-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is it okay for women to preach but not pastor?
- Thread starter shannonL
- Start date
PreachTREE
New Member
i have been in the audience just reading both sides for the past few days. this particular thread convinced me to be an avid reader of God's Word. it seems to me that Scott J has depended solely on Scripture rather than presuppositions and opinions--which i highly admire. Scripture is our authority and not "it sounds good, feels good" theology. Keep on Scott J!
Charles Meadows
New Member
MacArthur is certainly a credible exegete. But I think his background is more pastoral than academic. I also think MacArthur likely would let his theological presuppositions guide his view of scripture - not that that is inherently bad.
I would argue that he would do so alot less than those of you who have approached this scripture from the angle that "God couldn't possibly have meant this the way He said it for our time".
I would also disagree with your contention that he lacks academic horse power.
I would also disagree with your contention that he lacks academic horse power.
T
TexasSky
Guest
Scott,
My problem with your argument is that you are elevating one verse in Timothy and saying, "This is a command from God," while totally ignoring OTHER verses in Timothy. You are using a double standard.
I believe that only men should be Pastors of God's house.
I believe that only men should be Deacons or Elders of God House.
I believe that these men have the God given authority to choose the teachers in their churches, and if these men determine that a woman in their congregation is the person God wants to teach - then we should trust that God put the right men in leadership of the church and that these men used prayer to determine who would teach.
Physical age means absolutely NOTHING in terms of Christianity. I have seen people in their 90's come to Christ, and I have seen children who barely knew what right from wrong was come to Christ. Some of the teens know Christ better, and know more about Christ than the elderly men of the church because the teens cared enough to get to know Him and to study his word.
In that SAME light - some of the women are spiritually 90 while some of the men are newborns, and if the Pastor or Education Director or Deacons of a church say, "Let this woman teach these spiritual newborns," I believe we should trust God to guide the leaders he chose.
Regarding your use of Timothy though.
I asked you if you lift your hands in prayer.
I asked you that because, by your theories, as you have stated them, if men do NOT - they are violating a command from God.
I Timothy 2:8 "I want men everywhere tolife up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing."
Do you tell the women of your church that they are sinning if they wear their best clothing on Sunday? Paul said they were. By your interpretations of Timothy, his admonision is automatically a command from God to NOT do so.
1 Timothy 2:9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes
And one other thing.
Paul said, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." If I'm being taught the bible by a man of God who CAN teach me, I listen. I asked in another thread how people would have handled the man who went off on the "all women are harlots out to seduce you," tangent in a Sunday School class. I did NOT confront the man in Sunday School, even though I was 100% certain his message was a private tangent. I did not confront him, because I believe Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:11 were from God.
That said, there are quite a few men of God who simply can't teach me. The reason for it is that I've known the Lord for over 40 years. I've prayed, studied my bible, studied theology, studied Greek/Hebrew, worked for the Lord - - and they are teaching, "Jesus walked on the water," and I need a teacher who can show me the greater meaning of that event. They are newborns in Christ. It is no different with them that it is with my own children. When my daughter first decided to become a missionary she was very excited about all she thought she knew - until she REALLY got into God's word, and realized how little she knew. So - I tend to take the Pastor's Class. I do that because when I sit in the classes taught by some of the newborn men I have to grit my teeth to keep from correcting them - I don't have to with the Pastor. There are a million things I learn from his class, not only from him, but from the elders in the class.
However - 1 Timothy 2:12 says I do not permit a woman to teach.
Now, I've been taught by seminary professors that from time to time Paul would be careful to say, "This is Paul talking."
And it looks to me, in that verse, since he said, "I don't permit," instead of "God doesn't," that it is one of those times.
The N.I.V. translators say of that verse: "Some believe that here, Paul prohibited teaching only by women not property instructed, i.e., the women at Ephesus. Such women tended to exercise authority over, i.e., to domineer, the men. Others maintain that Paul did not allow a woman to be an official teacher in the assembled church. This is indicated by the added restriction concerning exerciging authority over a man. Paul based the restrictions on Gensis 2-3. Some argue that "for" does not express the reason for a woman's silence and submission, but rather is used as a connective word. The meaning, if used as a connective, would be that Adam's priority in creation illustrates the present situation of male priority in teaching at Ephesus, and Eve's deception illustrates the deception of untrained and aggressive Ephesian women involved in false taching. Thus the prohibition is not universal and permanent, but restricted to the individual church situation. "
Even the experts disagree on exactly what Paul meant.
One thing is clear though - you have - whether you meant to or not - by the stance you take, declared that many men of God are advocating sin in their churches because they have appointed women to teach classes in their churches that contain males over 10 years of age.
I don't think you have the right or authority to cast that kind of judgment on men based on a verse that even the experts admit they don't understand.
[ June 09, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: TexasSky ]
My problem with your argument is that you are elevating one verse in Timothy and saying, "This is a command from God," while totally ignoring OTHER verses in Timothy. You are using a double standard.
I believe that only men should be Pastors of God's house.
I believe that only men should be Deacons or Elders of God House.
I believe that these men have the God given authority to choose the teachers in their churches, and if these men determine that a woman in their congregation is the person God wants to teach - then we should trust that God put the right men in leadership of the church and that these men used prayer to determine who would teach.
Physical age means absolutely NOTHING in terms of Christianity. I have seen people in their 90's come to Christ, and I have seen children who barely knew what right from wrong was come to Christ. Some of the teens know Christ better, and know more about Christ than the elderly men of the church because the teens cared enough to get to know Him and to study his word.
In that SAME light - some of the women are spiritually 90 while some of the men are newborns, and if the Pastor or Education Director or Deacons of a church say, "Let this woman teach these spiritual newborns," I believe we should trust God to guide the leaders he chose.
Regarding your use of Timothy though.
I asked you if you lift your hands in prayer.
I asked you that because, by your theories, as you have stated them, if men do NOT - they are violating a command from God.
I Timothy 2:8 "I want men everywhere tolife up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing."
Do you tell the women of your church that they are sinning if they wear their best clothing on Sunday? Paul said they were. By your interpretations of Timothy, his admonision is automatically a command from God to NOT do so.
1 Timothy 2:9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes
And one other thing.
Paul said, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." If I'm being taught the bible by a man of God who CAN teach me, I listen. I asked in another thread how people would have handled the man who went off on the "all women are harlots out to seduce you," tangent in a Sunday School class. I did NOT confront the man in Sunday School, even though I was 100% certain his message was a private tangent. I did not confront him, because I believe Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:11 were from God.
That said, there are quite a few men of God who simply can't teach me. The reason for it is that I've known the Lord for over 40 years. I've prayed, studied my bible, studied theology, studied Greek/Hebrew, worked for the Lord - - and they are teaching, "Jesus walked on the water," and I need a teacher who can show me the greater meaning of that event. They are newborns in Christ. It is no different with them that it is with my own children. When my daughter first decided to become a missionary she was very excited about all she thought she knew - until she REALLY got into God's word, and realized how little she knew. So - I tend to take the Pastor's Class. I do that because when I sit in the classes taught by some of the newborn men I have to grit my teeth to keep from correcting them - I don't have to with the Pastor. There are a million things I learn from his class, not only from him, but from the elders in the class.
However - 1 Timothy 2:12 says I do not permit a woman to teach.
Now, I've been taught by seminary professors that from time to time Paul would be careful to say, "This is Paul talking."
And it looks to me, in that verse, since he said, "I don't permit," instead of "God doesn't," that it is one of those times.
The N.I.V. translators say of that verse: "Some believe that here, Paul prohibited teaching only by women not property instructed, i.e., the women at Ephesus. Such women tended to exercise authority over, i.e., to domineer, the men. Others maintain that Paul did not allow a woman to be an official teacher in the assembled church. This is indicated by the added restriction concerning exerciging authority over a man. Paul based the restrictions on Gensis 2-3. Some argue that "for" does not express the reason for a woman's silence and submission, but rather is used as a connective word. The meaning, if used as a connective, would be that Adam's priority in creation illustrates the present situation of male priority in teaching at Ephesus, and Eve's deception illustrates the deception of untrained and aggressive Ephesian women involved in false taching. Thus the prohibition is not universal and permanent, but restricted to the individual church situation. "
Even the experts disagree on exactly what Paul meant.
One thing is clear though - you have - whether you meant to or not - by the stance you take, declared that many men of God are advocating sin in their churches because they have appointed women to teach classes in their churches that contain males over 10 years of age.
I don't think you have the right or authority to cast that kind of judgment on men based on a verse that even the experts admit they don't understand.
[ June 09, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: TexasSky ]
You didn't cite scripture and you still have not dealt directly with the scripture.Originally posted by Scott J:
I did deal with the scripture when I mentioned it was a statement and you have made it a command. I believe it to be a personal statement from Paul to Timothy. We do know is some cases prostitutes were leading the worship as non-believers. I would never let any woman lead anything (even teaching little kids) who was leading worship in a house of prostitution. I do not know the historical context of Paul’s statement. Maybe you could shed some light on that.
I do not read Greek. I do trust you on this however.
But, I can understand the implications and differences between a "command" to an individual and a blanket "statement" concerning "women".
If the command to the individual has any meaning to us now, it can only be by principle. Paul didn't say "gb, take some wine for your stomach". He made that "command" to Timothy.
I happen to believe that a valid principle can be drawn from that permission. Alcohol can be used medicinally. Feel free to disagree... however this really has no merit as an argument against women being forbidden by Paul to lead and teach men.
My point is that you have chosen in your application to make a statement a command and a command a principle. I have chosen to apply both verses as general principles and not as absolutes much like the book of Proverbs.
And your point fails because of the reasons I explained in my post. The "command" was to a specific individual from which we can draw a principle or else nothing. The "principle" was given generally and it is inappropriate to deny the words have any kind of real meaning.
Even if a "principle" (which I can techniquely agree with even though I don't know how one can avoid accepting a God established "principle" as a command), there are a fairly significant range of things that could never agree with the principle as well as some less clear areas.
It is sort of like answering the question, "How close to the edge of the roof of a 50 story building are you willing to walk blindfolded?"
I wouldn't condemn you nor the ladies you cited publicly but I wouldn't support them either. I agree that I could be wrong about their actions thus I have no choice but to allow them the same liberty as I reserve for myself.
However, I believe that spiritually instructional books, SS classes taught by women, group discipleship of men by women, women preaching, etc. are clear violations of this principle if the principle has any meaning whatsoever.
Even if a "principle" (which I can techniquely agree with even though I don't know how one can avoid accepting a God established "principle" as a command), there are a fairly significant range of things that could never agree with the principle as well as some less clear areas.
It is sort of like answering the question, "How close to the edge of the roof of a 50 story building are you willing to walk blindfolded?"
I wouldn't condemn you nor the ladies you cited publicly but I wouldn't support them either. I agree that I could be wrong about their actions thus I have no choice but to allow them the same liberty as I reserve for myself.
However, I believe that spiritually instructional books, SS classes taught by women, group discipleship of men by women, women preaching, etc. are clear violations of this principle if the principle has any meaning whatsoever.
T
TexasSky
Guest
Scott,
Do me a favor. Sit down and have a chat with God tonight. Ask him if it is better to let that class of teenage boys flounder alone without a teacher, or without a loving teacher so you can stand on the legalism of "women don't teach boys," or if it is better to bring that lost sheep into the fold, and to teach him about the love of God, even if a woman has to do the teaching.
Just a few centuries ago - if you were not born a Jew - you weren't considered worthy of being a Christian - much less of teaching others about Christ. Christ, basically said souls mattered more to him than legalism or traditions.
Do you honestly believe that on the judgment day, the Lord is going to look at someone like Corrie Ten Boom or Maria Von Trapp and say, "I know that you taught thousands of people about me who would never have heard of me were it not for you. I know that you took care of sick, you saved lives, you cared for the poor and hungry. I know that you did more things in love than hundreds of thousands of Christians put together have done in their entire lifetimes, but you shouldn't have! You sinned when you taught those boys and men about Christ! Corrie, when you forgave that German guard, and told him that I loved him, you were right, but you had absolutely NO business being in the pulpit that night giving your testimony. You are as bad as he was for the murder he committed in the concentration camp because you dared teach my word!
Let me know what He tells you.
Do me a favor. Sit down and have a chat with God tonight. Ask him if it is better to let that class of teenage boys flounder alone without a teacher, or without a loving teacher so you can stand on the legalism of "women don't teach boys," or if it is better to bring that lost sheep into the fold, and to teach him about the love of God, even if a woman has to do the teaching.
Just a few centuries ago - if you were not born a Jew - you weren't considered worthy of being a Christian - much less of teaching others about Christ. Christ, basically said souls mattered more to him than legalism or traditions.
Do you honestly believe that on the judgment day, the Lord is going to look at someone like Corrie Ten Boom or Maria Von Trapp and say, "I know that you taught thousands of people about me who would never have heard of me were it not for you. I know that you took care of sick, you saved lives, you cared for the poor and hungry. I know that you did more things in love than hundreds of thousands of Christians put together have done in their entire lifetimes, but you shouldn't have! You sinned when you taught those boys and men about Christ! Corrie, when you forgave that German guard, and told him that I loved him, you were right, but you had absolutely NO business being in the pulpit that night giving your testimony. You are as bad as he was for the murder he committed in the concentration camp because you dared teach my word!
Let me know what He tells you.
TS, Do both of us a favor and actually read my posts before you assume I am opposed to something that I am not.Originally posted by TexasSky:
Scott,
Do me a favor. Sit down and have a chat with God tonight. Ask him if it is better to let that class of teenage boys flounder alone without a teacher, or without a loving teacher so you can stand on the legalism of "women don't teach boys," or if it is better to bring that lost sheep into the fold, and to teach him about the love of God, even if a woman has to do the teaching.
I have never, not once, said that women should not teach boys. It can be difficult for many women since teenage boys tend to push boundaries but I HAVE NOT TAKEN A STAND AGAINST WOMEN TEACHING MALES WHO ARE NOT ADULTS.
Are you reading my posts at all? Why do you persist in trying to speak for me on issues that I have not addressed or worse put words into my mouth that contradict what I have actually said?Do you honestly believe that on the judgment day, the Lord is going to look at someone like Corrie Ten Boom or Maria Von Trapp and say, "I know that you taught thousands of people about me who would never have heard of me were it not for you. I know that you took care of sick, you saved lives, you cared for the poor and hungry. I know that you did more things in love than hundreds of thousands of Christians put together have done in their entire lifetimes, but you shouldn't have! You sinned when you taught those boys and men about Christ! Corrie, when you forgave that German guard, and told him that I loved him, you were right, but you had absolutely NO business being in the pulpit that night giving your testimony. You are as bad as he was for the murder he committed in the concentration camp because you dared teach my word!
Perhaps you should let me know what he tells you about the disingenuous tactics you are employing.Let me know what He tells you.
One thing He has already told us in His Word in very direct, plain language is that a woman should not be teaching nor usurping authority over men in the assembly of believers... that would include SS classes.
None of scripture was written to us directly, but it is for our instruction, correction, reproof and training in righteousness.Originally posted by Scott J:
And your point fails because of the reasons I explained in my post. The "command" was to a specific individual from which we can draw a principle or else nothing. The "principle" was given generally and it is inappropriate to deny the words have any kind of real meaning.
Even if a "principle" (which I can techniquely agree with even though I don't know how one can avoid accepting a God established "principle" as a command), there are a fairly significant range of things that could never agree with the principle as well as some less clear areas.
I agree and disagree with you primarily on the basis of how one would interpret Proverbs.
Proverbs are principles. They are not promises. If they were promises then everything they proclaim would come true. If one believes Proverbs are promises then God is a liar and Jesus failed.
For example Prov. 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it."
Proverbs 22:6 is a principle and not a promise. We can draw a godly principle from Proverbs 22:6 but not an absolute promise. That is the way I interpret the statement made by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12. It is a godly piece of advice but not an absolute command because it is not a command but a statement made by Paul to Timothy.
Proverbs are not promises or guarantees.
I came from an ungodly home. I turned out the opposite of a number of children who grow up in Christian homes.
Even in godly homes we see children who rebel and turn their backs on God and those who do not. When visiting Huntsville Maximum Security prison I met many who grew up in a Baptist home and committed murder.
Even Judas did not follow Jesus who is God.
T
TexasSky
Guest
Scott,
I did. I do every day in fact.
I first started asking God what that scripture meant when I was the associate children's director at a church in this city. We had one of the most successful children's programs in the state of Texas thanks to a wonderful Children's Director - a woman. When I say "successful," we had a tremendous number of children attending church, a tremendous number of professions of faith that were followed by a true change in the children - a visible change that certainly makes it look like it was more than a "everyone else is doing it confession". We worked hard to try to make sure kids knew it wasn't just "something you do because people think its cool."
We also worked hard to show a LOT of love to a lot of kids who had no idea what paternal love was all about.
There was a man in my class who you remind me of. He would walk into class surly. He would snap at the children, yell at the boys, sneer during the bible study. It was like this man who was a senior citizen was behaving like a bad school boy of age 6.
If the lesson for the day was Noah, he taught Moses. If the lesson for the day was the raising of Lazarus, he taught about King David.
If we asked that the memory verse be John 3:16, he taught his table Luke 1:4.
Finally I went to him and said, "I feel like you are doing this purposefully." He said he was. Told me that when he took the class he wasn't told a woman would be the director and that no woman had a right to teach in a room where a man was present.
I went to the Children's Director and said, "Okay, we have a problem." She said, "I know. He won't listen to me for the same reason."
So, we went to the Minister of Education. He tried to reason with the man. So did the Senior Pastor. So did the deacon committee.
In the end. The man quit teaching. Which, I believe is for the best. His behavior was inexcuseable scripturally.
However, at that time, I REALLY started trying to find out what God wanted. I read the verse in KJ, and I read it in NIV and I read it in context - as in I read ALL of Timothy I and II, and I prayed. I asked others to pray.
I talked to theologians, ministers, pastors, deacons. I prayed more. I asked SBC men, I asked fudnamental Baptist men, I asked independent Bible Church men, I asked an Episcopalian, ... I asked Christians from many denominations and many levels.
TIME after TIME after TIME after TIME the answer from godly men that came back was, "God has called you to serve. Why are you trying to avoid serving by twisting scripture?"
And - when I said, "Okay, God, where do You want me," and I started teaching again (I stopped while I wrestled with this) I had peace in my heart again.
Well, it pops up from time to time.
I am rather strongly against a woman being the Senior Pastor of a church. For reasons that are pretty obvious, that confuses people. They think if I feel strongly that we need females teaching or serving God, I should agree women should pastor a church. I don't. I believe God meant for men to lead, and I'm happy to let them do so.
Every so often I run into someone like you, and I start to wonder, so I read and I pray, and God whispers in my ear, "Why are you looking for excuses not to teach? I called you. Who are you to let men dissuade you from the mission I chose for you?"
I did. I do every day in fact.
I first started asking God what that scripture meant when I was the associate children's director at a church in this city. We had one of the most successful children's programs in the state of Texas thanks to a wonderful Children's Director - a woman. When I say "successful," we had a tremendous number of children attending church, a tremendous number of professions of faith that were followed by a true change in the children - a visible change that certainly makes it look like it was more than a "everyone else is doing it confession". We worked hard to try to make sure kids knew it wasn't just "something you do because people think its cool."
We also worked hard to show a LOT of love to a lot of kids who had no idea what paternal love was all about.
There was a man in my class who you remind me of. He would walk into class surly. He would snap at the children, yell at the boys, sneer during the bible study. It was like this man who was a senior citizen was behaving like a bad school boy of age 6.
If the lesson for the day was Noah, he taught Moses. If the lesson for the day was the raising of Lazarus, he taught about King David.
If we asked that the memory verse be John 3:16, he taught his table Luke 1:4.
Finally I went to him and said, "I feel like you are doing this purposefully." He said he was. Told me that when he took the class he wasn't told a woman would be the director and that no woman had a right to teach in a room where a man was present.
I went to the Children's Director and said, "Okay, we have a problem." She said, "I know. He won't listen to me for the same reason."
So, we went to the Minister of Education. He tried to reason with the man. So did the Senior Pastor. So did the deacon committee.
In the end. The man quit teaching. Which, I believe is for the best. His behavior was inexcuseable scripturally.
However, at that time, I REALLY started trying to find out what God wanted. I read the verse in KJ, and I read it in NIV and I read it in context - as in I read ALL of Timothy I and II, and I prayed. I asked others to pray.
I talked to theologians, ministers, pastors, deacons. I prayed more. I asked SBC men, I asked fudnamental Baptist men, I asked independent Bible Church men, I asked an Episcopalian, ... I asked Christians from many denominations and many levels.
TIME after TIME after TIME after TIME the answer from godly men that came back was, "God has called you to serve. Why are you trying to avoid serving by twisting scripture?"
And - when I said, "Okay, God, where do You want me," and I started teaching again (I stopped while I wrestled with this) I had peace in my heart again.
Well, it pops up from time to time.
I am rather strongly against a woman being the Senior Pastor of a church. For reasons that are pretty obvious, that confuses people. They think if I feel strongly that we need females teaching or serving God, I should agree women should pastor a church. I don't. I believe God meant for men to lead, and I'm happy to let them do so.
Every so often I run into someone like you, and I start to wonder, so I read and I pray, and God whispers in my ear, "Why are you looking for excuses not to teach? I called you. Who are you to let men dissuade you from the mission I chose for you?"
Originally posted by Scott J:
Again that statement is not a command but a statement made to Timothy. It is no more than a statement to Timothy than the command to drink wine was a command to Timothy.Originally posted by TexasSky:
[qb] Scott,
I HAVE NOT TAKEN A STAND AGAINST WOMEN TEACHING MALES WHO ARE NOT ADULTS.
One thing He has already told us in His Word in very direct, plain language is that a woman should not be teaching nor usurping authority over men in the assembly of believers... that would include SS classes.
You cannot make a statement a command therefore arbitrarily changing the text to suit your own theology. The text is what it is not what we decide to make it.
Show me one verse where Sunday School is biblical. There are loads of people who come to Sunday School and don’t go to worship. There are many who come to worship and don’t come to Sunday School.
Acts 2:42, “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” No mention of Sunday School.
Was Corrie Ten Boom sinning by giving her testimony under the blessing of the pastor? She is teaching the grace of God. Would a woman who gives her testimony be sinning at a Billy Graham Crusade? She is teaching the grace of God and he is not a present day pastor.
PreachTREE
New Member
just to start off, i am just a novice (preacher boy); so please do not attack my technical prowess.
Why do we not go to the extreme and say that a pastor of a church is a WOMAN. Here the pastor preaches God's Word, people get saved, trains men, baptizes converts, etc., all for the glory of God. Is this for the glory of God? Certainly! But why is this woman allowed to pastor? Because of disobedience. God does not want us to disobey but he certainly allows it. We all sin and disobey God's Word because we all participate in something called "permissive will." The attack on America on 9/11 was because of sinful men's permissive will. Did God stop it? No. It is sin to murder. But God used this event for his glory. America became united as a people, we helped eachother out, etc. It gave us countless opportunities to witness. Through God's sovereign "lens" God patched everything up. But this does not give us the excuse to disobey him.
Remember when God spoke through Samuel to tell Saul to destroy the Amalekites and all the spoils of war? Saul spared the sheep and oxen for sacrifice to God. He disobeyed God's initial instruction. Saul's intent may have been good but it was still disobedience. God wants obedience first before anything! 1 Samuel 15:22 says, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." Women teaching(what we are arguing) is of the fat of rams, good and of good intent, but it is given out of disobedience.
Let us stick to dissecting the Word of God and not Scott J. We are all eager to know what God is saying; lets just keep it at that. Amen?!
Why do we not go to the extreme and say that a pastor of a church is a WOMAN. Here the pastor preaches God's Word, people get saved, trains men, baptizes converts, etc., all for the glory of God. Is this for the glory of God? Certainly! But why is this woman allowed to pastor? Because of disobedience. God does not want us to disobey but he certainly allows it. We all sin and disobey God's Word because we all participate in something called "permissive will." The attack on America on 9/11 was because of sinful men's permissive will. Did God stop it? No. It is sin to murder. But God used this event for his glory. America became united as a people, we helped eachother out, etc. It gave us countless opportunities to witness. Through God's sovereign "lens" God patched everything up. But this does not give us the excuse to disobey him.
Remember when God spoke through Samuel to tell Saul to destroy the Amalekites and all the spoils of war? Saul spared the sheep and oxen for sacrifice to God. He disobeyed God's initial instruction. Saul's intent may have been good but it was still disobedience. God wants obedience first before anything! 1 Samuel 15:22 says, "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." Women teaching(what we are arguing) is of the fat of rams, good and of good intent, but it is given out of disobedience.
Let us stick to dissecting the Word of God and not Scott J. We are all eager to know what God is saying; lets just keep it at that. Amen?!
Charles Meadows
New Member
I agree we should not dissect Scott.
Our main difference here is the interpretation of a verse. We all agree that all scripture is inspired, valid, and binding for us.
Scott has suggested that we deal with the scripture.
Fair enough.
In my opinion we CAN and SHOULD use all available faculties to analyze scripture. This includes textual analysis, context, literary and rhetorical techniques, and sense.
My analysis of the passage is that women should be in appropriate subjection to male spiritual headship. Note that the verse says they are not to usurp authority . This is key I think. The implication here is a lack of respect for spiritual leadership.
As such I see female pastors as improper. I think it would also be improper for a female to question openly the pastors leadership.
I DO NOT think that a woman explaining something to a man or a woman speaking from the pulpit or in Sunday school are in violation as long as they are done with appropriate respect and with the blessing of the head pastor.
My reasons for this reading are thus:
1. The verse says "usurp". THis implies that whatever was being done was not appropriately respectful of leadership.
2. God, by His character, is not capricious. To interpret this rule as saying that woman can never for any reason teach a man, even in appropriate circumstances and for the furthering of the gospel, is to acknowledge the fact that God makes up arbirary rules for no reason. Whenever we come up with an interpretation that seems capricious or seems not to be expedient we should question our interpretation.
3. I not not feel bound to interpret scripture literally if context and sense tell me otherwise.
Thus I have "dealt" with the scripture.
But I think this is the point on which we will differ.
Our main difference here is the interpretation of a verse. We all agree that all scripture is inspired, valid, and binding for us.
Scott has suggested that we deal with the scripture.
Fair enough.
In my opinion we CAN and SHOULD use all available faculties to analyze scripture. This includes textual analysis, context, literary and rhetorical techniques, and sense.
My analysis of the passage is that women should be in appropriate subjection to male spiritual headship. Note that the verse says they are not to usurp authority . This is key I think. The implication here is a lack of respect for spiritual leadership.
As such I see female pastors as improper. I think it would also be improper for a female to question openly the pastors leadership.
I DO NOT think that a woman explaining something to a man or a woman speaking from the pulpit or in Sunday school are in violation as long as they are done with appropriate respect and with the blessing of the head pastor.
My reasons for this reading are thus:
1. The verse says "usurp". THis implies that whatever was being done was not appropriately respectful of leadership.
2. God, by His character, is not capricious. To interpret this rule as saying that woman can never for any reason teach a man, even in appropriate circumstances and for the furthering of the gospel, is to acknowledge the fact that God makes up arbirary rules for no reason. Whenever we come up with an interpretation that seems capricious or seems not to be expedient we should question our interpretation.
3. I not not feel bound to interpret scripture literally if context and sense tell me otherwise.
Thus I have "dealt" with the scripture.
But I think this is the point on which we will differ.
PreachTREE
New Member
To the eyes of man, God can seem "arbitrary" oftentimes. When we were still under the authority of our parents, commands and instructions may have sounded arbitrary, but when we look back we now know that they were for our own good. Things may seem arbitrary to us, but in fact are part of God's masterplan. Do we know God's reasoning? No. Will we ever? Maybe. Our minds are limited and God is not.
Assuming the word prophesy is the same as preach (proclaim) - there are a few examples in scripture, both old and new testament. And assuming that all scripture is inspired..
Judges 4:4 Debra was a prophet & wife before she was a King
Ex 15:20 Miriam was a prophetess
2 King 22:14-23 - huldah
Nemiah 6:14 Nodiah
Isiah 8:3 isiah's wife was a prophetess
Luke 2:36-38 Anna
Acts 21:9 - paula wrote about Philip's daughters - and I noticed no criticism of them
Priscilla taught at the 1st NT baptist seminary - paul sent Apollos to her for instruction. Most commentaries find it significant that her name was mentioned ahead of her husbands in the instrustion of appolos
Judges 4:4 Debra was a prophet & wife before she was a King
Ex 15:20 Miriam was a prophetess
2 King 22:14-23 - huldah
Nemiah 6:14 Nodiah
Isiah 8:3 isiah's wife was a prophetess
Luke 2:36-38 Anna
Acts 21:9 - paula wrote about Philip's daughters - and I noticed no criticism of them
Priscilla taught at the 1st NT baptist seminary - paul sent Apollos to her for instruction. Most commentaries find it significant that her name was mentioned ahead of her husbands in the instrustion of appolos
How interesting... You don't know me from Adam yet you make these kinds of assumptions about my character and demeanor... but how consistent with the way you have approached me.Originally posted by TexasSky:
There was a man in my class who you remind me of. He would walk into class surly. He would snap at the children, yell at the boys, sneer during the bible study. It was like this man who was a senior citizen was behaving like a bad school boy of age 6.
You have been every bit as antagonistic as I have here... but I don't assume that is the way you behave normally. In fact, I suspect that most here are nice people outside the closed confines of a internet debate... so I always assume that they are.
And so because I have stood firm on this scripture, you feel empowered to transfer this guys problems on to me?If the lesson for the day was Noah, he taught Moses. If the lesson for the day was the raising of Lazarus, he taught about King David.
If we asked that the memory verse be John 3:16, he taught his table Luke 1:4.
Finally I went to him and said, "I feel like you are doing this purposefully." He said he was.
He didn't draw that out of a literal reading of the texts.Told me that when he took the class he wasn't told a woman would be the director and that no woman had a right to teach in a room where a man was present.
A woman can teach children with or without a man present.
There were at least a few biblical ways for this guy to have handled the problem... none of them involve acting like a child.
The most direct would have been to go to the pastor and point out the text. If no resolution could be made then he should have asked to be replaced. This should have been handled discreetly and with grace.
A man once came to my church and preached a false doctrine from the pulpit. I privately confronted the pastor over the issue. He decided that he agreed with this man. Instead of causing a problem, I simply told him that we could no longer attend the church and backed out as gracefully as we could. Later, he left the church on somewhat less than cordial relations (partly due to his wife's domineering attitude). We had not been able to find a church so we returned... I found that what little people knew about why we left was not accurate but that most people didn't know much at all.
We didn't rebel. We didn't try to divide the church or stir people up to remove him... we just got out of the way.
I agree completely... starting with his decision to not confront the problem as soon as he realized that a woman would be in authority over him in a ministry of the church.In the end. The man quit teaching. Which, I believe is for the best. His behavior was inexcuseable scripturally.
His understanding that this was an improper relationship was correct. His handling of the problem was as you said inexcuseable.
What does the text say TS? Are you teaching men in the context in which this scripture was written?However, at that time, I REALLY started trying to find out what God wanted. I read the verse in KJ, and I read it in NIV and I read it in context - as in I read ALL of Timothy I and II, and I prayed. I asked others to pray.
I am sorry that this seems so confrontational but you appear to be looking for an excuse to not obey what this scripture actually says.
God may have called you to serve. He may have called you to teach... but He will never "call" you to do something that He forbids in the direct revelation of His will, the Bible.TIME after TIME after TIME after TIME the answer from godly men that came back was, "God has called you to serve. Why are you trying to avoid serving by twisting scripture?"
And - when I said, "Okay, God, where do You want me," and I started teaching again (I stopped while I wrestled with this) I had peace in my heart again.
You are listening to a "whisper in your ear" that contradicts what was revealed by God through inspiration?Every so often I run into someone like you, and I start to wonder, so I read and I pray, and God whispers in my ear, "Why are you looking for excuses not to teach? I called you. Who are you to let men dissuade you from the mission I chose for you?"
Again, God didn't call you to disobey His Word. You seem to be choosing counselors based on whether they tell you what you want to hear rather than if they adhere to the scripture or not.
For heaven's sake... when are you going to drop this inane straw man?Show me one verse where Sunday School is biblical. There are loads of people who come to Sunday School and don’t go to worship. There are many who come to worship and don’t come to Sunday School.
Scripture neither says you should have SS or should not have SS. It does establish that the church is to train Christians. SS is a method devised by men.
Women teaching men is addressed directly in the scripture. It was forbidden... this has a meaning and none of you have given a reasonable explanation for why it does not mean exactly what it says.
Scott
Look at the scriptures I provided - women teaching men is NOT forbidden - granted you need to reconcile the scriptures, but women taught men in many places in scripture, paul even sent appolos to priscilla - or does one section of scripture in Timothy override all others??
Look at the scriptures I provided - women teaching men is NOT forbidden - granted you need to reconcile the scriptures, but women taught men in many places in scripture, paul even sent appolos to priscilla - or does one section of scripture in Timothy override all others??