No women preachers!

[David Ben-Ariel]

For centuries the Word of God on this subject was clear, so why all the confusion now?

No women preachers, plain and simple! (http://beyondbabylon.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-women-preachers-plain-and-simple_16.html)

[Red Wine]

It's easy to dilute what once was clear...

[Shadow Phoenix]

This thread is being moved to Unorthodox Theology

[Zguy28]

Is this unorthodox?

I personally consider it Orthodox to not let women preach.

Women participate equally with men in the priesthood of all believers. Their role is crucial, their wisdom, grace and commitment exemplary. Women are an integral part of our Southern Baptist boards, faculties, mission teams, writer pools, and professional staffs. We affirm and celebrate their Great Commission impact.

While Scripture teaches that a woman's role is not identical to that of men in every respect, and that pastoral leadership is assigned to men, it also teaches that women are equal in value to men.
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pswomen.asp

[Rusty T]

Uhm, yeah, why is this in unorthodox theology?

rusty

[Johnny MacManky]

Uhm, yeah, why is this in unorthodox theology?

rusty

Perhaps (I may be wrong) because David BA (the thread starter) doesn't affirm orthodox views, i.e. is "Christian (Other)"?

[commonman]

For centuries the Word of God on this subject was clear, so why all the confusion now?

No women preachers, plain and simple! (http://beyondbabylon.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-women-preachers-plain-and-simple_16.html)


Would that be this word,

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28

[themuzicman]

Of course settled for centuries were:

Church under one human authority
Slavery an acceptable economic practice
Women allowed to be beaten by their husbands

(If you read the 1 Tim passage, it says that Paul doesn't allow a woman to teach or have authority.)

[Jnthn]

Would that be this word,
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28

Unless you're seriously trying to argue that Christians become hermaphrodites on conversion, you'll need to develop a more nuanced interpretation of one of the most misused texts in the NT.

J

[Thedonhopeless]

God has roles for males and females, i think it best each gender fulfill these roles as God intended.

[barnasha]

God has roles for males and females, i think it best each gender fulfill these roles as God intended.

who amongst us mortals claims to know what God intends?

[Thedonhopeless]

well, who among us mortals claims to know how to read the bible?

[timspong]

Of course settled for centuries were:

Church under one human authority
Slavery an acceptable economic practice
Women allowed to be beaten by their husbands

(If you read the 1 Tim passage, it says that Paul doesn't allow a woman to teach or have authority.)


Actually a woman can have authority over children and other women but not over a man. Likewize she can teach, but not to men. Paul even gives the reason: ie it was Eve that was deceived.

I guess he might be saying that men have greater discernment and/or are more loyal. I think women may be more inclined to be motivated by emotion whereas men are less emotionally attached to situations and are probably more grounded.

[timspong]

BTW I have always thought that Isaiah 3 seems to suggest that when men act like kids, they lose the respect of women who rise up to rule over them.

Modern man is often portrayed on western TV as a big kid who plays with toys (men toys) whereas woman always seem to act with maturity. Men buy into this image and become inadequate leaders. It is no wonder that women rise to take their place.

If we don't act like the Godly men of the bible, why would we expect the women to act like the Godly women of the bible?

Personally, I would never have a women teach or preach to me although it is fine to fellowship and discuss scripture informally.

[themuzicman]

Well, let's look closer at the context, here:

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, [and] then Eve. 14 And [it was] not Adam [who] was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But [women] will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires [to do].

Notice that Paul links teaching and authority closely, which would suggest to me that Paul is speaking of authoritative preaching, the kind that establishes binding doctrines, such as the elders of a church may do (keep reading in Chapter three, Paul says that elders must be 'able to teach'. The fact that Paul has this discussion right after saying that he does not allow a woman to teach or have authority suggests that the two are linked, and what what we're talking about, here, is a woman who holds the role of ruling elder over a church, and not just any woman who wishes to teach those things which she has learned to others.

If you think about it, if I teach something that someone else authoritatively declared, I am not asserting authority over anyone, but am communicating the authoritative message from another authority, namely an elder in the church.

Thus, the application of Paul's writing, here, is limited to the ruling body of elders.

Michael

[timspong]

Well, let's look closer at the context, here:

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, [and] then Eve. 14 And [it was] not Adam [who] was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But [women] will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires [to do].

Notice that Paul links teaching and authority closely, which would suggest to me that Paul is speaking of authoritative preaching, the kind that establishes binding doctrines, such as the elders of a church may do (keep reading in Chapter three, Paul says that elders must be 'able to teach'. The fact that Paul has this discussion right after saying that he does not allow a woman to teach or have authority suggests that the two are linked, and what what we're talking about, here, is a woman who holds the role of ruling elder over a church, and not just any woman who wishes to teach those things which she has learned to others.

If you think about it, if I teach something that someone else authoritatively declared, I am not asserting authority over anyone, but am communicating the authoritative message from another authority, namely an elder in the church.

Thus, the application of Paul's writing, here, is limited to the ruling body of elders.

Michael

Sorry I don't agree and think this view is a bit of a stretch. This verse is very obvious. Look at verse 14 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission". Paul is not making it difficult for us to know exactly what he meant.

I think modern society has clouded this issue. There is no way that in any time during the history of the church would anyone have thought this passage meant anything different that what it actually says. Scriputre is absolute and not relative to the modern "PC" society.

Also, satan’s favorite trick is to take scripture and teaching and twist it slightly to make it mean something completely different. A woman could quite easily take an elders teaching and twist it without being aware of it. I think this is exactly what Paul was warning here. Men are less likely to do this as our thought process is different and we are less likely to add to or change the message.

Not a PC point of view I know, but I think it is a biblical one

[themuzicman]

Sorry I don't agree and think this view is a bit of a stretch. This verse is very obvious. Look at verse 14 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission". Paul is not making it difficult for us to know exactly what he meant.

I think modern society has clouded this issue. There is no way that in any time during the history of the church would anyone have thought this passage meant anything different that what it actually says. Scriputre is absolute and not relative to the modern "PC" society.

Also, satan’s favorite trick is to take scripture and teaching and twist it slightly to make it mean something completely different. A woman could quite easily take an elders teaching and twist it without being aware of it. I think this is exactly what Paul was warning here. Men are less likely to do this as our thought process is different and we are less likely to add to or change the message.

Not a PC point of view I know, but I think it is a biblical one


What does quietly learning in submission have to do with whether she is able to teach or not? It doesn't.

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

Crysostom had some rather harsh things to say about women preachers.


The divine law indeed has excluded women from the ministry, but they endeavor to thrust themselves into it; and since they can effect nothing of themselves, they do all through the agency of others; and they have become invested with so much power that they can appoint or eject priests at their will: things in fact are turned upside down, and the proverbial saying may be seen realized—“The ruled lead the rulers:” and would that it were men who do this instead of women, who have not received a commission to teach. Why do I say teach? for the blessed Paul did not suffer them even to speak in the Church. But I have heard some one say that they have obtained such a large privilege of free speech, as even to rebuke the prelates of the Churches, and censure them more severely than masters do their own domestics.


Saint Chrysostom: On the Priesthood; Ascetic Treatises; Select Homilies and Letters; Homilies on the Statues

[Zguy28]

I just look at it like this: this Scripture can be interpreted BY MEN, several different ways. Why not err on the side of caution? What are the pros and cons of either way?

[timspong]

What does quietly learning in submission have to do with whether she is able to teach or not? It doesn't.

Michael

It does however, paint an adequate picture of the submissive role a woman should play in the church.

[timspong]

I just look at it like this: this Scripture can be interpreted BY MEN, several different ways. Why not err on the side of caution? What are the pros and cons of either way?


I can't think of too many pro's for women preachers other than PC and equality issues.

The cons include:
Increased likelihood of false teaching and distortion of scripture.
Disrespect to men,
Dishonoring God,
Discrediting scripture.
Also, it would make it very difficult for a woman to fully submit to her husband if she is teaching and preaching the word of God.

You only have to watch TBN to see why women shouldn’t preach. Joyce Mayer was once asked her opinion on 1st Timothy 2 and she retorted that it was a load of “gobble-de-gook” – Now that is precisely why women shouldn’t preach.

Also, take the following verse for instance. It clearly paints a picture of the role of a Godly woman. Preaching and teaching over men does not fit into that picture at all.

Eph 5:24
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

[Bill the Cat]

You only have to watch TBN to see why women shouldn’t preach. Joyce Mayer was once asked her opinion on 1st Timothy 2 and she retorted that it was a load of “gobble-de-gook” – Now that is precisely why women shouldn’t preach.



You have a link for that? I can't find it anywhere.

[timspong]

You have a link for that? I can't find it anywhere.

Actually it was on an audio sermon I heard, unfortunately I can't remember which one although Pastor Jim McClarty (see link) uses that example quite often.

http://www.salvationbygrace.org/default.aspx

[Bill the Cat]

Thanks. I am doing a message on people like Joyce Meyers and the heresies they espouse, and such a quote would be most helpful.

[timspong]

Thanks. I am doing a message on people like Joyce Meyers and the heresies they espouse, and such a quote would be most helpful.

I just emailed Jim McCarthy to see if he has any more information/substantiation.

[Smokering]

Um.

I'm all for women not preaching, but where do you get the idea that women are more likely to distort Scripture?

[dizzle]

FYI - this was moved because the opening poster is not orthodox, not the subject matter.

[Johnny MacManky]

. . . Scripture is absolute. . .

Wesleyan theology, while giving priority to Scripture, recognises the elements of Tradition, Reason and Experience when formulating Theology. Certainly in the UK, it was a Wesleyan influenced denomination which was first to ordain a woman.

I do not believe that Scripture can ever be considred authoratitive to the exclusion of the other elements, simply because humans need to interpret (exegete) Scripture prior to applying it (hermeneutic).

Anyway, that is aside to my main point. Why would God give women gifts of leadership and teaching if they were not intended to use them? Why would God, by the Holy Spirit, lead women to preach and teach? Of course, perhaps a very brave soul would venture to suggest that it is not the Holy Spirit but another force which is leading such women...

Make your mind up folks. Don't skirt around the edges. Admit it. Women preaching is an either / or issue. It's either "of God" or it's of the Devil (imho).

Of course, I might be missing something... Please enlighten me.

[dizzle]

It's of the flesh (the devil isn't the only option - we are plenty disobedient without the assistance of the devil). The same argument can be made of why God would give some men homosexual desires if He didn't mean for them to be gay.

[Johnny MacManky]

Fair point DX, regarding the obedience question. I'll ponder that aspect some more.... but I'm still a supporter of ordaining wimins.

I disagree re: the gay example as I do not consider that it is God who gives sexual orientation. I'm quite non-PC on that one, believing that for some people it is quite natural... given that human nature is fallen and Totally Depraved.

[Smokering]

The Bible does not say that women with gifts of leadership and teaching are not to use them. It says they are not to teach men. Older women teaching younger is not only endorsed but commanded by Scripture; women teaching children isn't really mentioned as far as I know (although Lois and Eunice seem to be regarded favourably, for teaching/influencing Timothy), but it certainly isn't condemned.

It's a case of using gifts in accordance with God's word, then, not suppressing gifts. To use a slightly dodgy analogy, many women are equipped with the 'gifts' necessary to become a prostitute; but that is forbidden by God. Does that mean they have to become asexual? Of course not; it just means they should use their, er, talents where appropriate (ie., within marriage).

You know, I really shouldn't make up analogies.

[anthrogirl]

I can't think of too many pro's for women preachers other than PC and equality issues.

The cons include:
Increased likelihood of false teaching and distortion of scripture.
Disrespect to men,
Dishonoring God,
Discrediting scripture.
Also, it would make it very difficult for a woman to fully submit to her husband if she is teaching and preaching the word of God.

You only have to watch TBN to see why women shouldn’t preach. Joyce Mayer was once asked her opinion on 1st Timothy 2 and she retorted that it was a load of “gobble-de-gook” – Now that is precisely why women shouldn’t preach.

Also, take the following verse for instance. It clearly paints a picture of the role of a Godly woman. Preaching and teaching over men does not fit into that picture at all.

Eph 5:24
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.


:ahem:

[dizzle]

The Bible does not say that women with gifts of leadership and teaching are not to use them. It says they are not to teach men. Older women teaching younger is not only endorsed but commanded by Scripture; women teaching children isn't really mentioned as far as I know (although Lois and Eunice seem to be regarded favourably, for teaching/influencing Timothy), but it certainly isn't condemned.

It's a case of using gifts in accordance with God's word, then, not suppressing gifts. To use a slightly dodgy analogy, many women are equipped with the 'gifts' necessary to become a prostitute; but that is forbidden by God. Does that mean they have to become asexual? Of course not; it just means they should use their, er, talents where appropriate (ie., within marriage).

You know, I really shouldn't make up analogies.

That is a very good post. Just because someone can do something, and do it well, doesn't mean God is telling them to do it. Some people are gifted liars and con artists.

[Spinyn00bman]

That is a very good post. Just because someone can do something, and do it well, doesn't mean God is telling them to do it. Some people are gifted liars and con artists.

Lying, being a con-artist, being a hooker....these are all negative things. How does that apply to a positive like effective leadership.

Personally I am not sure where to sit on this issue. I was raised in a conservative church where women were not included. But as I have moved through life, I have met and listened to several female pastors. Their words are as full of as much conviction and truth as those of their male counterpoints.

How can that be wrong?

[dizzle]

Because the Bible says so. In the case of a prostitute or other things the world doesn't agree they are clearly wrong. Do you think someone should be a practising homosexual pastor? I hope you aren't under the delusion that they are all sucky speakers and preachers. They are not. But sin is sin. Do you think any polygamists might be gifted teachers? Sure, but the Bible prohibits them as well. Ability simply is not the issue, it is whether we will be obedient or not.

Since when do subjective feelings trump the Bible? If you want to argue a Biblical case fine, but in that event, the whole "but this women are so gifted!" argument is irrelevant. If the Bible said women should be pastors, it wouldn't matter if every woman you heard sucked.

[Smokering]

SpinyNorman: Being a hooker, which was my analogy, is a corruption of a POSITIVE thing, ie. female sexuality. In the same way, the Bible says that for women to teach or have authority over a men is a corruption of a positive thing, ie. certain women's ability to teach.

Let me repeat: women's leadership skills and teaching abilities ARE a positive trait. They just need to be used in the Biblical context (just like the positive trait of female sexuality).

Indeed, pretty much any positive trait needs to be governed by Biblical standards. It is good to be organised, but not to the detriment of your family's comfort. It is good to work hard, but not on the Sabbath (okay, so varying interpretations of that one) or to the neglect of your family. It is good to have a sense of humour, but not at inappropriate times. God does not call us to use EVERY gift in EVERY situation--imagine someone who felt compelled to sing all the time, in order that she make 'full use' of the talent God 'must want' her to use!

There is plenty of scope within Biblical guidelines for a woman to worship, study the Bible and use her talents. Paul mentions many women as active in the church and personally helpful to him.

[Johnny MacManky]

. . .If you want to argue a Biblical case fine . . ..


Okay, 4:30 am, but I can't sleep.

Let's take as read that Scripture should be viewed as a cohesive whole, and we'll accept equal authority for all Letters, etc. (I'm thinking especially concerning the disputed Apostolic Authorship of the pastorals & other later Letters.)

The first question I'd raise re: 1 Tim 2.11-15 would be whether this was a word for all time, or if it was specific to the situation which warranted the letter. As a literary genre, II Tim is an occasional letter, specific to the situation prevalent at the time in Ephesus. It should not be considered as a Catholic Epistle.

Prior to exegeting the 1st Tim passage, the cohesive view of Scripture will be of benefit - Were women afforded the position of preaching and/or teaching elsewhere in the Bible?

Contributing to The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Elizabeth Achtemeier considers that women "were allowed to preach and pray in worship (1 Cor 11:5), as well as to prophesy (Acts 21 8-9) and to teach (Acts 18:25-26)." She cites many other examples in a lengthy article, as also does Valerie Abrahamsen (writing in the same work) ". . . women functioned as dynamic leaders of the movement (Phil. 4:2-3; Rom 16)." Concerning the women in the Rom 16 passage she emphasizes that they "are described as having labored (kopian) for the Lord, the same term Paul used to describe his own evangelising and teaching activity."

Manfred Brauch in Hard Sayings of Paul is firmly of the opinion that "I do not permit a woman to teach" in 1 Tim 2:12 is "in response to [a] critical, local situation. . . the integrity of the Christian Faith is at stake." 1 Tim 1: 3-7 describes a situation where some proto Gnostic kind of heresy and false teaching is being promulgated, and some without adequate understanding or discernment are seeking to be teachers. That the women in Ephesus have been particularly affected seems to be borne out in chapters 4 & 5, and also in the second letter.

Brauch summarizes expressing in detail the view that the situation addressed in 1 Tim was a specific local situation, specific to the time and place. These women had been corrupted by heretical teaching and were seeking to usurp the authority of the recognized elders. They have "abused proper exercise of authority in the church (not denied by Paul elsewhere) by usurpation and domination of the male leaders and teachers in the church at Ephesus."

...still not sleepy!

[Smokering]

I don't have time to reply to this fully, but just a note--Acts 18:25-26 cannot be used to support the theory that women taught in the worship service. Prisca AND her husband addressed the erring Apollos, and it was not in public (they 'took him aside'); hence, it cannot have been as part of the worship service.

[timspong]

Thanks. I am doing a message on people like Joyce Meyers and the heresies they espouse, and such a quote would be most helpful.

I just got an email back from Jim McCarty:

Hi Tim,

It's good to hear from you. Actually, what Joyce said was "hogwash". This was probably five years ago or so. I don't remember the message or date, so I cannot back it up with facts. I don't listen to her with any regularity but my sister-in-law was getting deeply involved with Joyce's ministry so I spent a bit of time paying attention and listening. It was during that period that she responded to Scripture with her one-word denunciation.

In the message, she said that she was sometimes asked about Paul's writing that prohibited women from teaching in the church. She said, "Hogwash" and the crowd went wild. She ended by saying that if God did not want her to preach He would not have given her the gift. So, through that deft bit of logic, she argued in essence that God would act contrary to His own word. Pretty sad.

I don't know if that information is any help to your friend, but that's all I have is the memory of hearing it and thinking how outrageous it was.

................(the rest of the email is irrelevant)

In Him,

Jim Mc.

[timspong]

Um.

I'm all for women not preaching, but where do you get the idea that women are more likely to distort Scripture?


The reason Paul gave in 1Timothy 2.14 for women not to teach or have authority over a man was that the woman was the one that satan decieved.

This would clearly imply that woman would be more likely to be decieved to distort Gods word. It is after all satans favorite MO to distort scripture.

To offer an analogy. Women are blessed with the color of emotion, however, it is something that satan can easily manipulate. Men tend to be less emotional so we tend to see things more in black and white so no matter how much satan plays with our color control it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

[Smokering]

I have to disagree with your exegesis here. Here's Timothy 2:14 in context:

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. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Now, the emphasis in the passage is not so much Eve's deception as Adam's headship. Paul mentions as his main point that Adam was formed first (in a Biblical role of headship). When Eve was deceived and became a transgessor, by distorting the order of authority, part of her penalty was God restoring that order of authority--but as a curse, not a blessing. Thus, now as before sin entered the world, the man has authority over a woman--hence, it is not appropriate for a woman to teach.

If that seems convoluted, consider the exegesis you mentioned--that woman are more easily deceived, and thus more likely to distort God's word. If this was God's reason for not allowing women to preach, why would he let women teach other women and children? Surely God isn't saying 'It's okay for women to distort Scripture to each other, as long as they don't lead the men up the garden path'. Furthermore, it has been my anecdotal experience that SOME women are less logically or theologically inclined than SOME men; but this is not a general rule. Obviously, any church with smarts would elect a minister, male or female, who had the mental equipment to carry out the role.

Thus, I maintain that the reason for disbarring women from preaching is not ability-based, but based on the order of authority instituted by God at creation.

As for your comments on Joyce Meyers, I find your statement that 'that's why we shouldn't allow women preachers!' rather offensive, even if it was meant in jest. You do realise that by the same logic, one could say 'Bishop Spong says the resurrection is rubbish, and THAT'S why we shouldn't allow men preachers!'?

[timspong]

Don't get me wrong, women are equal to men in their significance to God, they just have different roles to play. I think proverbs 31 serves as a good example of the esteem of women in the body of Christ:

Pr 31
10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

[timspong]

I have to disagree with your exegesis here. Here's Timothy 2:14 in context:

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. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Now, the emphasis in the passage is not so much Eve's deception as Adam's headship. Paul mentions as his main point that Adam was formed first (in a Biblical role of headship). When Eve was deceived and became a transgessor, by distorting the order of authority, part of her penalty was God restoring that order of authority--but as a curse, not a blessing. Thus, now as before sin entered the world, the man has authority over a woman--hence, it is not appropriate for a woman to teach.

If that seems convoluted, consider the exegesis you mentioned--that woman are more easily deceived, and thus more likely to distort God's word. If this was God's reason for not allowing women to preach, why would he let women teach other women and children? Surely God isn't saying 'It's okay for women to distort Scripture to each other, as long as they don't lead the men up the garden path'. Furthermore, it has been my anecdotal experience that SOME women are less logically or theologically inclined than SOME men; but this is not a general rule. Obviously, any church with smarts would elect a minister, male or female, who had the mental equipment to carry out the role.

Thus, I maintain that the reason for disbarring women from preaching is not ability-based, but based on the order of authority instituted by God at creation.

As for your comments on Joyce Meyers, I find your statement that 'that's why we shouldn't allow women preachers!' rather offensive, even if it was meant in jest. You do realise that by the same logic, one could say 'Bishop Spong says the resurrection is rubbish, and THAT'S why we shouldn't allow men preachers!'?

Touché :nc: and apologies for any offense caused.

[Smokering]

Heh, that's okay. Not a Meyer fan myself, for the record.

[The Empty Hours]

I've heard this debate over and over during the last 5 months (in YWAM) and before. I hear Loren Cunningham and David Hamilton's book Why Not Women is fantastic, though I didn't get around to reading very far into it. From this book, and wherever else, I hear people argue over and over about the particular situation Paul was addressing -- i.e. that the women of the Corinthian church were meant to be interceding for the men, as they had their own section in the back of the church, and instead they gossiped and distracted each other. Thus Paul told them to be silent. Women were also far less educated in those days, and it was advisable in that cultural context for their husbands to explain/teach them back at home such that they weren't asking questions and disrupting the church services. Check these things against the book, though -- that's just from memory. This is all good and well, but Paul seems to be using a universal argument (Eve was deceived, not Adam) in order to explain a relative commandment (women aren't to teach). I am undecided on the issue, but I've seen really good women preachers before. Sure, that doesn't prove anything, but some of these people -- women I would trust -- clearly feel that God has led them plainly to their role. You have to wonder what's going on there -- I mean, in the world of the first century, a general acceptance of women preachers may have been unwise, but given that women are now given the same educational opportunities as men, and are no less intelligent in my experience, there has to be something else behind this issue if the ban must continue...

It was a running joke with us -- i.e. if one of the girls did something annoying, a guy would tell her to submit, as a joke, and it would end up in a serious debate.

[Abelard]

Paul has nothing but good things to say about Phoebe in Rom 16:1, who is clearly described as diakonos or minister/elder.

It also helps to remember that Paul taught from the word of God as it was revealed to him, and not from the Gospels (Gal 1:11-12). Personally I give a little more weight to things Jesus said

Basing dogma exclusively on Paul requires one to ignore both the reality that have been women ministers since the earliest days of the church, but it also requires that one ignore all four gospels as they were not written until after the Epistles and because of Paul's proud declaration that he did not teach the same gospel taught by the Apostles.

But even if this was not true, do you think Paul would support divisive movements within the church based on his teachings? 1 Cor 1:10-17 shows a Paul furious with the church in Corinth not just for creating discord within the church, but for mistaking his teachings as wisdom and not inspiration.

Can any Christian believe Paul intended for people to trot out little excerpts from his letters like scriptural souvenirs and use them to build an argument about why God is unable to call women to the pulpit? Why God is unable to do anything is absurd enough, but a protestant congregation which preaches the priesthood of all believers is going to profess it's impossible for God to call more than half the flock? It's laughable.

Misusing Paul this way is about the worst exegesis since the Southern churches taught Ham, Shem and Japeth. But if you still don't believe some women know best, and you don't believe me, I've got one suggestion for you.

Go ask your Momma.

[Bill the Cat]

I found the following verses this past weekend and wanted to put them out there for discussion in this thread...

1 Peter 4
10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

[The Empty Hours]

Was just discussing this issue with my dad the other day. Neither of us can get around the clear instruction of Paul that women ought not preach to, or have authority over, men, and yet neither of us is ready to deny that certain woman preachers we have seen are powerfully anointed by God. In fact, some have changed both of our lives, and for all appearances, are doing what God has called them to do.

Look at some of the greats -- e.g. Maria Woodworth-Etter. It's difficult to hear about her life and read about what she did and conclude that God was not behind it.

And yet... we can't get around that verse. I think we both ended up admitting defeat.

Why Not Women argues from the viewpoint of progressive revelation -- i.e., God deals with society as it stands and does not attempt to change some practices immediately. The authors (well, one of them, I forget which one) cite Jesus' statement that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of peoples' hearts (seemingly an instance of God allowing something that is not His best for humans but not worth trying to change) and referring to the way Paul did not condemn slavery in, e.g., Philemon. According to this view, slavery is not God's will, but He didn't attempt to change it the instant Jesus appeared on earth. Similarly, it could be argued, He did not allow the elevation of women to the same positions of church responsibility/authority as men because the culture of Paul's day wasn't ready for it yet. This certainly makes sense to my mind, but that doesn't prove that it's true, or Biblical.

[Abelard]

And yet... we can't get around that verse. I think we both ended up admitting defeat.
It's not about 'getting around' this verse. It is about giving that verse an appropriate weighting with everything else in Scripture.

[Little Shepherd]

In the message, she said that she was sometimes asked about Paul's writing that prohibited women from teaching in the church. She said, "Hogwash" and the crowd went wild. She ended by saying that if God did not want her to preach He would not have given her the gift. So, through that deft bit of logic, she argued in essence that God would act contrary to His own word. Pretty sad.
I fully agree with the sentiment(that it's sad). From what I've heard of Joyce Meyers, though, her stance on women preaching is the least of her problems. You'd think that if God actually expected her to use her glorified gift of gab in order to preach, He'd have given her some better theology to go with it. :eww:

On the issue at hand, though, I'm theologically neutral at the moment. I've heard some explanations of the verses in question that could lead one to believe they were addressing something in context that doesn't apply to all women at all times. So at the moment I don't have a firm stance either way on women being teachers/preachers, per se.

However, I believe that a strong case against women preachers can be made in many cases on the grounds of passages such as the one that claims Christians shouldn't do things that might make their brother stumble. Y'know, needlessly make their Christian walk more difficult than it already is. For you see, men often have an extremely difficult time submitting to the authority of women. Now, this may be something that's actually wrong with men, and something that we need to work through(and it's definitely something men need to just suck up in situations outside of church). However, in the Church, as Christians we are to be sensitive to the weaknesses of others and sometimes not do things that may be perfectly morally acceptable in any other situation in order to not put undue burdens on fellow Christians.

I dunno, though. There is also a time for confrontation in the church, after all. If a man refusing to submit to a female pastor is causing a problem with an entire congregation, it may be the man needs to either suck it up or find a new church in order to not cause disunity. But if a man has good exegetical reasons for holding the belief that women should not preach, while still holding to women's equality in essence, I don't think he should ever be forced to, well, lie about his beliefs or change his beliefs without due exegetical cause.

I'm not sure where I was going with that, but those are my thoughts, as rambling as they may be.

[Little Shepherd]

Was just discussing this issue with my dad the other day. Neither of us can get around the clear instruction of Paul that women ought not preach to, or have authority over, men, and yet neither of us is ready to deny that certain woman preachers we have seen are powerfully anointed by God. In fact, some have changed both of our lives, and for all appearances, are doing what God has called them to do.

Look at some of the greats -- e.g. Maria Woodworth-Etter. It's difficult to hear about her life and read about what she did and conclude that God was not behind it.
That reminded me of something. I've heard that there's good reason to believe that women such as Deborah in the OT were raised to positions of such great power on occasion in order to shame the men of Israel. I look at how things got sometimes in history, and how things are now, and y'know . . . it wouldn't surprise me one bit if God still did that.

[Abelard]

But if a man has good exegetical reasons for holding the belief that women should not preach, while still holding to women's equality in essence, I don't think he should ever be forced to, well, lie about his beliefs or change his beliefs without due exegetical cause.


There's a good answer. Picking a proof text because it obvious is not good exegesis. Paul's main point in Romans is that we are to live by faith, and NOT by law.

To use Paul to justify law is perverse. Paul's message is clearly that we are to live by faith and not by law. We are supposed to be learning to live without the law, not make up new laws!

[Timothy]

There's a good answer. Picking a proof text because it obvious is not good exegesis. Paul's main point in Romans is that we are to live by faith, and NOT by law.

To use Paul to justify law is perverse. Paul's message is clearly that we are to live by faith and not by law. We are supposed to be learning to live without the law, not make up new laws!

Extremely well said.

[The Empty Hours]

There's a good answer. Picking a proof text because it obvious is not good exegesis. Paul's main point in Romans is that we are to live by faith, and NOT by law.

To use Paul to justify law is perverse. Paul's message is clearly that we are to live by faith and not by law. We are supposed to be learning to live without the law, not make up new laws!

But surely there's a difference between 'justifying law' by making up new laws and simply following Paul's clear instruction to the church? Imagine if someone in the congregation he was writing to said "oh, Paul's just giving us some advice, he's not into making us follow laws, we can put a woman on the pulpit, no big deal" -- what do you think Paul would say to that if he visited that church afterwards and caught a woman preaching? It's not a matter of faith vs. law, I don't think.

[Little Shepherd]

But surely there's a difference between 'justifying law' by making up new laws and simply following Paul's clear instruction to the church? Imagine if someone in the congregation he was writing to said "oh, Paul's just giving us some advice, he's not into making us follow laws, we can put a woman on the pulpit, no big deal" -- what do you think Paul would say to that if he visited that church afterwards and caught a woman preaching? It's not a matter of faith vs. law, I don't think.
You're right, at least mostly. See, Abelard mentions faith and law as if there's some sort of big dichotomy. It's true that they serve different purposes, but they are related, as one can plainly tell if he looks up the proper meaning of the greek word "pistis," which is the word we translate as "faith" in the Bible. Its literal meaning is closer to "faithfulness." In other words, it is not mere belief, but is rather a belief that leads to action -- to obedience.

It's also important to realize that Christ Himself upheld the law. He stated that those who love Him will keep His commandments. In other words, His followers would have a desire to live up to the law to the best of their ability, and a reliance on Him to make up for where they fall short. A faith that doesn't motivate one towards obedience is not Biblical faith.

And finally Paul upholds the law. When you realize what pistis actually means, then you will understand why Paul cannot denounce the law while raising up faith. It simply wouldn't work! He does, however, point out what does what. The law can condemn, but it's also important because it shows us right from wrong, and where we need to improve. Faith, proper Bibical faith that is, saves, and then subsequently motivates us to obedience. Their purposes are complimentary, not in competition!

Paul specifically states actions that are wrong. He states the proper order of things in the New Covenant. Sometimes he speaks to local problems(and I've read that the issue with women leaders might be). But he always upholds the law as good, and something that Christians should strive to obey(even though we will often fail and need grace). His statement that we should not sin so that grace will abound -- in other words, take advantage of our salvation in order to fulfill desires we know are wrong -- makes this abundantly clear.

To get a better understanding of the interaction between faith(pistis) and works(law), I'd suggest looking into the Semitic Totality Principle. There are some good articles on Tektonics concerning it. Understanding it helps one to understand why, even though works of the law don't save, they still serve as a good indicator of whether one has Biblical faith or not.