A sticky situation...

So in your view, God views women as nothing more than seervants and not capable of leadership. How sad.

Paul could only refer to worship services because that was his only context of writing the passage, unless Sunday School actually existed in the 1st century.

How is a woman that teaches Sunday School unscriptural? That is the question, no one questions that a woman is not to be in charge of the church i.e. pastor, this is a question of service. Following your logic would mean that a woman should never sing in front of the church during a service, or play an instrument as part of the service or even be a part of the choir.

I don't believe that God would have us to be so ignorant that we cannot do a background study of the context to discover the issues that Paul is speaking of when he writes. It is in the background studies that we find what is going on in the church and how they do church then. Why is that invalid and wrong, it is part of the proper understanding of the text. If you had been a pastor when Paul wrote a letter to you addressing things going on in your church or even answering questions that you had posed to him. You would properly understand the context of Paul's message. However, as a pastor almost 2000 yrs later, we cannot know the total context without doing the background study. We cannot interpret the scriptures in a vacuum, it must also be understood in the context of the background of the situation that it was written in.

 

No, of course not, silly ... ... God views women exactly as he said he did ... as a "helper suitable" to their husbands who are of equal spiritual standing in Christ. The issue is not how "God views women," but rather what roles God created men and women for. You can pound a nail with a shoe, but that doesn't work very well and beats up the shoe. It just wasn't created for that. The same is true with roles in life. When you live life as God created it to be lived, things work better. Yes, you can do it differently, but that is painful for all involved.

Paul was referring to life in the church, not just worship services. He never mentions that. You have added that in, to try to limit what the word says.

Because she is "having authority over and teaching a man." That is a direct explicit violation of what God said.

How would that follow? Those are different issues. Bad logic makes for bad arguments.

I don't either. Because I hvae done the background study, and exegeted the text, I can conclude that you are incorrect. I could not do that unless I had done the study.

The fact still remains that Paul's reasons have nothing to do with teh first century. If you are correct, we would not expect to see reason's about creation and the fall. Those are unchanging reasons, and lead us to conclude that it is an unchanging command. If Paul had simply been giving a first century command, he would have used first century reasons, or no reasons at all.

 

So a wife is to never lead her lost husband to Christ because that violates scripture?

 

Please tell me you are not serious ...

 

That is the reality of your position.

 

No it's not, not even close. Why do you jump to an illogical extreme?

 

In her day, Lottie Moon did encounter some opposition.

 

In her day, Lottie Moon did encounter some opposition. </font>[/QUOTE]But do we as Southern Baptists advocate such a move by even labeling it the "Lottie Moon Christmas Offering?" </font>[/QUOTE]We most certainly do!

 

1 Tim 2 addresses the church, not the home. Secondly, I would never counsel a mature women to marry an immature man. They are not a match in most cases. The answer to this is for the man to be discipled and mature so he can lead his home. But marriage is a mutual relationship where both grow from each other.

"We" Baptists don't all do that. Again, it is not something I would recommend, but it depends on waht she is going to do. There are many roles in the church that can be filled by women. Teaching men and having authority is simply not one of them. It strikes me that if we just listened to Scripture and followed it, we would have all these issues. What is so wrong what not allowing women to "have authority or teach men"? I don't get the hang up you guys have. It is like you don't accept the equality of womanhood and so you have to rig an artificial way for her to be "equal."

 

1 Tim 2 addresses the church, not the home. Secondly, I would never counsel a mature women to marry an immature man. They are not a match in most cases. The answer to this is for the man to be discipled and mature so he can lead his home. But marriage is a mutual relationship where both grow from each other.

"We" Baptists don't all do that. Again, it is not something I would recommend, but it depends on waht she is going to do. There are many roles in the church that can be filled by women. Teaching men and having authority is simply not one of them. It strikes me that if we just listened to Scripture and followed it, we would have all these issues. What is so wrong what not allowing women to "have authority or teach men"? I don't get the hang up you guys have. It is like you don't accept the equality of womanhood and so you have to rig an artificial way for her to be "equal." </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with Pastor Larry on - well - everything. I did want to mention I think we have single women doing way too much in the area of mission work. Again, as Pastor Larry says, it depends what the woman is doing, but I see a trend of missionaries who are having young women serve as "missionaries", coming to live in their homes and helping with the education of their children and in the church Sunday School. I think these situations are just asking for big trouble. I think the woman needs to be living on her own and in some countries, that just won't work, or she can't raise enough support.

 

Reading this thread I see a picture of a river full of drowning people, and a group on the bank arguing about who's qualified to throw out the life preserver.

 

I don't see that at all. I see that God has told us who should lead the church and teach, and people are arguing about whether or not we should obey.

 

It is the church, worship services included. I would draw the line at the place where a woman has authority or teaches a man in the church body.

Spiritual growth should be mutual. I guess I don't see the dichotomy here.

I have seen no real fruit from Anne Graham Lotz or Beth Moore or any other woman that could not be obtained by obedience to God in this area. There are many ministries that women are uniquely qualified for. I don't think obedience to God in this area will ever result in a woman being disqualified from something God called her to do. I don't think God would call a woman to disobedience.

 

To some degree. In the home, there should be a mutual learning and spiritual growth going on. But that is not addressed by 1 Tim.

I am not sure I agree with that. I am not sure how "well-learned" can be defined in such a way, or how "godly" can include disobedience in such a matter. I don't doubt their motives, but motives aren't really the issue. The issue that the text is very clear. The exact application outside of the church can be debated perhaps, such as the home. But in the church, 1 Tim 2 is pretty explicit, and I can't find any basis for a cultural argument. Paul is too clear in his reasons. So, personally, I am not sure I could include them in that. And that doesn't dispute their contributions in other areas. So that is a tough question to answer for me, anyway.