All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
Women leaders in church in a different light
My question is...
If women are not to lead in church who will? Look around the congregation. How many wives sit alone with unsaved husbands at home?
My pastor pointed this out once. Said marriage and society both suffer because of weak men who don't teach Godliness in their homes.
Views: 989
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Colby on
-
This oft-quoted New Testament verse below seems to be at the crux of the matter.
I do not permit a woman to teach
or to exercise authority
over a man;
rather,
she is to remain quiet.
- Was Paul addressing a particular situation in a specific setting in response to Timothy, or was his a blanket proclamation applicable to all situations in all times and in all cultures?
- What does the whole of Scripture say concerning the role of women in the ministry, teaching and church leadership?
- Was Paul addressing a particular situation in a specific setting in response to Timothy, or was his a blanket proclamation applicable to all situations in all times and in all cultures?
-
Permalink Reply by Leonard T on
-
Q1a: Particular situation or blanket proclamation?
When you include verse 13 and 14 it is IMO impossible to link it to a single setting, but rather is a teaching at large.
Q1b: Is it a cultural issue that is irrelevant today?
Most people do not like "rules" for interpretation, especially when it crosses their personal views. We have to be very careful about using the cultural card in this or any other instance. We must be careful to not use the "cultural card" with out specified reason for it being a cultural issue. How do we do that? First thing we do not do is look at today's culture and try to bend the Scripture to align with today. That would be man altering God's Word instead of man being altered by God's Word. We cannot let heart bias lead the way either. So, what is the criteria? God's Word is the final word. If there are no statements in the passage or in other passages that alter the original intent then it must stand. Three examples of something changing can be found in Mark 7:9; Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10:1-10. I would add a word of caution regarding the culture card. It is too easy for man to take control of God's Word under the guise of the culture card leading to man's will being played out instead of God's. If we are to ere it ought to be on the side of caution not preference.
Q2: What does Scripture say?
Using the two primary exhortations given regarding elders and deacons found in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 read with out current bias, but only as written we must conclude that elders and deacons are men. The use of husband and wife are specific and placed in a specific order. At this point we must make a distinction regarding Scripture. Do we believe that Titus and 1 Timothy were written by Paul or by the Holy Spirit thru Paul. If by Paul, then we could assume he was working within the norms of the day. If by the Holy Spirit (my position), understanding that the Bible is God's Word that He knew would be used for generations to come, we have to conclude He knew the future and would use specific language that would suffice for various generations and that this language would not be later up for debate as to what does He mean by it now.
A further thought:
Some will quickly point to the hair issues regarding length and covering in Scripture and point to how that has changed today. Before we use that as a standard we must ask ourselves a hard question. Has it changed because God changed it or did man change it and the church in this area is not in alignment with Him today ... food for thought.
These are my thoughts on this issue. (and, yes, it is good to see you here :-)
Lord Bless,
LT
-
Permalink Reply by Seek on
-
This brings up a whole other discussion for me...
What is scripture?
Jesus spoke often of it being written in scripture. So this is scripture that existed prior to Jesus. Now while all of it is useful, like Colby said...was this written in the context of men? Even Paul suggests none marry (completely against be fruitful and multiply) but he also said that was HIS preference and not from God. Since we know some things weren't mentioned, IE which women were at the tomb? 1, 2, 3? The first 4 NT books are 4 accounts from 4 different perspectives. So what if Paul qualified the marriage preference but Timothy failed to qualify leader preference? They were men in an age where women were to remain silent (not just not in leadership) but they were told not to even speak in church. Yet Jesus never gave that commandment.
-
-
Scripture is the recorded Word of God. Tomb issue is a non-issue in that one need not add every name to be correct, but only add that which applied to the subject at hand.
I would disagree that they are four different perspectives, but rather they each have a specific purpose.
God breathed or inspired relates to the understanding that what is in Scripture is exactly what God intended. He guided the authors to record what He intended to have recorded for the ages. Take note that in Scripture that sometimes others speak, such as Satan or Job's friends. They are there for us to learn from, but we would not build a doctrine on something that they said.
There are a lot of things that Jesus did not say personally but that does not make them any less Scriptural and binding.
If someone believes that Timothy or others left something out then Scripture is in error and no longer trustworthy.
To ask if t was written in the context of men is no different than questioning if it is a cultural teaching. I do not believe that to be the case. It was word perfect with full knowledge of God that it would be being read 2000 years later.
-
-
If someone believes that Timothy or others left something out then Scripture is in error and no longer trustworthy.
Why should that make it untrustworthy? I disagree that how many were at the tomb is a non issue. It shows us that each recounted events as they saw them take place. And they are each from a different persons perspective yet it doesn't make the Word untrustworthy. And neither does it do so that Paul or Timothy wrote from their perspective.
To ask if t was written in the context of men is no different than questioning if it is a cultural teaching. I do not believe that to be the case. It was word perfect with full knowledge of God that it would be being read 2000 years later.
Then I will need to ask how the church can pick and choose?
1 Corinthians 14:34
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.
When we say women are not permitted to preach it is because the Bible says they cannot lead and that pertains to the current tines. When we say they can teach we determine that's ok, that it is not the same as leading. Yet when scripture says women are not to even speak, we say that was only written to Corinth because of disorder going on there and so don't make women keep silent today.
I'm reading scripture for truth and not what is taught yet it is the same with tithing. Each side uses scripture to make their point. And each point can sound good. Such as here. Some churches allow for women preaching because they say that was written for that time and church. Others say no to that yet it's OK if they speak as only that was written for that time and church. That type of division because of people set in beliefs is what hinders complete unity in the faith isn't it? And no matter the argument made by either, neither side will see any good points made by the other. We all have a tendency to pick and choose the way we read and apply scripture, don't we?
My church allows women deacons and preachers. If it weren't for a woman evangelist that God directed to speak to me, I may never have given my heart to the Lord. Yet a local church at which I attended a seminar on special needs children is completely against women preaching. Yet women are the majority of the teachers. And teach classes that men sit in on. Is there any "Scriptural" reasoning for this?
-
-
Seek,
Why should that make it untrustworthy? I disagree that how many were at the tomb is a non issue. It shows us that each recounted events as they saw them take place. And they are each from a different persons perspective yet it doesn't make the Word untrustworthy. And neither does it do so that Paul or Timothy wrote from their perspective.
Maybe I am misreading you. If Paul (who wrote 1 Timothy) left anything out that was intended to be there then the Book is in error. Paul, nor the other writers, had the freedom to pick and choose what they included. If that were the case we would be claiming that the Word of God is not verbally inspired by God. As stated before the views of the women in the four gospels is not about perspective, but rather each gospel fulfills a specific purpose. If it is about perspective then we are trusting man to get it right, but when we claim it is verbally inspired we are trusting God (whose perspective is perfect) included what was necessary for a purpose. This view of Scripture that removes the verbal inspiration is part of the liberal vs. fundamental discussion and it makes a huge difference regarding the trustworthiness of Scripture.
Then I will need to ask how the church can pick and choose?
1 Corinthians 14:34
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.I will repeat what I said earlier:
Has it changed because God changed it or did man change it and the church in this area is not in alignment with Him today ... food for thought.
The church is not supposed to pick and choose, yet you have groups like the “Jesus Seminar” who vote on the words of Jesus found in the gospel to determine by vote whether He said it or not. You have parts of the homosexual community claiming that their lifestyle is acceptable Biblically and numerous churches have been swayed. The goal is always to be submissive to Scripture and seeking to align with it. I dare say a lot of groups out there do not seek to align with Scripture, but seek to bend Scripture to their personal view or preference.
When we say women are not permitted to preach it is because the Bible says they cannot lead and that pertains to the current tines. When we say they can teach we determine that's ok, that it is not the same as leading. Yet when scripture says women are not to even speak, we say that was only written to Corinth because of disorder going on there and so don't make women keep silent today.
What does Scripture say plainly? What does man say about Scripture? Prove that this is only a cultural teaching. The burden of proof is not on those who hold to the literal word, but rather those who claim it is cultural. Again, we cannot allow preference or current culture dictate, but rather seek out what Scripture teaches always erring on the side of caution.
Some churches allow for women preaching because they say that was written for that time and church.
OK … if that is what they believe they need to be able to support the change from Scripture. We must be very careful about applying the cultural card to any Scripture without God given clearance and not just based on, I say again, personal views, preferences and attempting to allow this worlds culture dictate to the Bible.
We all have a tendency to pick and choose the way we read and apply scripture, don't we?
I disagree. There are some basic principles laid out in Scripture regarding reading and understanding Scripture. This is called Hermeneutics. There are some dividing lines and some of the lines regarding Scripture must divide. Do we see Scripture as verbally inspired or as man had all kinds of liberties in the writing of the Word. There is a whole lot more to this, but will save it for another time. I do have issues with those who profess to be Christian and claim the Word of God is merely a history book written in the hand of man. This is what my liberal pastor taught me when I was 14 years old. It is full of errors and exaggerations.
The goal is and must always be to be in alignment with God. If we believe His Word is the authority for Christian living (life in Christ) we must seek to understand it and desire to submit to it even if we don’t like what it says.
I need to add one more thing. There is a great difference between attempting to understand a Scripture passage and misunderstanding it and one taking a clear teaching and labeling it as cultural without evidence from Scripture that it is only a teaching meant for that culture.
I know we disagree and hope we can do so without feathers getting too ruffled :-)
Lord Bless,
LT
-
Permalink Reply by Tammy on
-
LT, Amen. It is what it is. I also was once taught that many things in Corinthians were taught because of the disorder in that church alone. The more I studied it, I came to believe differently.
As far as a woman being silent in church, if you read the rest of the chapter it is about speaking in tongues. It's not that she shouldn't speak at all but she shouldn't speak in tongues in church. The Greek word is:
2980. λαλέω laléō; contracted lalṓ, fut. lalḗsō. To talk at random, as contrasted with légō (3004) which involves the intellectual part of man, his reason. It is used especially of children with the meaning of to talk much. When reference is made to those who spoke in tongues, whether foreign languages or the Corinthian unknown tongue, it is always referred to as laléō glṓssais (glṓssa [1100], tongue), to speak in tongues (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4; 1 Cor. 12:30).
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda on
-
Tammy,
I was going to mention the same thing as being my understanding regarding women being silent and speaking in tongues.
-
-
My feathers don't easily ruffle. I've in fact been asking God show me what the truth is on this. I know that wives are to submit/defer to their husbands but if it is saying women are to submit to "men", where's that leave off...men on the street, men who don't have their best interests at heart? What I'm seeing is that God made women to be a "helpmate" and not a stepping stone.
But here's what bugs me...
1 Timothy 2:12-14
But I suffer not a woman to teach , nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed , then Eve. And Adam was not deceived , but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
This is plainly Timothy's preference.
Also I take note of
Acts 18:26
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard , they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Here we see Priscilla actually teaching (or we could say reproving) Apollos along with her husband.
1 Corinthians 14:34
Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
What law? Was he speaking of a law that existed with regard to women's behavior? Some countries have laws that women cannot go in public without their faces covered. And we're told to obey the laws of the land.
Those churches that permit women to preach do provide Scriptural reference just as those who say tithing is required. And those who say women cannot preach or tithing is not required also show scripture. But it seems each chooses how to look at those scriptures. I'm looking for the words of Christ (God Himself) commanding these things and cannot find it.
1 Corinthians 7 lays out a few interesting issues. It says a husband has power over the wife's body BUT, the wife also has power over his. He says he doesn't speak this as a commandment.
Then he goes on to his views of celibacy and says thus is his desire and not the Lord's.
-
-
Well, what I would say then is you'll just have to wait until He answers. Many views have been supplied & you are still in question so it's my opinion that you won't feel satisfied until He shows you the answers you seek. That will have to be thru much prayer & searching the Scriptures more. I pray you find what answers you need. Luv u
-
-
Seek,
I've in fact been asking God show me what the truth is on this. I know that wives are to submit/defer to their husbands but if it is saying women are to submit to "men", where's that leave off...men on the street, men who don't have their best interests at heart? What I'm seeing is that God made women to be a "helpmate" and not a stepping stone.
The short answer is that the authority would go as far as Spiritual maturity and leadership are exhibited. The woman would not follow the man into a life of sin, but would follow the man who is demonstrating a growth in Christ-likeness.
1 Timothy 2:12-14
But I suffer not a woman to teach , nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed , then Eve. And Adam was not deceived , but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
This is plainly Timothy's preference.
This is not Timothy speaking, but Paul writing to Timothy. This is not a preference, but the Word of God teaching on the subject. It is not to a particular church, but one who led several churches and thus carries a universal application. Now, the best one can argue against this is that it is cultural, but in order to do so one must find within the Word of God that this is the case … otherwise we open the door to using the cultural card any time we don’t like what it says.
Also I take note of
Acts 18:26
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard , they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
Here we see Priscilla actually teaching (or we could say reproving) Apollos along with her husband.
The text says they. The husband was present, is a godly man and is involved in the discourse. My wife is a partner in ministry with me. Thus, this verse does not prove your point regarding her teaching or leading. She still operated with her husband. In fact all seven times she is mentioned in the NIV she is mentioned with her husband.
1 Corinthians 14:34
Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
What law? Was he speaking of a law that existed with regard to women's behavior? Some countries have laws that women cannot go in public without their faces covered. And we're told to obey the laws of the land.
Gil’s Commentary that you oftern refer to says: But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. In Gen_3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases.
Those churches that permit women to preach do provide Scriptural reference just as those who say tithing is required.Can you provide those Scriptural references?
And those who say women cannot preach or tithing is not required also show scripture. But it seems each chooses how to look at those scriptures. I'm looking for the words of Christ (God Himself) commanding these things and cannot find it.
This is where we differ. If Paul, Peter or one of the others used by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture say it, and it is not the repeating of what someone else said (i.e. Job’s friends, Satan, etc) or clearly marked as not the Lord, but I, then I take it as God’s Word without differentiating between whether Christ said it or the author used … it is all God’s Word. Thus, I am accused of taking what is known as a high view of Scripture and for that I simply say “Absolutely.”
1 Corinthians 7 lays out a few interesting issues. It says a husband has power over the wife's body BUT, the wife also has power over his. He says he doesn't speak this as a commandment.
Then he goes on to his views of celibacy and says thus is his desire and not the Lord's.Here he clearly differentiates and God gave him that liberty to express His opinion which God concurs with, but does not present it as a command.
Lord Bless,
LT
-
-
This is not Timothy speaking, but Paul writing to Timothy. This is not a preference, but the Word of God teaching on the subject.
Sorry got stuck on Timothy and should've said Paul. But where do find this is God teaching? Is Paul referencing something said elsewhere to know this is God teaching? If not, why didn't he say God suffers not a woman to teach?
Gil’s Commentary that you oftern refer to says: But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. In Gen_3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".
Yes I like Gil's commentaries, but he isn't any less infallible than anyone else. Such as this, he refers back to Genesis as so many do, and uses how God says a husband and wife are ordered in the household and uses that to state women were to be under the authority of any man. The two aren't speaking in the same light. They reference different matters.
Can you provide those Scriptural references?
I've already provided many scriptures within this discussion. And I've shown how I'm seeing/reading them in conjunction with other things in scripture and within their context. You too provide scripture and how you reach the differing conclusion. This is what I meant about how both use scripture to prove their point on many issues. So how is it people determine they're led and others aren't? Both feel led, both use scripture, and nothing in scripture says whether or not this referred to a particular church for a particular reason, to people in that culture with laws governing how a woman was to act, or for future generations who's laws didn't forbid women to hold positions.
The Bible also tells us to cover our heads, for slaves to obey their masters even if they beat them, but to obey the laws of the land. The laws of this land don't allow for slavery or beatings. So I'm having difficulty understanding how parts are said to pertain specially to a church or that culture while other parts aren't.
I guess Tammy has the only answer that works on this one cause I'm not seeing how differing conclusions are made from the same scriptures and not made the same for all scriptures such as head coverings and slaves.
If Paul, Peter or one of the others used by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture say it, and it is not the repeating of what someone else said (i.e. Job’s friends, Satan, etc) or clearly marked as not the Lord, but I, then I take it as God’s Word without differentiating between whether Christ said it or the author used … it is all God’s Word.
Then how do we apply that today? If two people using scripture to prove their belief both say they're ked by the spirit and both make some good points, is one of them lying? -
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
