Is it okay for women to preach but not pastor?

[Scott J]

Originally posted by gb93433:


Isn't preaching different than pastoring? Not every preacher pastors.

Yes. It is also different from teaching and exercising authority over men.

If you want to argue that this is a "gray area" of "teaching" then fine. But a woman teaching a group of men in a Sunday School is not gray... it clearly falls into the prohibition of the text.

 

[Charles Meadows]

If you want to argue that this is a "gray area" of "teaching" then fine. But a woman teaching a group of men in a Sunday School is not gray... it clearly falls into the prohibition of the text.

Teaching is a grey area. I don't think anyone can argue that spiritual leadership is a male position. As Christ is the head over the church so the man over the woman here.

But remember that Christ used MEN to get things done. The "prohibition" should be contextualized in terms of the relationship between Christ and the church. Male headship is proper.

But recall that God is not capricious and His word is not arbitrary. We should not see 1 Tim 2:12 as a Mosaic maxim - "Oh well God must want it that way - I don't know why but He just does."
Jesus and Paul were NOT legalists, they were practically minded, desiring that which was expedient for the furthering of the gospel.

There is no question that a woman should NOT be "silent" and wait for a man if witness is at stake.

Scott you said that pragmatism never trumps scripture.

I'd argue that any interpretation of scripture that is arbitrary or legalistic should be questioned. The overall message of scripture always trumps a legalistic interpretation of a single verse.

 

[TexasSky]

Scott,

Be very, very, very careful how you phrase things. You have gone from saying that men should lead to saying that women teaching is a sin. That is QUITE a leap.

 

[TexasSky]

Why is it, the when I ask, "Should women have their heads covered in church," people say, "Oh, well, that law applied to that society. Back then people were offended if a woman prayed without her head covered, and Paul was saying they shouldn't offend," but on THIS verse, they go, "Oh, this means NEVER learn from a woman."

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
but on THIS verse, they go, "Oh, this means NEVER learn from a woman."

I actually never said nor do I believe that.

The command has to do with authority and order.

 

[TexasSky]

Hmm.

Thanks Scott!

For years I've done work for God in and out of God's house because I believed that was what He wanted from ALL Christians.

Now, I realize, that as a second class Christian, my value is just above a toad, and I not only don't NEED to be working with youth, and college students, I SHOULDN'T be! AND, I can sleep in on Sunday and just attend the service!

Wait until the other ladies hear this! Boy are our social calendars opening up quickly!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Scott,

Be very, very, very careful how you phrase things. You have gone from saying that men should lead to saying that women teaching is a sin. That is QUITE a leap.

No it isn't. The Bible is absolutely clear. It is not a suggestion. It is a command inspired by God Himself. Disobedience to a command of God is by definition SIN.

 

[Scott J]

I'd argue that any interpretation of scripture that is arbitrary or legalistic should be questioned. The overall message of scripture always trumps a legalistic interpretation of a single verse.

So basically scripture means absolutely nothing if you don't feel good about it?

Words have meaning. These particular words have meaning and they have context. There is nothing about either of those things that suggests that the command was optional.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Hmm.

Thanks Scott!

For years I've done work for God in and out of God's house because I believed that was what He wanted from ALL Christians.

Now, I realize, that as a second class Christian, my value is just above a toad, and I not only don't NEED to be working with youth, and college students, I SHOULDN'T be! AND, I can sleep in on Sunday and just attend the service!

Wait until the other ladies hear this! Boy are our social calendars opening up quickly!

Your argument isn't with me. It is with what the Bible says IN CONTEXT.

Deal with the scripture TS, not with me. Please ignore me.

I have nothing against you personally nor women in general. But I will not compromise on what God has said nor make assumptions where He has not spoken (as in the case about divorce and remarriage).

I have worked for women in my secular employment and can say with absolute certainty that they would tell you that I afforded them the same respect and courtesy I did the men.

 

[TexasSky]

Scott,

When Moses presented the 10 Commandments, he said, "This is a command from God."

When the Prophets went to Kings, they said, "This is a command from God."

When Christ said, "This is a command from God," He said, "This is the greatest commandment."

God was NEVER vague.

Paul, writing a letter to Timothy, saying, "A woman should be silent," does NOT say, "This is a command from God." For you to elevate Paul's words to "a command from God," is practaclly blashpheming.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Starting from verse 8 Paul is speaking about proper demeanor during worship.

Notice it says not to usurp authority .

A woman openly challenging the pastor during teaching is inappropriate, as is the woman wearing a short miniskirt and a low cut halter top. These detract from the worship service.

This verse is NOT an absolute prohibition on women functioning as Christians, witnessing and helping men if needed.

Again - you appeal to the "literal words". I assert that without proper context the literal words can be misinterpreted. To say that this is an across the board prohibition of women doing anything other than teaching ABCs to the "Cubbies" is to do violence to the scripture. Jesus was not a legalist (I'll say it again). If you come up with a reading of scripture which gives a capricious, non-expedient command - you're probably in error. And in this case that is operant.

And what about women and head coverings?

 

[TexasSky]

Scott,

Do you honestly, sincerely believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would rather thousands of men NOT hear the word of the lord than be TAUGHT that word by a woman who loved the Lord enough to step up when the church said, "We need a teacher for the 7th grade class?"

Do you honestly, sincerely believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would give these women the burning desire to teach in His name, and to spread his word to others, regardless of gender, and then say, "No, women can't teach boys over 10?"

Do you HONESTLY believe that the dogma of male arrogance matters more than a soul? Or that Paul or Christ ever meant for it to?

The book of Timothy is am amazing teaching, but Christians all around the world of various denominations freely admit that they see a lot of "Jewish Culture" involved in it, and they freely dismiss things in it that they think "applied to Paul's day."

I believe that God means for men to be the spiritual leaders of their homes, their churches and their nation. I ~also~ believe that God appoints men of God who use THEIR discernment to appoint women of God where they are needed.

And I STRONGLY believe that men need to step up and offer their own service before they start knocking the women who give endless hours doing what they think they are too good to do.

Our Pastor has made, every single Sunday for three months, a call asking people to step up to volunteer for vacant positions in various growing Sunday School classes. The men are NOT stepping up.

We have a woman who DOES teach the 9th grade boys. She wanted to retire. The men who came up through her Sunday School class BEGGED her to stay.

Now, according to you - all of those men are wrong about letting Martha teach. Who are you to say God and the deacons are wrong? Your interpretation of Timothy isn't the ONLY interpretation of Timothy.

 

[FrankBetz]

I believe that if women kept their place in the Divine order we would still be in the Garden of Eden.

 

[FrankBetz]

Maybe we could get our ladies to teach the younger men how to be chaste and keepers at home?

I believe that is exactly what is happening!!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
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.

Your problem isn't with me. It is with what Paul wrote interpretted consistent with its immediate context and that of the whole of scripture.

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

Prejudiced? Yes. I favor the Bible over human opinions, styles, trends, and shifting cultural mores.

Demeaning? I could just as readily say that you were being demeaning. You have dismissed my argument based on YOUR "arrogant" opinion rather than dealing with it scripturally.

Statistics show that the majority of early bible teaching in homes is done by the mother.

Statistics or no statistics, women should be concerned about the spiritual development of their children. This is absolutely proper and my sons will remain respectful to the position and authority of my wife until they leave my home.

By Scott's words, we Mom's should just forget that with our sons.

That is an unfounded falsehood. Don't let your antagonism cause you to try to put words in my mouth. It will only make you look dishonest.

Look around your own church. Who tends to the nursery, the preschool, the children's choirs, the youth groups, the vacation bible schools?

I never said there were no teaching/serving roles in the church for women, did I?

I have said no more than what the scriptures say: That a woman should not teach nor exercise authority over a man. The apparent context is in an assembly of believers. That most definitely includes an adult SS class.

Men aren't doing it, and Scott's theory is that women should either stop or let the boys flounder on their own.

Another gross falsehood... and you said I should watch my words?

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

There is no excuse for men and women to put carnal matters ahead of spiritual matters. There are occasions where an outside commitment like work inteferes with ones ability to serve but if it is the "rule" then the priorities are wrong.

There is also no excuse for someone to ignore a clear and direct command of scripture.

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.

Nope. Again, men's failures are not an excuse for women's disobedience.

BTW, you are preaching to the choir. Our church is small but I serve as a deacon, SS teacher, youth group leader, and back up our pastor when he is gone. I have a wife, 3 children, a job, coach a little league team,....

I have not avoided serving. In fact, when I was in a church large enough to have VBS, I volunteered. When the church started AWANAS, I volunteered... and then, as now, we drive 30+ minutes one way to church.

I too could easily be frustrated by the lack of concern and effort shown by men... but it really wouldn't help, would it? All we can do is pray for them, ask them, and let God do change the hearts.

 

[Pronto]

"We ordain women because we baptize girls." - Charles E. Poole

That pretty well sums up my thoughts on the subject

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Scott,

Do you honestly, sincerely believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would rather thousands of men NOT hear the word of the lord than be TAUGHT that word by a woman who loved the Lord enough to step up when the church said, "We need a teacher for the 7th grade class?"

I believe that God is first and foremost concerned with His glory... and that is never served by disobeying the scriptures.

Do you honestly, sincerely believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would give these women the burning desire to teach in His name, and to spread his word to others, regardless of gender, and then say, "No, women can't teach boys over 10?"

If someone has a desire, burning or otherwise, to do something that is forbidden by God's Word then that desire didn't come from the Lord Jesus Christ.

BTW, I disagreed with the notion that women could not teach boys over the age of 10. I don't know where that arbitrary rule came from. I also didn't argue that a woman should not be involved in the private discipleship of a man. Priscilla was.

Do you HONESTLY believe that the dogma of male arrogance matters more than a soul? Or that Paul or Christ ever meant for it to?

I believe that obedience to God's Word means more than anything else. I also believe that God honors obedience and am not worried that He will not care for souls if we obediently reject pragmatism that contradicts the revealed will of God for order in the Church that He established.

The book of Timothy is am amazing teaching, but Christians all around the world of various denominations freely admit that they see a lot of "Jewish Culture" involved in it, and they freely dismiss things in it that they think "applied to Paul's day."

I am not concerned with what people "dismiss" when they find something in God's Word inconvenient to their worldview.

Deal with the scripture! Show something from context or example that this does not apply as I am arguing.

I believe that God means for men to be the spiritual leaders of their homes, their churches and their nation. I ~also~ believe that God appoints men of God who use THEIR discernment to appoint women of God where they are needed.

Not if that "discernment" leads them to appoint women into roles that scripture forbids them from filling.

And I STRONGLY believe that men need to step up and offer their own service before they start knocking the women who give endless hours doing what they think they are too good to do.

I agree. But as a mother I am sure that you don't teach your children that one wrong justifies another.

Our Pastor has made, every single Sunday for three months, a call asking people to step up to volunteer for vacant positions in various growing Sunday School classes. The men are NOT stepping up.

I am very sorry to hear that.

Can the pastor not teach the men in the main auditorium? What is being done to rectify the root problem? How often does your pastor preach on male leadership and assumption of God given responsibilities? Have the capable men been confronted according to the biblical models for correction? What kind of discipleship is being done by the elders in the church with the immature Christians?

There are biblical solutions to the problem that do not require that you "dismiss" scripture in favor of current human wisdom.

We have a woman who DOES teach the 9th grade boys. She wanted to retire. The men who came up through her Sunday School class BEGGED her to stay.

Now, according to you - all of those men are wrong about letting Martha teach.

Are you not reading my posts?!? Why are you continuing to make things up and attribute them to me?

Who are you to say God and the deacons are wrong?

I haven't said God was wrong and have no idea about your deacons or pastor(s). In fact, I have agreed with what God said completely. It is you all that seem to want to deny or "dismiss" what He said in favor of your own opinions.

Your interpretation of Timothy isn't the ONLY interpretation of Timothy.

It doesn't require a great deal of interpretation. Read the words. Read the context. Place it in the context of the whole of the NT and scripture.

There is nothing there to suggest that this command is optional, culture limited, or subject to arbitrary dismissal by people whose worldview happens to be offended by it.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Scott J:

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.

Jesus never started a church. He never affirmed it. How old was an adult? Much younger than today in America. Only the boys after age ten were educated. The women sat in the back of the building at church. The girls were never educate as the boys wereToday in many of those same countries women sit on one side and men on the other.

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.

That is where you have chosen to violate recognized hermeneutical prinicples. Often scripture is like listening to one side of a conversation. The verse found in 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a command. I see no Greek verb that is an imperative. It is a pres. act. ind. The verse found in 1 Timothy 5:23 is an imperative. “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” So if one goes along with your reasoning then you are commanded to drink wine and a statement Paul made about women that is not a command. What you are practicing is exactly the opposite. You are abstaining from wine as a command and not allowing women to stand before men that is not a command but a statement.

I see the statement Paul made about women in I Timothy 2:12 as a practice but not a command. I do not see the command Paul gave to Timothy about drinking wine as a command that applies to me personally. I view each of those as principles and practices but not as commands to be personally applied.


But I have never objected to a woman teaching even teenage boys... though it seems to take a pretty strong woman to do so.

To only be concerned with what scripture says is to say you only hear one side of a conversation. When Paul wrote the letter to Timothy we do not know what the context was unless we take a look at other historical documents that indicate the historical context. Scripture can only be correctly interpreted in light of its historical context. Women teaching teenage boys is against the historical practice of rabbis teaching boys . In fact if you are only willing to deal with what scripture says and not concerned with what it does not then your church if it has Sunday School is in direct violation of a historical practice of not having Sunday School. Today, there are churches that believe Sunday School is unbiblical and counterproductive.

If I read 1 Cor. right a woman is to have her head covered. A covering that was typical much like the burka the women wore in Afghanistan during the taliban. So if the women in your church do not wear a burka they are in direct violation of having their heads covered.
Shouldn’t you be consistent in every aspect if you believe each command applies to today. All of 1 Cor. Was written to the same people at the same time.


Paul's, thus God's, command concerning women is clear and specific. ]

Again, 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a command in the Greek text. It is a statement. The verse in 1 Timothy 5:23 is a command.

If you believe that all of the context of scripture should be applied within the context of American society then I would expect to find women in your church wearing burkas and sandals and the men wearing sandals and a cloak. The women would sit in the back and the men in the front. The girls would never go to school and be taught at home while the boys would be taught by the men.

I think the difference between you and me is that I prefer to have all male leaders but do not see how I could sit on everything in scripture as always applicable in every culture at all times. I see Christ working within a culture not the culture adopting a western understanding of Christianity. Christianity began in the middle east not in America.

 

[TexasSky]

Scott,

Thousands of Christian men across the nation have not intepreted the verse as you have. Theologians with PH.D.'s in Greek, Hebrew and Theology have not either. What makes your interpretation the only correct one against the educated men who also love the Lord?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

It doesn't require a great deal of interpretation. Read the words. Read the context. Place it in the context of the whole of the NT and scripture.

The context here suggests that Pual particularly has respectful worship in mind.

It also suggests that he is concerned about women who "usurp" authority, implying less than appropriate respect for the men in leadership positions.

I believe contetx does NOT support your reading.

There is nothing there to suggest that this command is optional, culture limited, or subject to arbitrary dismissal by people whose worldview happens to be offended by it.

Again what is suggested is that women do not usurp authority.

You keep referring to people trying to bend scripture to support a worldview.

I argue that there are a lot of fundamentalists today whose world view is that God gave us a new Mosaic law (this time it's called a Bible and not a Torah). Instead of ritual purifications we have new rituals such as women not being able to teach, not being able to wear pants, literal interpretation despite contextual evidence to the contrary.

And these "rituals" are defended under the guise of, "it's God's will - don't blame me".

You are arguing based on your desire to have a literal scripture.