Women speaking in the church

[Watchman]

The thread on speaking in tongues has gotten kinda off topic...so I'm starting this one. I posit, with supporting evidence to follow after I get off work, that it is a gross misunderstanding and misinterpretation of scripture to say that women are forbidden to speak in the church. The church, as used in scripture, means the called-out ones...those who are in Christ. I further posit that much of what man calls church, or worship services, comprises very little of what Paul wrote about. That oughta get ye olde conversational ball rollin'.

blessings,

Watchman

[awestruckchild]

I will wait to hear what you have to say!
Hurry back.

[Watchman]

It'll be late...I work until 7:30 tonight, then have a 20 minute drive home, feed the horses, feed the me, spend some time with my family...but I WILL post some support. However, for those who don't like waiting, my remarks will generally be in agreement with those made by bro Jay Guin in Buried Talents. You can see the e-version of it on his website, oneinjesus.info (if it is not cool to reference this, then mods please delete that part!)

blessings,

W

[Watchman]

BTW, if someone wants to post scripture either supporting, or disputing, my posits in the OP before I get back, please feel free to do so. We will want to examine all the passages pertinent to the topic!

W

[Colight]

1) Do you support women having the role of a pastor of a church, and in that role having authority over the men.

If so what grounds do you see it to dismiss Pauls writing of:
The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as he Law also says.
--1 cor 14:34

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer [allow] not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." —1st Timothy 2:11-12

So if the woman is not teaching, what really is there for her to say in Church..
If she is speaking she is distracting from the teacher.
If she is teaching, then she is sinning by trying to teach the church, and placing her self over the Pastor..

2) The office of Pastor is clearly male when it is stated he must be a husband of one wife. Why should that be revoked?
1 tim 3
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


If a female is a pastor of a church, she is in rebellion against what God has ordained.
There for she is in sin. She is going against the natural order of things, that being male Pastors.
The Bible is quite Clear,

1 Tim 2
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam first then Eve,,
Eve was deceived and lured in to the trap thru smooth speech of Satan against the natural order of things.
The same rebellion is alive and well today, that being rebellion against the order of things God has laid out thru scripture.

[awestruckchild]

1) Do you support women having the role of a pastor of a church, and in that role having authority over the men.

If so what grounds do you see it to dismiss Pauls writing of:
The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as he Law also says.
--1 cor 14:34

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer [allow] not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." —1st Timothy 2:11-12

So if the woman is not teaching, what really is there for her to say in Church..
If she is speaking she is distracting from the teacher.
If she is teaching, then she is sinning by trying to teach the church, and placing her self over the Pastor..

2) The office of Pastor is clearly male when it is stated he must be a husband of one wife. Why should that be revoked?
1 tim 3
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


If a female is a pastor of a church, she is in rebellion against what God has ordained.
There for she is in sin. She is going against the natural order of things, that being male Pastors.
The Bible is quite Clear,

1 Tim 2
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Adam first then Eve,,
Eve was deceived and lured in to the trap thru smooth speech of Satan against the natural order of things.
The same rebellion is alive and well today, that being rebellion against the order of things God has laid out thru scripture.

If Eve ate because she was deceived, and the man was not deceived, but just ate WILLFULLY, think on that.

But I will wait till he feeds the horses and then comes to feed us, because I only subject myself to those in authority (whether they are my brother OR sister) because if they are preaching the GOSPEL, they are preaching Christ, and the Word IS Who I am in subjection under.

If a man (OR woman) preaches something other than the Gospel, I am not in subjection to them because I only willingly subject myself to the Word. If they preach Christ, I WILLINGLY subject myself, but not to them, but to the Word. If they preach Christ, I will listen AND I will serve them and wash their feet.

If ANYONE, even an ANGEL, comes to you preaching a different Gospel than the Gospel of Christ, the Word, do not listen to them.

I'll be back later after the horses are fed and a man or woman speaking with authority comes in.

[markedward]

Prisca, traveling teacher, frequently named before her husband Aquila, and teacher of a man, Apollos.

Phoebe, entrusted by Paul to carry his epistle to the Romans, and hence carried the responsibility to read it to their church and explain (i.e. teach about) anything the Roman church may not have understood in his letter. She was also the deacon of her own local church; should she be the 'husband of one wife'? Of course not. Paul's instructions on deacons are simply written under the assumption of a man. Paul never prohibits women deacons... especially when we find him entrusting a letter to a plain-as-day woman deacon.

Junia, apostle. If I recall correctly, everyone who referred to her in early Church writings understood her to be a woman. It was later writers who began intentionally changing her name to the masculine form 'Junias' in order to claim only men could be Apostles.

Chloe, implied to be a bishop, since she oversees a local house-church and messengers are sent on her behalf to Paul. Same thing goes as with Phoebe; Paul was not restricting bishops to be men, he was simply writing under the assumption of a man.

Euodia and Syntyche were a pair of leaders in the Church.

[Colight]

Prisca, traveling teacher, frequently named before her husband Aquila, and teacher of a man, Apollos.

Teacher in the home, under the authority of her husband.. She was not a Pastor of a flock.

Phoebe, entrusted by Paul to carry his epistle to the Romans, and hence carried the responsibility to read it to their church and explain (i.e. teach about) anything the Roman church may not have understood in his letter. She was also the deacon of her own local church; should she be the 'husband of one wife'? Of course not. Paul's instructions on deacons are simply written under the assumption of a man. Paul never prohibits women deacons... especially when we find him entrusting a letter to a plain-as-day woman deacon.

Yet Paul states...

1 Timothy 3
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Junia, apostle. If I recall correctly, everyone who referred to her in early Church writings understood her to be a woman. It was later writers who began intentionally changing her name to the masculine form 'Junias' in order to claim only men could be Apostles.

Just a note, only Christ choose apostles. There fore who gave her that rank...

Chloe, implied to be a bishop, since she oversees a local house-church and messengers are sent on her behalf to Paul. Same thing goes as with Phoebe; Paul was not restricting bishops to be men, he was simply writing under the assumption of a man.

Euodia and Syntyche were a pair of leaders in the Church.

Many women help in the running of churches, this does not mean they are the pastor teacher.

[paidforinfull]

Titus 2:3-4 "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." NIV


As a woman, I have no problem teaching women or being taught by women, for this is based in Scripture (as quoted above). I find no Biblical evidence that a woman should pastor a church, though. (I'm not so sure about the odd preaching assignment - I've heard some excellent sermons given by women).

I would definitely not like it at all if my husband had to submit to another woman spiritually, since I believe that would go against God's will.

Blessings
B.

[awestruckchild]

PssHH!!
To read it without any understanding forces me to say that if a man is not MARRIED, he can't be a deacon. So when Paul said it was best not to even marry if you were not married already, oh, just forget it. I can't take a thing you say seriously. Best to stop before I become a fool.

Edit to ad: that pssshh! was for colights last post, not the ones after.

[markedward]

Teacher in the home, under the authority of her husband.. She was not a Pastor of a flock.

Where does it ever state that Prisca was under the authority of her husband? (This seems to be implicitly denied by the simple fact that Paul does not enforce his alleged anti-women-teacher attitude when naming Prisca before Aquila, not only showing that she is Aquila's equal, but that she is a powerful teacher within the Church.) We're told that they traveled and taught together, and we're told that Prisca taught Apollos. According to your interpretation of Paul's command, she's not allowed to teach at all, let alone teach men. So which is it? Did she teach or not? Did she have authority over a man (Apollos) or not?

Yet Paul states...

This was already accounted for in my post. Your position requires you to claim, against universal witness, that either Paul was mistaken in advocating Phoebe to be both the deacon of her church and the traveling teacher on Paul's behalf, or that Phoebe was a man, married to a woman, and had children. The same thing goes for Chloe, the bishop of her local church. (Your absolutist position on the 'man' part is inconsistent if you don't also believe that every single deacon or bishop must be married and must have children. So, being consistent, every deacon or bishop that is not married and/or does not have children is in error in the Church. Just making sure you understand the implications of your absolutist position.)

So which is it? Are Phoebe and Chloe each men, married to women, with children? Are they women and Paul was inconsistent? Or are they women, and Paul was simply writing with the example of a man (since it would be grammatically strenuous and redundant to say 'he or she' every sentence)?

Just a note, only Christ choose apostles. There fore who gave her that rank...

Where does Scripture teach, as a rule, that only Jesus may choose who is an apostle? What Scripture teaches is that Jesus chose a particular set of men to be his main twelve apostles, with the addition of Paul, apostle to the Gentiles. There were thirteen uniquely chosen 'apostles', but nowhere does Scripture state that others may not be called 'apostles'... so for you to claim that such a rule exists is to add to Scripture.

Your position requires believing that the authors of the New Testament were in error to call Matthias, Barnabas, Andronicus, Junia, James (the brother of Jesus) as 'apostles', despite that none of them were of the Twelve. (The author of Hebrews says that Jesus is an 'apostle' as well... is Christ an 'apostle' chosen by himself?)

[Slug1]

Just a note, only Christ choose apostles.

Hate to break this to you... Matthias was not chosen by Jesus. He's was one of two qualified to replace Judas and the dice roll fell on him.

[markedward]

Hate to break this to you... Matthias was not chosen by Jesus. He's was one of two qualified to replace Judas and the dice roll fell on him.

Unfortunately, the typical response is that the Apostles were in error when they chose Matthias. According to this idea, Paul was the new number 12. Despite that nothing in Scripture indicates that the Apostles were in error, or that Paul was the new number 12. And that Paul refers to 'the Twelve' while explicitly excluding himself.

But that's the problem: the position relies on the assumption that the Apostles were in error for choosing Matthias. Assumptions don't work when they form the entire foundation for the position. It's just too bad that 'they' (those who hold this position) can't realize that they're basing it entirely upon an assumption.

[awestruckchild]

Just a note, only Christ choose apostles. There fore who gave her that rank...

When a man or woman speaks, the church does not just decide on their own whether to give them authority or not. It becomes apparent to all who walk in the Spirit, who speaks with the authority of Christ and His truth. Let two men or women get up to speak, and it is the SPIRIT and HIS authority that becomes apparent to anyone with ears to hear. The church doesn't just willy-nilly eenie-meenie-miney-mo, pick someone. In truth, they just confirm and agree with the Spirit.

[markedward]

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

The problem with the 'anti-women teachers' (I'll just abbreviate this as AWT) interpretation of this text, is that if we're coming at the text from that perspective, then teaching is not what is being forbidden here. If we're interpreting this verse (apart from the context of time, place, culture, and Paul's other clear-as-day teachings) with an absolutist mindset, then even the advocates of the AWT position are not applying the text properly.

If this passage is meant to be read so absolutely flat and literal as the AWT position claims, then women should not be allowed to speak in church at all. Because the context in this little snippet is not teaching. It's speaking. If the absolutist position is taken consistently, then women are not allowed to talk the moment they walk inside the church doors. Which is absurd, and even the absolutists fail in this application.

But if we're interpreting the passage in context of first-century Corinth, and in the context of Paul's other words, there is another way of reading this.

First thing, what should go without saying, but sadly needs to be reminded over and over. Paul knew several women teachers, and openly advocated them. Phoebe, the deacon of her local church, was entrusted by Paul to carry his epistle to the church in Rome... which necessarily meant that Phoebe would stand before the Roman church, read the epistle to them, and be responsible for teaching upon anything in the letter that the Romans needed to have clarified. Paul names Junia as an apostle, which practically screams that this woman teaches in the Church. Chloe appears to have been the bishop over her own local church (which would necessarily require being knowledgeable enough to care for it theologically, and hence to speak), but she also had authority to send messengers to Paul.

Second, Paul mentions women prophets in chapter 11 of this same epistle. Within Paul's apparent hierarchy (1 Corinthians 12.28; Ephesians 4.11), prophets were second only to apostles, but even aside from that, apostles and prophets are consistently seen throughout the New Testament has been the top-tier of authority within the Church. The authority of a prophet came before the authority of a teacher, because prophets were the ones receiving direct revelation from God about certain issues and events. This means that for Paul to mention women prophets, he is validating their authority over teachers and the congregation, even if those happen to include men.

Third, we can very easily glean from this and other texts that the basic organization of a church in the first-century was similar to that of a synagogue. Men seated on one side, women seated on the other. This type of seating 'arrangement' is not commanded by any author in Scripture, but we can see that this was simply how first-century churches tended to operate. Hence, if a woman wanted to ask her husband something, she couldn't lean over and whisper something to him, which is hardly a problem. She would have to stand up and shout at him across the room. This would be incredibly disruptive, and we can imagine how much worse it would be if multiple women were doing this at a time.

Paul is talking in the context of disorganized and unruly church services, not in context of forbidding women teachers. He is not requiring that churches separate men on one side and women on the other, but he is addressing the negative effects of the Corinthian church that happened to be arranged in such a way, that women should not shout over at their husbands across the room when they don't understand something the teacher said.