom, so what you are suggesting is contrary to the bible.

(Nevertheless, just because a slave gains his freedom does not entitle him to participate in government. No man should be forced into being governed by former slaves.)

[John Reece]

you told me the only facts worth knowing - she delivered a "sermon".

Oh my, a qross mistake in word choice on my part. No, not a sermon per the usual definition of that word.

Not doctrinal nor dogmatic.

Sorry to have gotten you so upset over the imprecise use of a single word.

[undead]

03-13-2003 @ 12:56 AM
John Reece:
Oh my, a qross mistake in word choice on my part. No, not a sermon per the usual definition of that word.

Not doctrinal nor dogmatic.

Sorry to have gotten you so upset over the imprecise use of a single word.

Not at all. Its quite clear that she did not keep her mouth shut in the congregation. That is all that matters. What she said was completely irrelevant.

[John Reece]

:nc:

[ry_dar]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I'm the one that started this thread, and I'd like to bring it back to its original topic, and then re-shape it somewhat.

I've recently started attending a Christian church. Initially, we were excited about the congregation and the pastor. We realized, however, that its a fundamentalist church. So far, I relate very well to the pastor's teachings. But I'm concerned that we'll run into some big problems soon.

FOR EXAMPLE -- My fiancee learned about the churches views on women, i.e., positions of leadership, subordination, husband domination, etc. This is VERY troubling for us. We've always considered men and women equal (as well as all people), and try hard not to judge anyone based on a things over which they have no control.

This leads to my next question: How do our integrated feelings fit in to Christian theology? Are we WRONG to think of all people -- whether male or female -- as equal?

I'd appreciate only sincere responses. Thanks.

[HerodionRomulus]

undead,

Since slavery is regulated by the OT Law, since Paul was a slave-owner, since Paul sent a slave back to his OWNER, since Paul, in no place advocates abolition, then yes, the Bible has a lot to say and it is all pro-slavery.
But Paul and all the other slave-owners (David, Abraham most everyone) were just following the contemporary practices of their society.

Yet today, most Christians and consider slavery a great evil. :doh:

btw the word "sex" is not found in the (AV) Bible--so let's not EVER discuss that. :ahem:

[Socrates]

About slavery, in Biblical times it was nothing like the Deep South. Indeed, it was evangelical Christians like Wilberforce that led the way inb abolition, while the pro-slavers like Lord Melbourne (like supporters of prenatal baby butchery today) sniffed that they should leave religion out of public life! See On Slavery and the Bible http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

About women as church leaders, no. Paul prohibited this, and it can't have been simply a cultural thing, otherwise he would have given cultural reasons. But instead he appealed to the fact that Adam was created before Eve and because Eve was deceived and Adam was not (1 Timothy 2:12-14). And in the home, the husband's authority over the wife is compared to Christ's authority over the church (Eph. 5:22-29). And the husband's love for his wife should also be like Christ's sacrifical love for the church. If husbands were like that, all domestic violence against women would cease.

I recommend John Piper and Wayne Grudem's fine book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, online at http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/

And I've noted on another thread that submission does NOT entail inferiority, and demonstrated this with Luke 2:51. Here, Jesus, although infinitely superior, submitted to His mother and foster father.

[HerodionRomulus]

Socrates,
I did not have Antebellum US practices in mind. I specified Sudanese practices of today. But that is irrelevant.
slavery in any form is wrong. The basis of slavery is violence and the threat of harm or death.
But Paul practiced it, The Law regulated it.

I am quite familiar with the subject, I have a History Degree and I took a semester of graduate level classes on the subject of slavery. But I will peruse the first site.

[PuritanD]

03-13-2003 @ 03:09 PM
ry_dar:

So far, I relate very well to the pastor's teachings. But I'm concerned that we'll run into some big problems soon.

FOR EXAMPLE -- My fiancee learned about the churches views on women, i.e., positions of leadership, subordination, husband domination, etc. This is VERY troubling for us. We've always considered men and women equal (as well as all people), and try hard not to judge anyone based on a things over which they have no control.

This leads to my next question: How do our integrated feelings fit in to Christian theology? Are we WRONG to think of all people -- whether male or female -- as equal?

I'd appreciate only sincere responses. Thanks.

ry_dar,

Your questions are great. It is good to see interest in such an important topic.

You are correct in saying that male and female have equal status in God's eyes. What I mean by this is that both are fallen creatures and need salvation. In other words, concerning the intrinsic value of gender both should be considered equal. However, there is a distiction between value and roles.

God has assign roles to each gender. As DeeDee mentioned, the responsibility for the family primarily falls upon the male gender. This does not give men authority to be domineering but to love their wifes as Christ loved the church. With spiritual responsiblity given to the man, it is not difficult logically to see how spiritual leadership in the church would be given to the male gender.

There is a great website which you may find more information. It is . I did see a book mentioned here and you may have been informed of many such materials. My recommendation is entitled, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood it is edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. They take a serious look at all the passages that refer to the distict roles of each gender from Genesis to Revelation. Also, they do a decent job in answering how all this should be applied in today's cultural context.

I hope that this helps.

PuritanD

[quetzalphoenix]

03-12-2003 @ 11:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=33377#post33377)
undead:

She sounds like she deserves a very large kick up the backside, out of the church door and into the street.

She would certainly be excommunicated from my church.

On the contrary, you told me the only facts worth knowing - she delivered a "sermon".

How do you define a sermon? I, also, on the basis of scripture and my interpretation of it, do not believe women should be pastors or elders. I am still working through the issue of deacon/ess.

HOWEVER, my concern is that by defining a sermon as a certain form (i.e. four points of explanation and three points of application on a Bible text), we are unduly narrowing the range of what women can do. Acts describes women prophecying (I know, a thorny exegetical issue) and there seem to be certain contexts in which it is appropriate for them to take "leadership" positions. I think that the major issue is public worship, which takes on a very explicit covenantal form (or at least I think it does), with the man representing the bridegroom of the church, the covenantal head. Certainly the words of God, our covenant Lord, are to come from the ones he has ordained to be covenant head of the family...

But when it comes to speaking on scripture, being a "leader" (let's define what this means as well!) under the authority of her elders, what is to prohibit a woman to do so?

Are leadership and authority entirely synonymous?

And yes, if a woman delivers a sermon in the context of a public worship service, I think that is generally wrong. Still, we should allow for God to use her gifts outside of his normally ordained structures. One other question...what about missionary settings where there are no males capable of preaching yet? Do we silence the word of God? I personally know some Chinese women who may be in the situation where they will be leading and teaching men... in order that those men may someday lead them.

Just a few thoughts :smile:

[quetzalphoenix]

03-13-2003 @ 09:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=34081#post34081)
ry_dar:

This leads to my next question: How do our integrated feelings fit in to Christian theology? Are we WRONG to think of all people -- whether male or female -- as equal?

I'd appreciate only sincere responses. Thanks.

This is a topic I've been struggling with for a while, so please permit another thought. I keep harping on this, it seems, but I think we need to be precise in the questions we ask before we begin to answer them.

You ask if we should see male/female as equal. I guess I would ask, in relation to what? I think that it is clear that men and women are equally saved, equally valued, and equally in union with Christ.

Are men and women equally capable to perform certain functions in the church? That's a difficult question. It may be that when comparing a female and a male preacher, the woman can preach with more gusto, with better understanding, etc. There are some who believe that the more "masculine" jobs of leadership and direction are ones that men are better at, and that men naturally chafe under female direction. I'm not going to touch that with a ten-foot pole. What we think is "natural" to us today we may realize someday is conditioned by family or culture.

Are men and women equally authorized to perform certain functions in the church? I think that's the question that we blur with the first...after all, if I'm good at something, I should be allowed to do it, right? I know that as a woman, I tend to think that way. (I am going to assume that my brothers in Christ do as well, but I can't compare degrees...) It takes a lot of sacrifice of self and ambition (for us women, I'm speaking now) to step back and trust our men to lead us in the church. But what is being a Christian about...? (Now, I'm not arguing exactly from the one to the other...but I think that this helps me to swallow the truth about the situation)

That's about all I have to say right now...I'm still working through what is my personal bias, what is scriptural, what are peculiar problems with the American church, and what it even is to BE a godly woman. So, a large grain of salt with my post, please.

Oh, and on a last note...I think that if we, as women, are afraid that not holding an office is degrading, the church itself is probably partly at fault for misrepresenting the importance of the ministry of the general "laity" of the church.

[Warcraft3]

I think there have been some really good points made in this thread, and Id like to contribute with my experiences in this area. I have been in various ministry positions before, and have dealt with this issue on many occasions. I have indeed struggled to understand the Biblical position and have read and listened to many, many interpretations of Pauls words. While there is some validity to the "culture" argument of some of what Paul says, certainly the connection to Adam and Eve create problems for this view.

As Socrates rightly pointed out,
"About women as church leaders, no. Paul prohibited this, and it can't have been simply a cultural thing, otherwise he would have given cultural reasons. But instead he appealed to the fact that Adam was created before Eve and because Eve was deceived and Adam was not (1 Timothy 2:12-14)."

So then it seems that ,as far as certain OFFICES of leadership within the church are concerned the Bible clearly states defined roles for both men and women which go against out current culture.

So what is the resolution? Well here is what I told some members of a Bible study I was leading during a time of Revival at my old church.

If both the men and women in the church are following Christ with all their heart, then they should fall into these spiritual roles NATURALLY. If you have to drag someone kicking and screaming to fulfill their respective spiritual role, then obviously they have some spiritual growing to do in this area. This should not be an issue within the church, since it should happen NATURALLY and PAINLESSLY.

Keep in mind that Paul was usually addressing PROBLEMS within the different churches he wrote to. Since not every single church letter by Paul deals with this issue specifically, it leads me to believe that indeed some churches werent having this problem at all. So its not culture vs the Bible, rather its a matter of your heart being in the right place. Eventually people will get to a place spiritually where they will fulfill their spiritual role without having to go out of their way to do it.

I pray those struggling with this issue find resolution and peace.

Russ

:yipee: Admit it, the banna guy is really funny.

[beautifuletdown]

I just sat through an evening of aeropagus at a local church where this was the exact discussion. Woman in leadership or offices. Going to try to throw out a couple of my view points and see how fast they get knocked down.

Let me start with this great lady named Deborah. She was the leader of all of Israel, this is coming from Judges. So we have a female leading an entire nation, not only is she leading this nation politically she is also head of the Judicial system, she also then goes to war because the leader of the army is afraid to go on to war without her. For some reason I see this as an arrow pointing to females can lead, why else would there be a female leading God's chosen people?

I have forgotten the reference but there is another female, Huldah, who when the Bible was found was looked to to interpret it! The Bible had been lost and found, and this was the first time many people heard it and they had no clue what to do. So the king sent his men to Huldah, a female prophetess to tell him what the Word meant. The king of Israel asked a woman to interpret the Bible, why can a woman no longer do this?

Yes, I understand that Paul says woman should be obedient to their husbands, and that the overseer of the church should be a man. I am not totally sure where I stand on this discussion myself, but those scriptures got me questioning a bit about woman being totally incapable of being a leader.

Also, when discussing this are we looking at before or after the fall of man? Gen 3 talks about the woman helping the man, but beforehand the woman is to be the man's strength and they are to be one flesh. Does this not to refer to equals?

Well, class is done, so this is cut short...

[David O]

I've spent the last few years researching this subject, and have come all the way from an adamant feminist position to a wooden-headed-Bible-literalist one. If the Bible says that 'as in all the gatherings, women are to remain silent,' then it means that. If a woman is not to usurp the authority of a man or teach (the verbs are at opposite ends of the verse), they shouldn't teach or hold office. The Piper Grudem book is half way to the truth, but full of error. Werner Neuen is closer. Deborah is never described as good in the Bible, and completely left out of the story in Hebrews. Just because we think slavery is bad doesn't make it bad. Its not fun, but the Bible says that one who is in debt to another is his is a slave. Bosses, husbands, slave owners, all can be mean, but all authority is established of God. We have to obey mean people who are in authority over us. I'm with the undead guy on all this stuff except for the "no man should be forced into being govorned by former slaves." Joseph was a slave who ruled Egypt and did a very good job of it. There are no equals. God favored Daniel. We all get to become the "sons of God." So in that way we are equal, otherwise some are good at some stuff, some at others. The best man for the job doesn't always have the job, and sometimes you are smarter than your boss. The boss is still to be obeyed, though, unless you submit yourself for punishment, like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

Read 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 14:34. I believe that you have to do some crazy dancing to get them to mean something else. The hard part is dealing with people about this subject because everyone is so easily hurt by disagreement over it. I'm trying to be respectful of everyone who disagrees with me and am really happy when I am afforded dignity by those who disagree with me.

[Jacob]

I think Dee Dee has a position which is very truthful to scripture, yet culturally accomodating. It seems like the bottom line is this: Do we make any distinction, or no distinction, between men & women in regards to positions of authority in the church. I see Paul making distinctives.

Within a congregation, I would consider almost any "line" of division of office to be acceptable. In some, this may reserve the position of Senior Pastor as a male position. In my church we have an elder board which is only male, but we also have an administrative board which is mixed. Another church may choose to restrict all "offices" to male only.

I'd encourage your fiance to consider Paul's guidelines as a wise distinction, commanded by God, but not based on superiority (of men). Then, you two need to find a church where you agree with how it is worked out (i.e. where the line is drawn).

I hope you two have a God Blessed life together. Working through this issue can only help to set up a good foundation for future "issues" that will certainly need resolving.

God Bless,

Jacob

[johnnybanano]

Posted by steadele on 04-10-2003 07:44 PM:
If both the men and women in the church are following Christ with all their heart, then they should fall into these spiritual roles NATURALLY. If you have to drag someone kicking and screaming to fulfill their respective spiritual role, then obviously they have some spiritual growing to do in this area. This should not be an issue within the church, since it should happen NATURALLY and PAINLESSLY.



A-stinking-men! That is absolutely right. This is the point to a lot of the things that people argue about the Bible. I like to think that I can understand how it might be difficult for a woman to humble herself to a man who she feels is less qualified to do something than she is. However, Jesus was better than his disciples and the Roman authorities, yet, he still humbled himself to his disciples and complied w/ the Roman Justice System. The point is just like steadele said,


Eventually people will get to a place spiritually where they will fulfill their spiritual role without having to go out of their way to do it.


This is great advice, ry_dar. There are a lot of sacrifices in being a Christian. But the reward is worth it. When one has that perspective, it's hard to argue. Think of Paul in prison. He didn't deserve that, but he rejoiced no less. I realize that I am not doing very much to explain why Paul said what he said about women. Honestly, I don't know why. However, I know that Paul was a man appointed by God to be an apostle of Jesus Christ and that he had received many revelations and mysteries. I trust what he says. While I won't rebuke a woman who sings songs during a worship service, I do think that this lost propriety has its place.


Posted by steadele on 04-10-2003 07:44 PM:
:yipee: Admit it, the banna guy is really funny.


Hilarious, :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

How awesome is that?!?


Posted by Jacob on Today 07:50 AM:
agree with DeeDee

I think Dee Dee has a position which is very truthful to scripture, yet culturally accomodating.


I agree.

Love and Respect

[tsmethers]

Let me start with this great lady named Deborah. She was the leader of all of Israel, this is coming from Judges. So we have a female leading an entire nation, not only is she leading this nation politically she is also head of the Judicial system, she also then goes to war because the leader of the army is afraid to go on to war without her. For some reason I see this as an arrow pointing to females can lead, why else would there be a female leading God's chosen people?




The Bible does not teach against women having positions of authority in secular or even judicial matters but in the public assembly. In the time of the Patriarchs and the during the time of the Priesthood only men were allowed to offer the sacrifices, to lead in the public worship. Correctly stated, Deborah, lead the army of Israel and acted as a judge for the nation but she did not have authority to offer sacrifices or lead in worship. Though not always, believers ususaly consider Chrisitianity to be the culmination of the promise to Abraham and to the nation of Israel. If it was true that women could not lead in worship then, why would it change now?


I have forgotten the reference but there is another female, Huldah, who when the Bible was found was looked to to interpret it! The Bible had been lost and found, and this was the first time many people heard it and they had no clue what to do. So the king sent his men to Huldah, a female prophetess to tell him what the Word meant. The king of Israel asked a woman to interpret the Bible, why can a woman no longer do this?



Again, the woman, Huldah, held a position of leadership as a prophetess but this is not the same as leading the assembly in worship. Some have used Priscilla’s teaching of Apollos as a reference but what I found in Acts 18:26 was that both Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos aside (some translations, “to their home”) and taught him the good news of Jesus. This was not done in a role of leadership within the assembly but privately.



Yes, I understand that Paul says woman should be obedient to their husbands, and that the overseer of the church should be a man. I am not totally sure where I stand on this discussion myself, but those scriptures got me questioning a bit about woman being totally incapable of being a leader.



Also, when discussing this are we looking at before or after the fall of man? Gen 3 talks about the woman helping the man, but beforehand the woman is to be the man's strength and they are to be one flesh. Does this not to refer to equals?



Nowhere does the Bible teach that women are incapable of leading or of having a position of leadership within a church. The examples we are given and what I think is being discussed is leading the assembly in worship and that we do not have. As a teacher I heard asked, if a woman is meeting with an individual or group of non-Chrisitans teaching them the Gospel while a man is up front leading a prayer or a song or preaching to the assembly, who is doing the greater work for the Lord?

Another thing to think about. I read recently that most children have their moral values and ideals in place by the time they are 13. I know that most of the teachers I had as a child until that point were women. I know for my children the most powerful example they have had in a teacher was a woman who has been teaching 5 year olds for nearly 40 years. I know that many of the adults who were reared in that congregation have nothing but praise and thanksgiving for her. We each have a calling within the Church and within individual congregations. And in Christ they are all equal in value and worth. We have an example given in the Bible and I believe that it is what we should follow.

[Sheepdog]

just an important side note: submitting to another, whether female to male or in any context, does not equate to inferiority/superiority. or if it does, the case is the opposite: in the economy of the Kingdom of God, the lowest servant is the most "superior" in the eyes of God. he who is first will be last and he who is last will be first.

while folks find the notion offensive that only men should hold the highest positions of authority in church, we have to remember James' warning: Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. James 3:1. more will be demanded from those who are leaders!

people desire and covet places of authority over the church, say they can lord it over other people. yet, real Biblical leadership doesn't seek power. no, real leadership makes the leader a servant to the people "under" him, and the people become his master. most cannot accept the responsibility, so i'll echo the advice i found important to my place in this matter: "do not go into full time ministry unless you cannot see yourself doing anything else. otherwise you will hate every moment of it. it takes a special call of God to make one a sheppard of people."