PDA

View Full Version : Women pastors



aliveinchrist
Feb 15th 2008, 09:30 PM
Mods please move if this is not in the right place.

Hi all!

Was just wondering what you all thought of women pastors or women leading worship, in accordance with what the Bible says? (Bible scriptures too, if you will please.)

I will post my opinion after I get a few responses.

Thanks!!

Michelle

aliveinchrist
Feb 15th 2008, 10:00 PM
What nobody has opinions on this??? :rolleyes:

Whispering Grace
Feb 15th 2008, 10:04 PM
What nobody has opinions on this??? :rolleyes:

I dare say if you just give it a little time, people will respond. Hopefully, every person here has a life apart from this board. ;)

And no, I do not believe women should be pastors or hold positions of leadership over men.

Lars777
Feb 15th 2008, 10:06 PM
It helps to give it a little time for people to respond.
You also could use the search button and you will see many many threads and many responses to this topic that are already here. ;)

Buck shot
Feb 15th 2008, 10:41 PM
I believe it's hard for a woman to be the husband of one wife.

Maybe like Bill being the "first lady"

No, I don't think women should be pastors over men but I have seen some churches where there was not a Godly man to stand up and take the reigns. The flock needs to be tended and if no man can, a woman may have to. Same as a husband being head of the house spiritually. I know some women that have to lead because there husbands will not.

aliveinchrist
Feb 16th 2008, 12:01 AM
Sorry about the impatience. :hug: I just really wanted to know what other people thought.

I agree with you guys though.

Unless there is a man to stand up and lead, a woman should lead church.

Which leads to the question, is it a sin for a woman to lead church, when there ARE men available to lead it?

ravi4u2
Feb 16th 2008, 12:22 AM
I believe it's hard for a woman to be the husband of one wife.

Maybe like Bill being the "first lady"

No, I don't think women should be pastors over men but I have seen some churches where there was not a Godly man to stand up and take the reigns. The flock needs to be tended and if no man can, a woman may have to. Same as a husband being head of the house spiritually. I know some women that have to lead because there husbands will not.Well, it also says, "having his children in submission with all reverence"...so, I guess if you do not have children, you cannot serve pastorally as well???

godsgirl
Feb 16th 2008, 12:31 AM
Women should serve where ever God calls them to serve and do whatever He tells them to do.

aliveinchrist
Feb 16th 2008, 12:35 AM
That's true. But God doesn't call women to lead church if there is a man available to do it.

ravi4u2
Feb 16th 2008, 12:50 AM
That's true. But God doesn't call women to lead church if there is a man available to do it.So, can men without children lead the church, if there are other men with children?

Clifton
Feb 16th 2008, 12:51 AM
Mods please move if this is not in the right place.

Hi all!

Was just wondering what you all thought of women pastors or women leading worship, in accordance with what the Bible says? (Bible scriptures too, if you will please.)

I will post my opinion after I get a few responses.

Thanks!!

Michelle


You may want to look at an Interlinear with Strong Numbers in your Computer Bible Software or Hard Print for Romans 16:1 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Romans&chapter=16&verse=1), and / or, go online. Here is a direct link:

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Romans&chapter=16&verse=1

Go down to the KJV Section and on the right side where there is a block that says "a servant", you will see under it: <1249 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1249)>. Mouse Click on that and you will see the primary English word used for the translation is "minister". The Greek word here is διακονος (as I recall, that is where the word "Deacon" comes from). I actually have one or more Bibles that translate it as "minister/pastor" in Romans 16:1. But I believe they are older (than KJV) Bibles. Perhaps some translator bias is due to Paul's Statements in Corinthians? I do not know. The best way to research this is to do a Google search "Romans 16:1 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Romans+16%3A1%22&btnG=Search)" (include the quotation marks) and do the same for the verse(s) in Corinthians about women speaking so you can see what info you might bring up on your research.

In re of Romans 16:1, technically speaking, a pastor / minister is a servant.;)

As I recall, or have read, Paul wrote what he did because of some pagan things going on about goddesses.

However, please note that "church buildings" were not a thing in the first 3 centuries A.D. (that luxury was instituted by Constantine), and with the exception of times of perilous persecutions, where Christians met in catacombs, "church" was in home (say about half-dozen to a dozen or so assembling): Ro 16:5; 1Co 16:19; Col 4:15; Phm 1:2 are "direct to the point" scriptures on that but there are others.

Note Romans 16:5 here, just a few verses after Romans 16:1 of our discussion. Priscilla would have something say in her own home, and made provisions for other attendees, but perhaps she was to stay cool when congregating in another's "church in the house", and other women were to stay cool in Aquila & Priscilla's home?

Best wishes on your research.;)

ravi4u2
Feb 16th 2008, 02:17 AM
You may want to look at an Interlinear with Strong Numbers in your Computer Bible Software or Hard Print for Romans 16:1 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Romans&chapter=16&verse=1), and / or, go online. Here is a direct link:

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Romans&chapter=16&verse=1

Go down to the KJV Section and on the right side where there is a block that says "a servant", you will see under it: <1249 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=1249)>. Mouse Click on that and you will see the primary English word used for the translation is "minister". The Greek word here is διακονος (as I recall, that is where the word "Deacon" comes from). I actually have one or more Bibles that translate it as "minister/pastor" in Romans 16:1. But I believe they are older (than KJV) Bibles. Perhaps some translator bias is due to Paul's Statements in Corinthians? I do not know. The best way to research this is to do a Google search "Romans 16:1 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Romans+16%3A1%22&btnG=Search)" (include the quotation marks) and do the same for the verse(s) in Corinthians about women speaking so you can see what info you might bring up on your research.

In re of Romans 16:1, technically speaking, a pastor / minister is a servant.;)

As I recall, or have read, Paul wrote what he did because of some pagan things going on about goddesses.

However, please note that "church buildings" were not a thing in the first 3 centuries A.D. (that luxury was instituted by Constantine), and with the exception of times of perilous persecutions, where Christians met in catacombs, "church" was in home (say about half-dozen to a dozen or so assembling): Ro 16:5; 1Co 16:19; Col 4:15; Phm 1:2 are "direct to the point" scriptures on that but there are others.

Note Romans 16:5 here, just a few verses after Romans 16:1 of our discussion. Priscilla would have something say in her own home, and made provisions for other attendees, but perhaps she was to stay cool when congregating in another's "church in the house", and other women were to stay cool in Aquila & Priscilla's home?

Best wishes on your research.;)I agree...my thoughts are here: http://ravi4u2.bravejournal.com/archive/08/27/2007

aliveinchrist
Feb 16th 2008, 02:26 AM
So, can men without children lead the church, if there are other men with children?

What does having children have to do with leading church? :confused

Clifton
Feb 16th 2008, 02:43 AM
I agree...my thoughts are here: http://ravi4u2.bravejournal.com/archive/08/27/2007


Thanks for the blog reference - I read it all. Yea, I did remember reading some history about Artemis, and that was an issue with Paul. Some of his readings are hard to understand (I think Peter wrote that too), e.g., there seems to be no honest way to translate 1 Timothy 5:23 literally and without supplied words by the translator(s). It looks like the verse is telling us to give up water drinking:). What's there was Timothy was to put some wine into his water for his stomach and frequent infirmities.

The point here is, as your blog already shows, we have to know what was "going on" at the time Paul was writing and what he was really writing about - his readers held the familiarities of his writings.

Later.

Athanasius
Feb 16th 2008, 04:14 AM
That's true. But God doesn't call women to lead church if there is a man available to do it.

Really? Where's that found in scripture?

ravi4u2
Feb 16th 2008, 04:14 AM
What does having children have to do with leading church? :confusedBecause if you take 1 Timothy 3 prescriptively then, it prescribes than the overseer must have children, because he should be "having his children in submission with all reverence".

Sooner87
Feb 16th 2008, 04:43 AM
1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

But if you look into it, Paul is talking to a group of people, in this instance women, who aren't spiritually ready to lead a church. If God leads someone then I don't think it should be questioned. Some parts of the Bible, such as this verse, need to be looked into by the context and the situation of the time that it was written.

Mograce2U
Feb 16th 2008, 04:43 AM
Today's pastors are more than just teachers. They are more equivalent to the president of a corporation. I would like to see someone who is in the know, list some of the things that a pastor is expected to do - so we can compare those tasks with what scripture outlines for us women folk.

jtalexanderiv
Feb 16th 2008, 05:02 AM
Well since I am in an Anglican church now with three priests, two fathers, and one mother. I would say that women can lead the church. Our lead rector, pastor (for all you non-anglo cats out there), is a man. However, our female priest could lead the service if it was needed or the Bishop told her to go take over a church then she would have to and that would be fine.

Romans 16:1, which has been brought up in a previous post, points out that Phoebe was a deacon, in the NRSV, which is a correct translation because dia,konon is the masculine accusative form of the the word or the neuter nominative or accusative, most likely the masculine accusative. Which translated is "a deacon." So it is not deaconess, but deacon the same title that a man would have.

Romans 16:3: it is interesting that Prisca (Priscilla) is always named before Aquila. Not much really to help the argument of ministry but it is interesting nonetheless that a woman is always before the man in this case.

Romans 16:6: Mary who has worked very hard in the church. She has some kind of role not sure what kind from the text given but shows that women did and can work in the church.

Romans 16:7: Andronicus and Junia, who are prominent among the apostles. Which many scholars would say means that they were apostles and very high or well know among the apostles.

The Letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan states that he questioned two women who were called deacons about the practices they did.

I think that most of this proves that women can be deacons, which hold a pretty important position in the early church and in high churches today. Now on to the matter of women being priests and pastors.


There is a mosaic in a church in Rome with two women saints and Mary, there is also a fourth woman who has a square halo around her head which shows that she was alive when the mosaic was painted. The inscription on the mosaic over the alive woman says, Episcopa Theodora, which is the latinized form of the Greek episkopos. Which means bishop, so it is Bishop Theodora, it seems that the a at the end of Theodora had scratches on it from people trying to make it seem like a man. However, the picture clearly shows a woman. For more information about this you can see When Women Were Priests (http://www.amazon.com/When-Women-Were-Priests-Subordination/dp/0060686618/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203136759&sr=8-1) a book by Karen J. Torjesen; "Pilgrims Trace Women's Role in Early Church (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5342854)" from NPR.

Craig S. Keener in his book Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul shows that if women did not have a role in Paul's churches then they would not have followed him as much as they did.

I feel that most of the problems that Paul has with women in the church are local problems with just a certain church or a certain group. We must remember that in all of Paul's letters he is addressing problems for one church or a group of churches. It is important to remember that all the things in these letters cannot be applied to problems that might be happening in the church today or happened in the church in the past. I think that is all I have for now.

aliveinchrist
Feb 16th 2008, 02:22 PM
Because if you take 1 Timothy 3 prescriptively then, it prescribes than the overseer must have children, because he should be "having his children in submission with all reverence".

That passage doesn't say anything about pastors having to have children to preach..................

from my take on that, that means if a pastor has children, or any father, for that matter, their children should be in submission to their parents and/or the teachings of Jesus with reverence, or awe......Something along those lines.

I don't get how you get out of that passage that in order for a man to be a pastor, he has to have children.................

RogerW
Feb 16th 2008, 02:26 PM
That's true. But God doesn't call women to lead church if there is a man available to do it.

Where do you find that God calls women to lead the church if there is no man available?

Blessings,
RW

ravi4u2
Feb 16th 2008, 04:28 PM
That passage doesn't say anything about pastors having to have children to preach..................

from my take on that, that means if a pastor has children, or any father, for that matter, their children should be in submission to their parents and/or the teachings of Jesus with reverence, or awe......Something along those lines.

I don't get how you get out of that passage that in order for a man to be a pastor, he has to have children.................If what you say is correct, then the passage in 1 Timothy 3, has got to read, " if the overseer has children, he must have his children in submission with all reverence". But it does not say 'if' does it? My take is, if you take 1 Timothy 3 to be prescriptive, then, you must take the whole of 1 Timothy 3 as prescriptive qualifications for the overseer. You just don't get to pick and choose.

threebigrocks
Feb 16th 2008, 04:37 PM
Women should serve where ever God calls them to serve and do whatever He tells them to do.

If that is true, how do we reconcile it with this passage?

1 Corinthians 14


34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

9Marksfan
Feb 16th 2008, 05:33 PM
If what you say is correct, then the passage in 1 Timothy 3, has got to read, " if the overseer has children, he must have his children in submission with all reverence". But it does not say 'if' does it? My take is, if you take 1 Timothy 3 to be prescriptive, then, you must take the whole of 1 Timothy 3 as prescriptive qualifications for the overseer. You just don't get to pick and choose.

Not only would it assume that an elder/pastor is a family man, but he must also be married! So does this exclude single men or married men without children (or married men with one child?!? This would surely be legalistic in the extreme!)? Surely not! Paul after all was single and he was clearly in a very high position of oversight over many churches in the NT - and we don't read of Peter having any children, yet he was married and calls himself a "fellow elder" (1 Pet 5:1).

What I believe Paul is saying in 1 Tim 3 is that the norm is for elders to be family men (as it was the norm for men to be family men in that society) but I don't believe that that marital status is prescriptive, as there is no prohibition against single men being leaders in the church (in fact, according to 1 Cor 7, it would be an advantage, as they would be able to serve the LORD wholeheartedly woithout having to keep "her indoors" happy! ;)) - yet there clearly are prohibitions against women being in positions of teaching authority in church (1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 in particular) and on each occasion, the basis for Paul's thinking is the creation order of things, thereby showing it WASN'T cultural). Also, Jesus only had male apostles - surely he would have been free to appoint a female apostle, had that been a good idea? or are we going to say He was bound by cultural convention?!?! Hardly!

As far as Phoebe being a minster/deacon is concerned, diakonos means servant - it would make no sense for her to be called a deacon if she were a deaconness. And in any event, even if she were, they had no teaching responsibilities - that was the role of elders and pastors.

As far as Andronicus and Junia are concerned, it is generally regarded that the word "apostles" here probably has a secondary meaning to the 11/12 Apostles, who were eye-witnesses of the risen LORD (a qualification for being an Apostle - hence Paul's dramatic encounter with a theophany of the risen Christ) - hardly something Andronicus and Junia could have experienced as Romans! But it's also possible that the phrase means "well-known to the apostles" (ESV). Don't build a doctrine out of a straw man!

Clifton
Feb 16th 2008, 06:54 PM
Romans 16:1, which has been brought up in a previous post, points out that Phoebe was a deacon, in the NRSV, which is a correct translation because dia,konon is the masculine accusative form of the the word or the neuter nominative or accusative, most likely the masculine accusative. Which translated is "a deacon." So it is not deaconess, but deacon the same title that a man would have.

Great input ;) I will point out that διακονον in Romans 16:1 is {N-ASF}, Noun-Accusative-Singular-Feminine. This is no doubt because it is referring to a female. The word form itself can be masculine when referring to a male. It is quite unusual for a word in this form to be feminine, ending in "-ον", but what happens is that other words (especially the Greek Definite Article) can modify the gender of a noun or adjective.

Here's the breakdown {Noun-Case Number Gender}
1249; deacon, minister, servant
SINGULARS:διακονον {N-ASM},{N-ASF}
διακονος {N-NSM}
διακονου {N-GSF} <- Appears in Textus Receptus Greek versions of Romans 16:27; In the Byzantine-Majority Greek New Testament, Romans 16:27 is moved and becomes Romans 14:26.

PLURALS:
διακονοι {N-NPM}
διακονοις {N-DPM}
διακονους {N-APM}

RogerW
Feb 16th 2008, 07:16 PM
Well since I am in an Anglican church now with three priests, two fathers, and one mother. I would say that women can lead the church. Our lead rector, pastor (for all you non-anglo cats out there), is a man. However, our female priest could lead the service if it was needed or the Bishop told her to go take over a church then she would have to and that would be fine.

Romans 16:1, which has been brought up in a previous post, points out that Phoebe was a deacon, in the NRSV, which is a correct translation because dia,konon is the masculine accusative form of the the word or the neuter nominative or accusative, most likely the masculine accusative. Which translated is "a deacon." So it is not deaconess, but deacon the same title that a man would have.

Romans 16:3: it is interesting that Prisca (Priscilla) is always named before Aquila. Not much really to help the argument of ministry but it is interesting nonetheless that a woman is always before the man in this case.

Romans 16:6: Mary who has worked very hard in the church. She has some kind of role not sure what kind from the text given but shows that women did and can work in the church.

Romans 16:7: Andronicus and Junia, who are prominent among the apostles. Which many scholars would say means that they were apostles and very high or well know among the apostles.

The Letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan states that he questioned two women who were called deacons about the practices they did.

I think that most of this proves that women can be deacons, which hold a pretty important position in the early church and in high churches today. Now on to the matter of women being priests and pastors.


There is a mosaic in a church in Rome with two women saints and Mary, there is also a fourth woman who has a square halo around her head which shows that she was alive when the mosaic was painted. The inscription on the mosaic over the alive woman says, Episcopa Theodora, which is the latinized form of the Greek episkopos. Which means bishop, so it is Bishop Theodora, it seems that the a at the end of Theodora had scratches on it from people trying to make it seem like a man. However, the picture clearly shows a woman. For more information about this you can see When Women Were Priests (http://www.amazon.com/When-Women-Were-Priests-Subordination/dp/0060686618/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203136759&sr=8-1) a book by Karen J. Torjesen; "Pilgrims Trace Women's Role in Early Church (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5342854)" from NPR.


Craig S. Keener in his book Paul, Women & Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul shows that if women did not have a role in Paul's churches then they would not have followed him as much as they did.


I feel that most of the problems that Paul has with women in the church are local problems with just a certain church or a certain group. We must remember that in all of Paul's letters he is addressing problems for one church or a group of churches. It is important to remember that all the things in these letters cannot be applied to problems that might be happening in the church today or happened in the church in the past. I think that is all I have for now.



Greetings,

But is there Scripture to prove that deacons (male or female) were given positions of leadership or authority in the church? It seems the ministry of deacons is that of a physical capacity with the spiritual leadership, oversight given to the apostles and bishops (elders).

Ac 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
Ac 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Many Blessings,
RW

diffangle
Feb 16th 2008, 08:54 PM
If that is true, how do we reconcile it with this passage?

1 Corinthians 14
34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.


Where does the Law say that women aren't permitted to speak? :confused

threebigrocks
Feb 16th 2008, 09:05 PM
Where does the Law say that women aren't permitted to speak? :confused

The law says that they ought to be subject to their husbands, not be quiet. ;) The husband is a covering over the woman, just as Christ is a covering for the husband.

Genesis 4

16To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you."

1 Corinthians 11


1Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

diffangle
Feb 16th 2008, 09:09 PM
Here's a post from an older thread on this subject that is pretty good...

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1263195&postcount=7

Dear Ones:
I guess I have a slightly different viewpoint on this topic.

Firstly, the women of Paul's day typically were not schooled and most could not read. You will read in Paul's writings that women ought not to be busy-bodies and gossipers etc. Evidently there was a decorum issue in the Corinthian services (also supported in his teachings about Spiritual Gifts and their presentation)and evidently the women were playing a part in the disruption.

Secondly, if he meant that a woman couldn't speak at all ever in church services "accroding to the law", or as I have also heard, that they cannot lead a man under any spiritual circumstances, why did God use Deborah in the OT to lead male warriors into battle? Why did He make her a judge among the people? It doesn't seem to make sense that He couldn't find a man to do it, b/c when he needed someone for Israel He had no trouble jacking up Gideon, a man, to fit the need.

Finally, Joel prophesies that God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh, male and female, and that they would prophesy. Now if a woman prophesies what better place to test it than in the presence of the elders who can properly scrutinize it as Paul requires?

For me I don't see this as a hard and fast "thou shalt shut up, woman!" directive but one that is intended to establish proper husband and wife order, Godly respect and respect for decorum in large meetings. In the chruch I was raised in it was ok for a woman to speak in small mixed groups. Well to me that doesn't make sense. If she can teach in a small group with men present, what's the difference between that and a large mixed assembly?

Rolland and Heidi Baker are missionaries to Mozambique. Both teach and preach. Both see miracles of healings and salvations daily. Last count 53 people have been raised from the dead by them and their indigenous pastors, 1000 souls saved per week and the feeding of 5000 orphans daily. Moslem radio in Mozambique has stated that because of Iris Ministiries, Islam is all but dead in Mozambique. This from a man and a woman, sometimes operating separately, sometimes together preaching and teaching in the churches. In any case she teaches their up-and-coming local pastors, she teaches in the churches she teaches in their schools of ministry. If I understand Paul's directive as most of the above posters have laid it out then I have trouble seeing how Heidi could be walking uprightly in their ministry. However, that the hand of God is on this ministry is incredibly evident, so like they said of Jesus, "you could only do these things if God was with you." I believe they are a couple walking in God's order and obviously then in His power.

If you're interested in reading the book "The Hungry Always Get Fed" by Rolland and Heide go to www.newwineministries.co.uk (http://www.newwineministries.co.uk/) and click on the "New Wine Press" button, locate the book and order it. Regardless of how we all feel about the issue of women speaking in church, this book is a must read. I cried all the way through it. I know you will be amazed. I have heard her speak publicly and all I can say is, I've only heard one man in my whole life who even comes close to her in desire for the lost. If you would like to see their work in photo or blog/newsletter form go to www.irismin.org (http://www.irismin.org/) You will be touched for sure.

Blessings to you all,
Gary

diffangle
Feb 16th 2008, 09:11 PM
The law says that they ought to be subject to their husbands, not be quiet. ;) The husband is a covering over the woman, just as Christ is a covering for the husband.

Genesis 4


1 Corinthians 11
So subjection doesn't necessarily mean "be quiet" as we can tell from the story of how Deborah was allowed to speak and lead Israel. :)

threebigrocks
Feb 16th 2008, 09:16 PM
So subjection doesn't necessarily mean "be quiet" as we can tell from the story of how Deborah was allowed to speak and lead Israel. :)

:D I think we are getting wires crossed. Women are in subject to their husbands - that's the portion that I was addressing immediately above. They are to be quiet and ask those who have authority over them, as in their husbands, those whom they are in subjection to. I was looking at subjection and you were looking at the be quiet part. :rolleyes:

9Marksfan
Feb 16th 2008, 09:57 PM
1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

But if you look into it, Paul is talking to a group of people, in this instance women, who aren't spiritually ready to lead a church.

Er, he's writing to Timothy!


If God leads someone then I don't think it should be questioned. Some parts of the Bible, such as this verse, need to be looked into by the context and the situation of the time that it was written.

But he shows the universal principle by referring to Creation, showing it's NOT about context and the situation at the time....

jtalexanderiv
Feb 17th 2008, 02:03 AM
Clifton,
Yep your right sorry it has been so long since I have had to parse a 2nd declension noun that forgot that the fem. looks the same as a masc. one.

jtalexanderiv
Feb 17th 2008, 02:54 AM
The writings in Acts 6 do not call these men deacons it is what later people have assigned to the 7 chosen.

We see in 1 Timothy that after Paul tells us about the requirements of bishop tells us the requirements of deacon. It would stand to reason that deacons played a very important role in the church if Paul only tells us about bishops and then deacons. A bishop in the early church is over a city and when most cities only had one church that would mean that the bishop is over that church. So there would not be a real need for a priest who would carry on the everyday running of the church or a minister between the two roles like there is now.

Paul and the other NT writers are not writing for us who live in the 21st century. Paul in 1 Timothy is writing to his co-worker, who would know what a deacon is and the job of a deacon (and bishop for that matter). Paul, therefore, does not have to explain the role of a deacon or bishop in detail or as much as we later readers would want. That is where we have to turn not to Scripture but to history and tradition. The Didache, an early church guide book to church practice says 15:1-2 "You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried. For their ministry to you is identical with that of the prophets and teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for along with the prophets and teachers they enjoy a place of honor among you." Now I would argue that since we have pervious president for female deacons that the author is using men as a general for people. So they have the same standing as prophets and teachers, thus they have some kind of important role in the church.

aliveinchrist
Feb 17th 2008, 03:15 AM
If what you say is correct, then the passage in 1 Timothy 3, has got to read, " if the overseer has children, he must have his children in submission with all reverence". But it does not say 'if' does it? My take is, if you take 1 Timothy 3 to be prescriptive, then, you must take the whole of 1 Timothy 3 as prescriptive qualifications for the overseer. You just don't get to pick and choose.

Seems to me you are picking and choosing. Read that verse with the rest of the verses and here's what it says:

1 Timothy 3

1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.
2 A bishop THEN must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
3 Not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous
4 One who rules his house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (obeying him)
5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the Church of God?)


So does this also say he has to be MARRIED? Because what I read, is that if he has a wife and children, that he has to be faithful to his wife, and his children have to obey him. Because if he can't rule his own house, how is he going to be able to rule the Church?

Nowhere in there did I read that a pastor (or bishop) HAS to have children.

ravi4u2
Feb 17th 2008, 04:22 AM
Seems to me you are picking and choosing. Read that verse with the rest of the verses and here's what it says:

1 Timothy 3

1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.
2 A bishop THEN must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
3 Not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous
4 One who rules his house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (obeying him)
5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the Church of God?)


So does this also say he has to be MARRIED? Because what I read, is that if he has a wife and children, that he has to be faithful to his wife, and his children have to obey him. Because if he can't rule his own house, how is he going to be able to rule the Church?

Nowhere in there did I read that a pastor (or bishop) HAS to have children.Where is the 'IF' part? The verses you quoted plainly says that a bishop has got to be: :"A man who is married and has children and rules his family well." There is no
if he has a wife and children you are inserting the 'if' part. There are two basic problems here:

1. You are modifying the Word to suit your own interpretation
2. If you accept one part of the passage as prescriptive than you also have to accept the other parts to be such as well. You just don't get to pick and choose.

Mograce2U
Feb 17th 2008, 01:57 PM
Paul begins his statement by saying that "this is a true saying", which is to say this is not a command from the Lord, but a truth he gleaned from scripture. The qualifications he gives for a bishop is what marks a man as one who cannot be rebuked - who can be seen as living his life without blame. A married man who is faithful and rules his house well, is one who thus fits the bill because he has demonstrated the qualities needed to lead. This is in line with Moses' picking the 70 elders who helped him rule the people. If a single man is to qualify - where will his witness come from? I think it must be in that he has served in the body for a time - since a new believer is not to be laid hands on quickly (3:6). But Paul's charge to Timothy is for a new church, not one that had been long established. There would probably not be any other men to pick from yet - so Paul tells Timothy where to find his "70 elders" - following Moses' example.

So in keeping with the OP's question about women pastors - what would be her qualifications to prove her leadership ability? How is a woman in submission to her husband going to show her ability to rule over her husband and children?

ravi4u2
Feb 17th 2008, 04:47 PM
How is a woman in submission to her husband going to show her ability to rule over her husband and children?The word 'ruling' from 'ruling his own house well', is not rightly translated. The word for 'rule' there is 'prohestame', which is made up of two Greek words, 'pro' meaning 'before' and 'hestame' meaning 'to stand'. Put together, the two words mean 'to stand before'. So, the husband is to be someone who 'stands before' or someone who 'protects' and 'guards' his family, someone who 'cares for' his family. Therefore, that verse in 1 Timothy actually says, the Overseer has to be someone who "cares well for his own house".

Athanasius
Feb 17th 2008, 04:53 PM
1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

But if you look into it, Paul is talking to a group of people, in this instance women, who aren't spiritually ready to lead a church. If God leads someone then I don't think it should be questioned. Some parts of the Bible, such as this verse, need to be looked into by the context and the situation of the time that it was written.

Well, I would also add on that Paul is saying "I wouldn't. . . "

9Marksfan
Feb 17th 2008, 10:09 PM
Well, I would also add on that Paul is saying "I wouldn't. . . "

Yet he uses the creation account to justify his position - you can't pick and choose (as I suspect you are doing) what parts of Paul's writings are inspired and waht are not - they're ALL inspired and are in fact God's commands to us:-

"If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord." 1 Cor 14:37 ESV

ravi4u2
Feb 18th 2008, 12:31 AM
The writings in Acts 6 do not call these men deacons it is what later people have assigned to the 7 chosen.That is a good observation.


We see in 1 Timothy that after Paul tells us about the requirements of bishop tells us the requirements of deacon. It would stand to reason that deacons played a very important role in the church if Paul only tells us about bishops and then deacons. A bishop in the early church is over a city and when most cities only had one church that would mean that the bishop is over that church. So there would not be a real need for a priest who would carry on the everyday running of the church or a minister between the two roles like there is now.That would be a view skewed towards the Anglo-Catholic belief system.


Paul and the other NT writers are not writing for us who live in the 21st century. Paul in 1 Timothy is writing to his co-worker, who would know what a deacon is and the job of a deacon (and bishop for that matter). Paul, therefore, does not have to explain the role of a deacon or bishop in detail or as much as we later readers would want. That is where we have to turn not to Scripture but to history and tradition. The Didache, an early church guide book to church practice says 15:1-2 "You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried. For their ministry to you is identical with that of the prophets and teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for along with the prophets and teachers they enjoy a place of honor among you." Now I would argue that since we have pervious president for female deacons that the author is using men as a general for people. So they have the same standing as prophets and teachers, thus they have some kind of important role in the church.All inspired scripture is of God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; Didache a second century collection of various teachings, was considered by some to be part of the New Testament, but rejected as spurious or non-canonical by many others. Sola scriptura!

grit
Feb 18th 2008, 03:39 PM
I'm not sure how particularly pertinent to the OP* this current news story is, but I found the circumstance to be very cogent to where the cultural argument is finding inroads against religious and Biblical priciples in societal integration, and Christian 'rights' vs State sanctions, leading to cries of unfair and intolerant gender discrimination.

Female Referee Calls Foul On Alleged Gender Discrimination (http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=82AE583DF06E2D1C2A70C875EECA1616 ?contentId=5766627&version=8&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1):
http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=82AE583DF06E2D1C2A70C875EECA1616 ?contentId=5766627&version=8&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

"We view officials not as male or female, Hispanic or African-American or Asian-American. We view officials as officials," Musselman said. "Discrimination against our officials is something we can't be party to."

It aired on ABC's Good Morning America this morning, and the overwhelming response seems to have been outrage, claiming a violation of gender rights (cf. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WaterCooler/popup?id=4303903&POLL326=200000000000000000000000000000).

The prevailing wind of change seems to be that religious institutions are quickly losing the 'right' to enforce their own perspectives (even if, or especially if, they are regarded as Scriptural mandates) in their own institutions, where such enforcement is perceived by the society-at-large as archaic or intolerant of modern 'sensibilities' of more 'civilized' secular humanistic goals and expectations.

My conservative understandings and traditions of Scriptural doctrines and teachings are in line with a refusal of both ordaining woman pastors and allowing such to exercise authority over any man, but regardless of ones stance on that issue, it is very disheartening to see a demand for gender inclusiveness culturally forced upon religious institutions and religious practice as integral to perceptions of American freedoms.

*I would have started a separate thread, and certainly hope this is not a derail of this one, but I didn't want the data to be lost to the OP author in the shuffle.

Codger
Feb 18th 2008, 06:22 PM
Our negative attitude toward women in the Church comes from two hard to understand passages from St. Paul. After much reading on the subject I have concluded that in both cases he was addressing local errors in the Church and was not making a general statement for all time. Here is the first of the two questionable passages.

(Read in a mocking, sarcastic voice.)

1 Cor. 14:34-37 (KJV) [34] “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” [35] “And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

The passage then continues… read loudly...and in a rage...

[36] What?came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? [37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

In 34 & 35 St. Paul is quoting the words of someone in the Church probably a "Judiazer," someone from the Circumcision Party, who opposed Paul at every turn - who in judging from the text - considered himself a prophet in that local body. In vs. 36 & 37 Paul is giving an angry response to the quote of 34 & 35. Obviously he limited his comments probably because he only wanted to correct this person - not destroy him.

The following is a quote from Dr. John Gustavson.

"Professor Sir William Ramsey, the most widely accepted authority on St. Paul in the early 1900's says "we should be ready to suspect Paul is making a quotation from the letter addressed to him by the Corinthians whenever he alludes to their knowledge, or when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or with Paul's known views."Considering Paul's views on the ministries of Priscilla, Phoebe and others referred to earlier, it is clear that Paul believed in equality of women in ministry.

Moreover, ICor 14:34,35, if taken totally literally, cannot refer to the Old Testament Scriptures when speaking of the Law for there is not one trace from Genesis to Malachi of any such prohibition of women to literally keep silent in the church nor is there a single word in the whole "law of Moses" dealing with the subject. Therefore the words, "it is not permitted" and "as also saith the Law" roust refer to some "rule outside of Scripture." There was no other but the Oral Law of the Jews appealed to by the Judaizers in the church in their efforts at that time to bring Christianity back within the confines of Judaism.

The Jewish Oral Law did teach the silencing of women. The Talmud also taught that it was "a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men". However, the Oral Law of the Jews is not Scripture. Again, the reference to the "law" is, of itself, sufficient to show that the Apostle who labored so earnestly to free the Christian Church from the very shadow of Judaism was not expressing his own conviction in the language attributed to him. Paul never appealed to the "law" for the guidance of the Church of Christ, but, on the contrary, declared that believers were dead to the law by the body of Christ" (Ro 7:4) that they might serve in newness of spirit and not the oldness of the letter (v.6).)"

Some translations - like the KJV and the Amplified Bible - insert the word What! at the beginning of vs. 36. This is an expression of outrage at the previous verses or quotations (33-35). Verses 36 - 37 should be read with an element of anger. Verse 37 continues where he is upbrading someone who thought themselves to be a Prophet in the Church. Obviously the person he quoted in vs. 33-35. As Ramsey suggests, 1CO was probably written in response to a letter sent to him by the Corinthians.

In summary, because the quote was given in a Sarcastic tone, it simply means that the exact opposite was true because he was mimicking them and not making a statement.

Larry

Mograce2U
Feb 18th 2008, 07:17 PM
Hi Larry,
That is an interesting perspective which I will check out in the passage and see if it holds true.

Taking time to be a good Berean...

obeytheword
Feb 18th 2008, 07:26 PM
Yet he uses the creation account to justify his position - you can't pick and choose (as I suspect you are doing) what parts of Paul's writings are inspired and waht are not - they're ALL inspired and are in fact God's commands to us:-

"If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord." 1 Cor 14:37 ESV

The creation account was very obviously used to specifically address gnosticism that was present in strong form in Ephesus. One of the beliefs present there was that Eve was the illuminator, and that the serpent spoke "truth" to her, etc. There is a whole lot more to it, but the creation account was specifically to address that. To work against the Gnosticism beliefs.

Be Blessed!

Codger
Feb 18th 2008, 07:50 PM
The creation account was very obviously used to specifically address gnosticism that was present in strong form in Ephesus. One of the beliefs present there was that Eve was the illuminator, and that the serpent spoke "truth" to her, etc. There is a whole lot more to it, but the creation account was specifically to address that. To work against the Gnosticism beliefs.

Be Blessed!


1 Tim. 2:12-15 (KJV)
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. [15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Frank Viola in his book titled, “The untold story of the New Testament Church'” tells of the historical situation in Ephesus where Timothy was assigned. I have edited down his comments to just those of womens issues – they were very severe.

Timothy and Paul were dealing with a kind of pre-Gnostic heresy that had come into the church via the male teachers. According to gnosticism, full salvation comes through special knowledge – gnosis – that only the initiated possess. In Ephesus this is what they were teaching...

Eve is both a mediator and redeemer figure who preexisted Adam.
Man came into existence because of a woman, and he was given enlightenment through the woman. Since Eve was the first to take a bite from the Tree of Knowledge, she is the bearer of special spiritual knowledge (called gnosis).
Women are called to lead people to the illuminating gnosis, which was represented by the Tree of Knowledge. Redemption completely reversed the effects of the fall so that men are no longer subject to earthly authorities and women are no longer subject to their husbands. Those accepting this heresy preferred the leadership of women over men. Male teachers were the first to spread this heresy in Ephesus. But it finds fertile ground among the women in the Church. Remember that the first and second century Churches were home cell groups. It was impossible to address the Church all at one time. Actually women who had opened their homes to the Church had a lot of control over the cell groups in that day.

The homes of the Ephesian women provide a network by which the heresy is spread rapidly through gossip, Some of the women are teaching the heresy in the Church meetings and are lording it over (dominating) the men. They have also accepted the ideals of the “new woman” [which was the Roman equivalent of “womens lib.”] They are dressing in an immodest and exploitive way (like that of prostitutes) and are defying other accepted norms regarding marriage and family.

There is also a problem with respect to how the widows are being cared for in the Church. Some of the widows have adopted the heresy and others have family members who are able to care for them. Still worse, some of the younger widows who decided not to remarry are acting promiscuously.

Consequently, Timothy wants to know which widows the Church ought to be responsible for. Paul wants to go back to Ephesus – but he cannot – he writes the pastoral epistle of 1 Timothy to address all these problems of which this post has not recorded all of them. In any case the situation with the women in particular was very grave and out of control.

Any one doing an in depth study of this topic may want to read the book "I suffer not a woman". It has good historic background and a thorough look at the passage of 1Timothy 2:11 15.The authors are Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger.

One of the difficulties with the interpretation of the afore mentioned scripture is the Greek word "Authentein" (To dominate or rule over). It is only used once in the Bible so there is no frame of reference for this word inside of scripture. Words change in meaning over the years and this is a point in Kroger's book. They believe -as does Viola - that this passage was written in answer to heretical Gnostic error, which was invading the Church.

Here is an edited comment based on Kroegers Book.

“In light of the authentic meaning of the word "authentein" and of the social context within which Paul wrote his letters to Timothy, let me offer what I believe is an appropriate rendering of the text in Timothy. I believe Paul is saying, "I am not allowing (present tense for that situation) a woman to teach or to proclaim herself the originator of man (authentein)." Do you see how this translation offsets false doctrine?

The word that is frequently translated "silence," "hesuchia", also means harmony, peace, conformity or agreement. I therefore suggest Paul goes on to say, "she must be in agreement," meaning agreement with the scriptures and with sound teaching in the Church.

He continues in this vein saying, "Adam was formed first then Eve." This statement militates against the doctrine of Eve as progenitor. He also says "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was! And sinned!" This statement directly contradicts the notion that Eve was the "illuminator," and carrier of new revelation (gnosis).

This translation is the most legitimate because it fits the social context, is true to the Greek, speaks to the troubled situation, and lines up perfectly with all of Paul's other teachings and practices concerning women.”

Conclusion: Paul was addressing this gnostic heresy in the Ephesian Church and if you take it literally - as a lot of people do - it suppresses women unjustly and out of the exclusive context of the Ephesian situation in Paul's day. It is also contradictory to the attitude of Paul throughout his days of ministry as he always saw women as his co-laborers in the Lord.

In closing - Dr. Paul Yonggi Cho is the pastor of the largest church in the world. He said that his ministry would not be what it is today were it not for his mother-in-law and for women who were willing to pastor the many cell groups of which his church consists. He claims that 6,000 women were leading cell groups before he found the first man who was willing to do the task.
>
>

Mograce2U
Feb 19th 2008, 03:38 AM
Codger:

Conclusion: Paul was addressing this gnostic heresy in the Ephesian Church and if you take it literally - as a lot of people do - it suppresses women unjustly and out of the exclusive context of the Ephesian situation in Paul's day. It is also contradictory to the attitude of Paul throughout his days of ministry as he always saw women as his co-laborers in the Lord.

In closing - Dr. Paul Yonggi Cho is the pastor of the largest church in the world. He said that his ministry would not be what it is today were it not for his mother-in-law and for women who were willing to pastor the many cell groups of which his church consists. He claims that 6,000 women were leading cell groups before he found the first man who was willing to do the task.You just undid your conclusion with your closing. If Cho is to be our example we are in big trouble!

Codger
Feb 19th 2008, 03:41 AM
Codger:
You just undid your conclusion with your closing. If Cho is to be our example we are in big trouble!

How is that? The message here is that women are second class citizens in the kingdom, but are doing more than their share of the work.

Larry

Mograce2U
Feb 19th 2008, 04:07 AM
How is that? The message here is that women are second class citizens in the kingdom, but are doing more than their share of the work.

LarryCho is a false teacher and a heretic. The fact that he can employ 100's of women in his cause shows us how easily women can be led astray!

threebigrocks
Feb 19th 2008, 05:55 PM
Women are a vital part of the church, much is done by women. Being the pastor is not one of those many things.

jtalexanderiv
Feb 19th 2008, 07:48 PM
Women are a vital part of the church, much is done by women. Being the pastor is not one of those many things.

Again that depends on what tradition you are a part of, the Anglican Church (a Protestant denomination), does have women pastors, but we call them priest or priestess, usually mother.

threebigrocks
Feb 19th 2008, 08:01 PM
Again that depends on what tradition you are a part of, the Anglican Church (a Protestant denomination), does have women pastors, but we call them priest or priestess, usually mother.

Denomination has nothing to do with it. What scripture says has everything to do with it.

RobbieP
Feb 19th 2008, 08:36 PM
Denomination has nothing to do with it. What scripture says has everything to do with it.


AMEN! The bible makes it quite clear a husband to one wife. This is a classic sign of the times...justiification with worldly knowledge as opposed to what the Word says. Traditions do not matter one iota, no more than the fact that there are no men to lead. If you end up doing it then you end up doing it, but we can't justify it and say it is okay. We are not following our Lord if we do it...

God is the one setting the guidelines. Some things are left to interpretation in the Word...but this one is clear.

I saw the example of the woman leading the house spiritually because the man would not. It may be the woman does, but it does not make the man any less accountable in God's eyes...just as in the church. I daresay, if a church finds themselves in a position where there are no men to lead than I would seek God's direction as to why this is the case.
Sorry for getting passionate about this...I'm a women's libber from way back and will fight today for the same pay for the same job...but when it comes to what the Lord directs...after much heartache..I've learned He says what He means and means what He says!

..I'm sticking with him...

A woman does play a very mportant role in our churches as Titus 3 lays out clearly. And we can be helpers in everything ....What a blessing to be a helper..I was in a church once where the women weren't allowed to help in ways that would have been appropriate and I was greatly saddened by that and frustrated since I was one of the women anxious. We can do many many good things in the church...

But the men should lead.

jtalexanderiv
Feb 19th 2008, 11:07 PM
My point is that many Churches do allow women to be pastors, my point is not do you think it is right or not. It does happen some how the Methodist, Assembly of God, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Lutheran Churches all find it acceptable. You may not like it but they obivisly can be pastors and leaders in the Church. Now if you think they should be or not be a pastor is a totally different issue.

threebigrocks
Feb 20th 2008, 02:16 AM
My point is that many Churches do allow women to be pastors, my point is not do you think it is right or not. It does happen some how the Methodist, Assembly of God, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Lutheran Churches all find it acceptable. You may not like it but they obivisly can be pastors and leaders in the Church. Now if you think they should be or not be a pastor is a totally different issue.

Well, as scripture, not I says, they ought not be.

The Parson
Feb 20th 2008, 02:43 AM
Can I ask a couple of questions here? If the scriptures said plainly that a woman could pastor we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Right?

Second question, if the pastor is the one in authority over the congregation and also teaches, is anyone scripturally disqualified from doing that?

Codger
Feb 20th 2008, 03:47 AM
Cho is a false teacher and a heretic. The fact that he can employ 100's of women in his cause shows us how easily women can be led astray!

You seem to find it easy to speak harshly about those God loves.

Mograce2U
Feb 20th 2008, 04:30 AM
You seem to find it easy to speak harshly about those God loves.And I got a warning for it too which is why I didn't come back - figured my comment would die a natural death...

tgallison
Feb 21st 2008, 03:09 AM
Again that depends on what tradition you are a part of, the Anglican Church (a Protestant denomination), does have women pastors, but we call them priest or priestess, usually mother.

I guess it would be all right to call them mother, they would be excluded from this verse.

Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

terrell

9Marksfan
Feb 21st 2008, 10:51 AM
Can I ask a couple of questions here? If the scriptures said plainly that a woman could pastor we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Right?

Are you suggesting they do?


Second question, if the pastor is the one in authority over the congregation and also teaches, is anyone scripturally disqualified from doing that?

Yes - women! And actually it's the elders that should be in authority - not a one man band!

The Parson
Feb 21st 2008, 02:11 PM
Are you suggesting they do?Me??? Uh, no.


Yes - women! And actually it's the elders that should be in authority - not a one man band!Lets not go down that road.

Mystery Guest
Feb 22nd 2008, 05:36 AM
1Tm:2:

11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Tm:3:8:
: 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 behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)


10: And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11: Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12: Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


Folks , I have read and re-read these posts . I believe that God intended men to be in the leadership positions of the church (deacons,preachers , elders and teachers of other men ) and that Paul was reiterating that to Timothy .

I have heard many great women speakers and teachers . I have never felt , according to the scriptures that it was right for a woman to preach . Possibly to a group of women , but she is not to be in a position of leadership over the man .

I don't believe we need to re-interpret every word of this scripture . To me it is clear that we , ladies , have many jobs to do in the church , but I do not believe preaching is one of them .

This scripture , as all other , was given by the inspiration of He the Holy Spirit . We need to take ALL of the word , speak where the scripture speaks and be silent where it is silent . If it was intended for women to preach , I believe it would be clearly stated .

Y'all wanna go back to verse 9 ?

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

I do like my jewelry .:blush: Now , is it wrong to wear it ? Sure hope not .... Reckon it means to excess ...? Doesn't say that though, does it ? :(

Because of Christ ,
Mystery Guest

Athanasius
Feb 22nd 2008, 05:48 AM
Yet he uses the creation account to justify his position - you can't pick and choose (as I suspect you are doing) what parts of Paul's writings are inspired and waht are not - they're ALL inspired and are in fact God's commands to us:-

"If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord." 1 Cor 14:37 ESV

I'm not picking a choosing, I'm pointing out Paul's use of words. Peter (I believe in 2 Peter) says that Paul's writings are as inspired as the writings of Moses--I happen to agree.

But with that said, I do believe women, if they are called by God, can be pastors. But it's not something I particularly want to get 'into' with anyone here.

9Marksfan
Feb 22nd 2008, 10:56 AM
I'm not picking a choosing, I'm pointing out Paul's use of words. Peter (I believe in 2 Peter) says that Paul's writings are as inspired as the writings of Moses--I happen to agree.

So you accept that 1 Tim 2:12 is inspired?


But with that said, I do believe women, if they are called by God, can be pastors.

But God doesn't contradict himself! Pastors must teach men!


But it's not something I particularly want to get 'into' with anyone here.

So why did you post? Did you not expect us to reply?!? :confused

Mograce2U
Feb 22nd 2008, 03:59 PM
Hi Mystery Guest, #62 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1548059&postcount=62)
Later on in his letter to Timothy, Paul does give women a realm in which they are to rule - their own households. If that task is taken to its fullness, we will see the Proverbs 31 wife in view. This godly wife is a co-ruler with her husband whose job is in the gates. That is akin to a man who is an elder/bishop in the church. And we see that she shares his good judgment in the matters of their household as he does with the people in the community. This is the kind of team that Paul is talking about.

Timothy is in charge of a new church and must pick godly men to assist him - like Moses did with the 70 elders. Men whose qualifications are not founded from experience in ruling in the churches but in the community and their own homes.

I mentioned it before, but where is Timothy to find a woman who can give the same evidence of that? If a woman is in charge of the home, where will she find the time to preside over and teach in the churches, except her husband assume her role at home for her? I suppose if they are wealthy then she could hire someone to do that job, but ruling over servants and children is an even bigger job. Anyway, my point is that teaching her children well is a large enough responsibility already!

The Parson
Feb 22nd 2008, 04:37 PM
1Tm:2:

11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Tm:3:8:
: 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 behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)


10: And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11: Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12: Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


Folks , I have read and re-read these posts . I believe that God intended men to be in the leadership positions of the church (deacons,preachers , elders and teachers of other men ) and that Paul was reiterating that to Timothy .

I have heard many great women speakers and teachers . I have never felt , according to the scriptures that it was right for a woman to preach . Possibly to a group of women , but she is not to be in a position of leadership over the man .

I don't believe we need to re-interpret every word of this scripture . To me it is clear that we , ladies , have many jobs to do in the church , but I do not believe preaching is one of them .

This scripture , as all other , was given by the inspiration of He the Holy Spirit . We need to take ALL of the word , speak where the scripture speaks and be silent where it is silent . If it was intended for women to preach , I believe it would be clearly stated .

Y'all wanna go back to verse 9 ?

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

I do like my jewelry .:blush: Now , is it wrong to wear it ? Sure hope not .... Reckon it means to excess ...? Doesn't say that though, does it ? :(

Because of Christ ,
Mystery GuestI reckon anything to excess short of the love of God could be a bad thing sis.