Is it okay for women to preach but not pastor?

Nope. But you do bring to light a good point.

I am not making up any extra-biblical restrictions for women.

I don't see anywhere in scripture where men cannot wear pants. I do see a direct command that women are not to teach nor exercise authority over men. That scripture means something. You cannot simply discard it because you don't like the implications.

I am looking at both. You are using your view of the forest to justify discarding a tree... that happens not to be under your authority to cut.

Please cite where I have stated any kind of legalism over dress... or stop posting falsehoods.

You aresuggesting something unbiblical. You are suggesting that women are able to usurp authority over men and teach them in a way that is contradictory to scripture.

If not then please tell me what your argument is with me. I have said that women can evangelize men (preach the gospel message). I have said that women may have a role in privately discipling men.

However, they cannot exercise authority over men nor can they teach men while staying within the bounds of God's expressed will.

That is absolutely ridiculous... and has nothing whatsoever to do with the direct, plain command of scripture concerning the acceptable roles of women.

That's right. I am not.

Biblical principles concerning dress and appearance use specific instances to establish principles. The contexts of those various scriptures bear this out as you find the bits and pieces indicating what the dress was like at various places and times. The principle is modesty. Or maybe even more to the point, a Christian's appearance shouldn't identify them with groups that behave in ungodly ways.

The scripture concerning women's roles in the church relating to men isn't general nor narrow in scope. It is very specific and supported through the whole of scripture by command and example.

Pants are not forbidden in the NT. Women teaching and exercising authority over men is.

All you are doing is trying to evade by changing the subject. If you have a real argument based in the scripture then present it.

Not necessary. It is only necessary to agree with God in an imperfect world.

gb, Without knowing more of the specifics, this could be an instance where the command was not violated. How did she train them, publicly or privately? Why didn't she bring men in once converts were made or else send the new believers to men?

Experience does not = scripture.

God acts according to His Word.

Nor am I. He stated the means and methods He uses in His Word.

And I have consistently NOT said that they couldn't. Women served as witnesses to men for Christ in the NT. Women did not act as spiritual leaders and teachers of men in the NT- moreover they were specifically forbidden from doing so.

 

I think gb is trying to make a link between things that most of us would reject and my contention that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. The reasoning isn't sound. Basically, he is arguing that since I don't assume by extension that every action or behavior in the NT is legally binding in detail rather than principle then I shouldn't accept the literal, contextual meaning of the command in question.

Or else, maybe gb is just trying to change the subject since the scripture is clearly against him.

Either way, you are right. It is a diversion from the real matter of the thread.

 

That thing about men preaching and women remaining silent was before God created microphones. Now women have the ability to speak up and be heard.



I'm just kidding. Is the Biship in the Bible the same thing as a pastor?

I Timothy 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 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?)

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

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.

I personally don't think women should be police officers or firefighters. Police officers have several ways of controlling a suspect who is agressive and combative:

1. They have their own human strength, which usually works.

2. They have asps (telescoping nightsticks) that requires their human strength (I can't even open the thing with my strength).

3. They have pepper spray, which many times fails to work on someone who is high on meth and other street drugs (narcotics control pain...if they don't feel pain, they can't be stopped without hands-on human strength).

4. Then there's the gun, which is used as a last resort.

5. Of course, there is also the canine, but that only happens if the officer happens to be a canine officer. The canines are trained to listen to his master's voice only (pity the man who knocks down an officer after he has commanded the canine to attack...the canine won't stop until his master , and his master only, gives the command.)

If a suspect is racing toward an officer with an obvious motive to attack, the officer has to rely on his strength to control the man unless it is obvious there is no other way to control him than to use the last resort. If the suspect has a gun, of course, the officer has no other option than to use his first.

I asked my husband, "what happens if one of the tiny lady officers are about to be attacked by a man your size?" He quickly replied without hesitation, "She shoots him".

So, basically, because a woman cannot physically handle a medium-build sized man, he dies (they are trained to aim for the chest...not the arm or leg like the tv shows indicate). I know, I know, the man shouldn't attack an officer anyway, he shouldn't have taken drugs or whatever. But the point is, the gun is supposed to be used as a last resort. But in a woman's case, the last resort is the first resort if her gunbelt looks larger than she, which in many many cases it does.

I wouldn't want a woman carrying my husband out of a burning building. He'd better learn to jump before that happens (or be too unconscious to remember).

In many states, the criterea for passing the firefighters agility test is different for women. Their rules are more slack for a female because medical science tells us that women are not usually as strong as a man (don't ask about female bodybuilders...they look like freaks of nature). But, people are not going to diet and lose 50 lbs before a fire begins just so she can do her job.

I wonder how many people die because the female firefighter is too weak to carry the victim? Or how many people die because a female officer can't handle the strength? There will probably be no stats publicised simply because too many people would cry "sexist".

By the way, I'm not a sexist. I just happen to believe people should be able to do their jobs effectively without risking others' lives. Hey! If a man is too weak to be a firefighter/police officer, he shouldn't be in uniform, either.

OTOH, in some cases, they do need women: for instance, when another woman has to be frisked, they call for a female backup. But they are required to do all the work a male officer does.

My opinion does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Baptistboard.

[ June 06, 2005, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: nobodyspecial ]

 

My point is that we can take one verse and build an entire doctrine around it not consistent with the character of God. The character of God is known by his love as expressed in the gospel of Christ. His love extends to very person on the globe. God will use whatever he wishes to reach the lost. To assume a man is the only person who can knock on a door and lead someone to Christ is foolish. Is that exercising authority over a man? Some would say. "Yes." I would say, "No." If I could have things my way every ministry would be led by men. Every Sunday School leader teaching boys ten and above would be led by men. Now I do not for one minute think it is best to have a woman pastoring a church for many practical reasons as well as theological. But I cannot escape the fact that women have started churches going back many, many years around the world. I cannot escape the fact what some of those women have said when they moved men into leadership to lead. I cannot think of any churches that began with women, who pastored the church but did train the men to lead. So if you call that having authority over men. Okay. But God still used those obedient women. It it is hard to skirt the idea that God has and continues to use men in situations where men initially would not be welcomed. Then God will use those women to reach the men and then when that happens the men become the leaders. Call it what you will. But it does happen and God uses it.

All of us know many cases where the wife has been directly responsible for the husband coming to Christ and the husband learn from the wife until he begins to lead.

One of the finest churches my wife and I attended was started by two women. That church did not believe women should be pastors and neither did the two women who started the church. I knew one of the ladies who started the church about WWII. She was a single lady at the time and there was a need for a local church. She and another lady trained the first man that came along. It was rather funny the way she told the story. She said something to the idea that during the week we told him what to say and on Sunday we propped him up.

 

You have yet to establish that what I have contended is not consistent with the character of God as revealed in scripture.

No. The knowledge of God's character is not limited to the love expressed in the gospel of Christ. The whole of scripture reveals God and His character.

For His purposes, not mine and not yours, spiritual roles for men and women have been defined.

This doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. God loves many people male and female that He didn't choose to make a prophet or Apostle out of.

Why do you keep trying to set up this straw man? No one here that I have seen has argued that women cannot share the gospel with men.

No more than handing a starving man a piece of bread or throwing a life line to a drowning man.

It isn't a matter of your way, my way, or what way seems from a human perspective to have worked. It is a matter of what God said.

God does use evil and sin to accomplish His ultimate will. However that doesn't empower us to give our OK, interpret scripture by experience, or ignore a direct teaching of the Bible.

I believe that there are probably genuinely born again people going to churches pastored by women. I think it is sin and that they are disobedient on this matter but I don't contend the practical reality of the situation.

Yes. There are also cases where the wife is just more spiritual and knowledgeable than the husband. It is always a difficult balancing act for the wife to influence the husband in these situations while remaining submissive to his spiritual headship over her.

 

Scott,
On another thread the posters seem pretty well agreed that no Scripture forbids a woman from secular leadership.
How would you explain the REASON that women are not to teach men in the church? Inability that goes away outside the church?
Most on the BB usually just say, "Well, that's not church", in regards to anything literally outside the church door, including the BB. But a hundred years ago, that distinction was not usually made.
What is God actually demonstrating by such a requirement, do you think, that is not necessary to demonstrate in the secular world?
I don't often hear it explained very well.

Karen

 

The Lord doesn't always explain WHY He seems to want us to do things a certain way. For instance, ten percent of our income is quite a chunk of change to give up every paycheck. And yet, we forget to realize that the Lord gives us 90% of that through our health, ability to work (my husband's, in my case...I'm a WAH Mom...and that doesn't mean I whine to my husband for money )

Couldn't it be possible that the reason men are supposed to be the preachers is NOT because women are unable to preach (we can certainly bellow out the words when we want to be heard)...but rather because men...or many men...are unable to listen to a woman speak. Perhaps men can't focus on a woman speaker because thoughts run through his mind or he can't consentrate.

OK, take this out of church and in the normal life: Man goes to work and listens to other men all day. He gets things done. But before he gets to work, woman makes breakfast and man sits behind the newspaper and grunts when woman tries to talk.

Even without the paper or similar distraction in hand...the man can look straight at her, his mind wanders, yet something inside that head...some sort of survival instinct...tells him to "keep nodding" and every so often throw in a few phrases like "yes Dear" and "Of course I'm listening". This survival instinct also retains every last few sentences that slowly disolve into nothingness as her new sentences are being retained JUST in case she asks, "What did I just say?"

He returns home, after accomplishing all kinds of tasks involving other men, and then he's back to grunting and nodding. He understands throwing objects around, such as a ball or frisbee...which could account for the sudden sit-up-and-take-notice reaction to plates flying through the air. But soon he's back to nodding and retaining last sentences for those on-the-spot pop quizes: "If you were really listening, WHERE did I say I was going tomorrow...and WHO am I going WITH?"

On the other hand, the Bible states that women can learn under the instruction of both man and woman because we know how to listen. Women didn't stick objects up their noses and bump heads with other boys while playing with trucks on the floor and making "Vroom! Vroom!" sounds when they were little. They played quietly on the couch with dolls...talking to them...learning to communicate with inanimate objects...which would one day prove to be practice for speaking with their husbands....and children, who are going "vroom! Vroom!" on the floor with their trucks.

So, back in the church auditorium, men can relate to men, while women can understand both men AND women. While it may SEEM that women are put down in the Bible, maybe the Lord was just trying to be nice. He wanted the men to feel good about themselves, and He knew we would understand.



I'm not trying to manbash. I'm just trying to point out that there could be another reason the Lord wants things done a certain way other than what may seem to us as the obvious. I'm just trying to say...hey!...wait a minute...what am I apologizing to the men for? They aren't listening.


Oh YEAH? If you WERE listening, what did I just say?

[ June 07, 2005, 06:15 AM: Message edited by: nobodyspecial ]

 

I would agree. There are scriptural examples of business and political leaders who were women. While the rule for Israel was male leadership (Deborah being an possible exception), female leaders of other nations that were not theocracies or of businesses were not condemned.

Basically because God said so.

The Church and Christian marriages are God instituted, God governed, and God designed. They are spiritual relationships.

It isn't a matter of ability. It is a matter of God-established order.

I personally know of several Christian homes where the wife has more innate talent and spiritual maturity than the husband. In the cases where the wife has asserted herself and tried to assume the lead, problems occurred.

Rebellion against the God established order of relationships within a church will produce failure as well.

That is true... and 400 years ago most of western civilization accepted the church-state union and the divine appointment of rulers.

I don't. But there is probably a case that could be made in favor of Christian men refusing to serve under women.

Lydia was a merchant. It is possible but not likely that she had men working for her or in the very least dealt with them equally in a trading environment.

 

My pastor said that preaching the gospel or being a teacher isn't the same as being up at the pulpit sermonizing. There's a difference.

 

Let me ask you some things Scott.

Do you do intercessory prayer for the Kings and everyone in authority, even those you didn't vote for?

Do you lift up your hands in prayer?

Do you think that giving birth will save a woman?

Do you treat older women in your church like mothers, and younger women in your church like sisters?

Do you drink a little wine?

... All of these things are also instructions in Timothy.

My pastor used to say, "If men would lead in the church; women wouldn't be so tempted to try to fill the void."

 

Scott J

If you were to take your position absolutely then you should not have any women teaching any Sunday school or leading anything with boys ten years and older. In the OT and NT time period that was reserved for the rabbis. To do so would violate your principal of interpreting scripture. That is the context of the time period of the NT and OT. I would assume there are no women in your church teaching any boys 10 and up?

I attended a church for several years and was married in that same church that actually held to that position and it worked very well. There was very strong godly evangelistic leadership in that church.

Isn't it in the same letter where he writes, "No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." Then he also writes in same letter to Timothy some instructions, " But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

I assume you disobey Pauls orders to Timothy about wine and then obey those about women? Why?

[ June 07, 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

 

I have two questions pertinent to this thread. Please understand that both are asked respectfully, since I desire knowledge and NOT an argument.

1) is for ScottJ. He posted:
"There are also cases where the wife is just more spiritual and knowledgeable than the husband. It is always a difficult balancing act for the wife to influence the husband in these situations while remaining submissive to his spiritual headship over her." In your opinion, what IS the biblical way to achieve this balance? Yes, I realize prayer and study. But SPECIFICALLY, how can I apply this to my personal situation? I have a husband who is both a spiritual INFANT--and I MEAN infant--AND who has a head injury. This makes it all but impossible for him to be ANY kind of "leader" in our little family. Yet I want to encourage and support him, and look to him as "head of the family" as much as is possible. HOW DO I DO THIS?

2) is "in general". In another thread (regarding tongues), I believe it was DHK (sorry if I'm wrong here) who said that the time during which the scripture indicated the use of tongues had ended (or something of that intent). Tongues are no longer necessary because, essentially "times have changed". WHY IS THIS NOT TRUE WITH WOMEN TEACHING MEN? If the use of tongues is no longer applicable (which I agree with, BTW), then why is the admonition against women teaching men not ALSO inapplicable in modern times? Women of today have as much education as men. In my case, I have MORE education (spiritual and secular) than my husband...and almost EVERY other man I know. The few notable exceptions being the men who own the company that employs me (they are all deacons in their respective churches and most have college educations), my father, and my brother (who is an ordained minister). I am asking here for scriptural reasoning--not attempting to insert my own "opinion" on the matter. Is the original Greek phrased in such a way that the one reference (tongues) could be considered to be "time-relative", while the other (women teaching men) could not?

 

I see no Scripture in the New Testament where God calls women to preach or pastor.

 

Scripture doesn't call anyone to use a flush toilet either or drive a car.

Isn't preaching different than pastoring? Not every preacher pastors. But one who is a pastor-teacher preaches and pastors. I would assume you agree Billy Graham preaches but he does not pastor.

So you don't believe women should proclaim the gospel? Is that not what scripture refers to as preaching in Romans 10:14-15, "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!".

 

I have no problem with the concept that women should not Pastor or even preach from the pulpit. I have a tremendous problem with what Scott said about refusing to have a female Sunday School teacher or even reading a book by a female Christian author.

Scott's words come across as prejudice and demeaning and arrogant.

Statistics show that the majority of early bible teaching in homes is done by the mother. By Scott's words, we Mom's should just forget that with our sons. Look around your own church. Who tends to the nursery, the preschool, the children's choirs, the youth groups, the vacation bible schools? Men aren't doing it, and Scott's theory is that women should either stop or let the boys flounder on their own.

The excuse for men NOT doing it, when I was young, was that they worked all day. Well, no days, so do the women.

If you men step up to the plate and do the day-to-day, nitty-gritty, and work with the young men, we women won't have to.

 

Yes. Especially Bill Clinton who I was quite tempted to hate.

I will study the meaning of that TS. It is something I have overlooked and never heard preached on. Thanks.

In the context in which it was written, yes. But it was not written concerning eternal redemption.

To a pretty good degree, yes. I respect them.

Only when I need it in my medicine to take care of an illness.

And?

I absolutely agree with your pastor. However the sins of men in failing to lead does not justify the sins of women in teaching or usurping authority over men.

 

Ten seems arbitrary. But I do take it absolutely because I have yet to see anyone respectfully, legitimately deal with the text and show that it means anything other than what it says in context.

Only among the Jews... and Paul dealt with judaizers to the extent that I believe if he didn't affirm something to be carried over then it was not to be carried over. He didn't affirm this teaching arrangement. He did affirm the role of women concerning adult male believers.

Nope. I am more interested in dealing with what scripture does say than what it doesn't say.

That has nothing to do with the direct command in question and its continuing context.

As a matter of fact, we don't. But I have never objected to a woman teaching even teenage boys... though it seems to take a pretty strong woman to do so.

You caught me. I use Nyquil when my sinuses won't let me sleep.

We also feed our dog kool-aid and Vodka to counterattack anti-freeze poisoning... that counts doesn't it?

You assumed wrong. Alcohol has medicinal value. Paul's, thus God's, command concerning women is clear and specific.