Is it okay for women to preach but not pastor?

[Karen]

Originally posted by 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?

Although I am not sure I exactly agree in principle or application with Scott, I don't find this a very compelling argument.
Remember Luther and the church door? "Here I stand..."
Remember Athanasius "contra mundo"?

Karen

 

[Charles Meadows]

I think Sky is alluding to that fact that most people with extensive theological education, conservative as well as liberal, would not agree with Scott here.

I agree with her.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by 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?

Deal with the text.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by gb93433:

Originally posted by Scott J:


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.

So the conversation goes something like this?

"God through Paul: I allow not the practice of women teaching nor usurping authority over men.

The reader: I disagree.

God: Oh, well that practice must not apply to you."

I do not see the command Paul gave to Timothy about drinking wine as a command that applies to me personally.

Why did he tell Timothy that? There is a principle there and a valuable one when we are also told to avoid drunkeness.

I view each of those as principles and practices but not as commands to be personally applied.

What principle or practice established by God for the church do you think is optional?

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.

To add the other side of the conversation so that it agrees with a preconceived bias is to negate the value of both sides of the conversation. Are you telling me that you don't think scripture is sufficient?

I believe that "both sides of the conversation" are best understood by allowing scripture to interpret scripture within the immediate and whole context.

Since scripture affirms male leadership in these type roles and since there is no NT example of a woman performing these roles... I believe the conversation goes like this:

God through Paul: "Women are not allowed to teach nor usurp authority over men within the congregation."

The rest of scripture: "Amen."

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.

Yes we can. By looking at other passages that deal with the relationships between men and women.

Scripture can only be correctly interpreted in light of its historical context.

That is interpreting the infallible by the fallible.

Women teaching teenage boys is against the historical practice of rabbis teaching boys .

Cite the scripture that establishes this. The traditions of the Jews were not respected by Paul or Jesus. But we aren't talking about traditions. We are talking about a plain, direct statement.

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.

Really? What scripture forbids Sunday School? The Bible clearly establishes that the churches assembled frequently and even daily to be taught the scripture. To say that SS is a violation of scripture requires proof.

Today, there are churches that believe Sunday School is unbiblical and counterproductive.

Then they should replace it with some type of regular training that is productive.

 

[Scott J]

double post

 

[Scott J]

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.

Honestly. I don't know.

I have heard this discussed but really haven't seen a real convincing argument either way.

However, that particular scripture stands alone. You cannot establish something as a biblical doctrine or practice based on one scripture. Other like scriptures deal more generally with modesty through the examples of the styles of the day and their implications.

The "statement" against women teaching men is supported contextually throughout the Bible. Women are not to pastor. The elder men are to teach the younger men. The elder women are to teach the younger women. There are no examples of women teaching an assembly with men nor exercising spiritual, church authority over them.

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.

Again, what principle established clearly and specifically by inspiration of God should not be taken as a command?

BTW, the wine passage can only establish a principle concerning the use of alcohol medicinally since it was directed to the individual, Timothy. The passage concerning women did not distinguish any certain women nor time.

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.

I have addressed these types of straw men before. They have absolutely no value concerning the topic at hand nor its application to the church today.

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.

Please cite a scripture that directly establishes these practices like the one in question.

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.

Please cite the scripture that says that God's "practices" are to be judged as to whether they are culturally popular or not.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by 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.

I like and actually respect you Charles though we seem to often disagree... but you still aren't dealing with the text. No breaking down of the words. No citation of context. No cross references.

You have simply stated that you don't like it so you disagree with it.

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.

It specifically refers to teaching. Why are you ignoring that?

The context is an assembly or public group and if you read back through the thread you will see that I acknowledged that there might be flexibility on private discipleship.

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,

That is scriptural.

not being able to wear pants,

That is not.

literal interpretation despite contextual evidence to the contrary.

None of you have cited any contextual evidence from scripture.

gb has attempted some historical stuff but it doesn't hold water because scripture answers him back.

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

Deal with the scripture.

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

I am arguing based on what the Bible says in its context. When someone in authority tells me something serious and important, I accept the meaning as literal unless they indicate that it is not.

Prove me wrong. Show from scripture where God was not serious about this being a literal command/principle for His church to follow.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
I think Sky is alluding to that fact that most people with extensive theological education, conservative as well as liberal, would not agree with Scott here.

I agree with her.

Prove that most conservative scholars disagree.

Appeals to the majority might make one feel good but they have absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

Deal with the text.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

The text says "usurp authority". That implies a lack of respect for proper order.

I agree with you that pastorship and church leadership are male offices and that the male is the spiritual leader.

What I do not agree with (correct me if this is not your position) is the assertion that a woman can not in any way teach or edify a man, regardless of situation or need.

Scripture always is logical. When we're in a situation where it seems like our literal reading of the text is in conflict with what would seem most appropriate in light of Jesus' teachings - we probably ought to reexamine our stance. Jesus was not afraid to apparently "break a law" in order to further His ministry.

Like I said. Women should not be pastors or large scale church leaders. But we should not forbid a woman from helping a man or witnessing or discipling him just because we perceive that scripture has an arbitrary rule against such things.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Scott J:

God through Paul: "Women are not allowed to teach nor usurp authority over men within the congregation."

The point I have tried to make is when there is not a congregation at all. Who is going to start the church? Some churches are started with not one person being a believer except the evangelist.


Then they should replace it with some type of regular training that is productive.

Give me a verse that clearly demonstrates age graded Sunday Schools.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:

God through Paul: "Women are not allowed to teach nor usurp authority over men within the congregation."

The point I have tried to make is when there is not a congregation at all. Who is going to start the church? Some churches are started with not one person being a believer except the evangelist. </font>[/QUOTE] The example of scripture is men. However, I think you gave a good example earlier of women who privately discipled a man to take the public leadership role. In the extreme, I am not sure that would be a violation... it would certainly be a gray area. Women teaching an adult SS class with adult male believers in it though is clearly in the black.

Then they should replace it with some type of regular training that is productive.

Give me a verse that clearly demonstrates age graded Sunday Schools.

The point is that it is neither established nor forbidden. Women teaching or usurping authority over men is forbidden. I don't think we are restricted from doing things that are not forbidden simply because they are not affirmed. I do think we are restricted from doing things that are disallowed.

By principle, the church has a responsibility to train its people in the scriptures. The early church met daily and we are not told exactly how they were divided though a division between the men and women is somewhat implied.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Scott J:

I do not see the command Paul gave to Timothy about drinking wine as a command that applies to me personally. Why did he tell Timothy that? There is a principle there and a valuable one when we are also told to avoid drunkeness.

So now you are willing to go from a command in 1 Timothy 5:23 and call it a principle and in 1Timothy 2:12 which was a statement and make it a command? Whatever happened to sound exegesis coming from the text. Get out your Greek text and take a look for yourself.

1 Timothy 5:23 Paul gives an imperative for Timothy to drink some wine. It is a command in the Greek text. Then in 1 Timothy 2:12 it is a Present Active Indicative and you make it a command?


What principle or practice established by God for the church do you think is optional?
What color burka do the women wear at your church? What color cloak do you wear? If you wear pants it is not biblical. Pants were never worn by men at any time.

You had better wear your sandals and cloak as is commanded in Acts 12:8, “And the angel said to him, "Gird yourself and put on your sandals." And he did so. And he said to him, "Wrap your cloak around you and follow me."

Remember you mentioned historical context is of no value. We must always interpret scripture with scripture. Then without using any outside sources interpret 1 Cor. 15:29, “ Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” If you believe that historical context is of no value then don’t read any extrabiblical materials to help you in interpreting 1 Cor 15:29 and tell me how you come up with sound exegesis and interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:29.

To add the other side of the conversation so that it agrees with a preconceived bias is to negate the value of both sides of the conversation. Are you telling me that you don't think scripture is sufficient? That is your bias not mine. Certainly I believe scripture is sufficient. When you read a letter Paul wrote to a church doesn’t it help to understand the historical context? If you believe that then tell us if Philippians 1:6 is a prayer or a promise? A hint: When you write to a Christian friend, do you use Holy Ghost English with a Holy Ghost form peculiar to Christians or do you standard American English using the standard form Americans use in writing letters?

Explain to me all about slavery by reading Philemon and no outside sources. I can easily explain slavery of the day by looking at some slave documents of the same era and location. That is looking at its historical context.


I believe that "both sides of the conversation" are best understood by allowing scripture to interpret scripture within the immediate and whole context.
That is historical context. All scripture is past tense in time. Therefore it is historical.


Today, there are churches that believe Sunday School is unbiblical and counterproductive. Then they should replace it with some type of regular training that is productive.
Show me one verse where Sunday School existed in the NT.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:

What I do not agree with (correct me if this is not your position) is the assertion that a woman can not in any way teach or edify a man, regardless of situation or need...

Like I said. Women should not be pastors or large scale church leaders. But we should not forbid a woman from helping a man or witnessing or discipling him just because we perceive that scripture has an arbitrary rule against such things.

Priscilla seemed to have been involved with her husband in the private discipleship of Apollos.

I do not oppose women witnessing to men.

I do not however see any way that one cannot say that this passage applies to a woman teaching an adult SS class or discipleship class that contains adult men.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Scott J:

Give me a verse that clearly demonstrates age graded Sunday Schools. [/qb][/QUOTE]The point is that it is neither established nor forbidden. Women teaching or usurping authority over men is forbidden. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Aren't you floppiong around to suit your pet theology when you wrote "I am more interested in dealing with what scripture does say than what it doesn't say."

The scripture does not say to have Sunday School. So Sunday School is unimportant? Sunday School is the invention of man in the 1800's.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by gb93433:


1 Timothy 5:23 Paul gives an imperative for Timothy to drink some wine. It is a command in the Greek text. Then in 1 Timothy 2:12 it is a Present Active Indicative and you make it a command?

Come on gb. When anyone cares for someone and tells them to take medicine for their illness it is given as a command not a statement even if it is in practice an implied principle.

What principle or practice established by God for the church do you think is optional?
What color burka do the women wear at your church? What color cloak do you wear? If you wear pants it is not biblical. Pants were never worn by men at any time.

Cite your scripture that clearly establishes these things on par with the statement made about women teaching men.

You had better wear your sandals and cloak as is commanded in Acts 12:8, “And the angel said to him, "Gird yourself and put on your sandals." And he did so. And he said to him, "Wrap your cloak around you and follow me."

gb, Don't try dishonest or down right foolish tactics. This is a record of a historical event relating to Peter.

If you believe that historical context is of no value then don’t read any extrabiblical materials to help you in interpreting 1 Cor 15:29 and tell me how you come up with sound exegesis and interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:29.

If I said that it was of "no value" then I apologize. However it does not save you on the text in question and it must be applied appropriately. Scripture is consistent about the roles of women with relation to men in spiritual matters.

When you read a letter Paul wrote to a church doesn’t it help to understand the historical context?

You have yet to establish by any means that the statement made by Paul did not mean that women were not to "teach nor usurp authority over men" in the context of history or otherwise. Rabbinical traditions and the like do not make a case for ignoring the clear, direct implications of these words.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:

Give me a verse that clearly demonstrates age graded Sunday Schools. </font>[/QUOTE]The point is that it is neither established nor forbidden. Women teaching or usurping authority over men is forbidden. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Aren't you floppiong around to suit your pet theology when you wrote "I am more interested in dealing with what scripture does say than what it doesn't say."

[/QB][/QUOTE]
Not in the very least... in fact the opposite.

The NT teaches that the church has a responsibility to train believers. It does not dictate a single method to be used.

SS is neither affirmed nor forbidden. Women teaching men is forbidden.

I am not interested in arguing with someone over whether they use SS as a method for carrying out a responsibility of the church or use some other method. I am not interested in "dealing" with this because scripture doesn't say one way or the other.

I am very interested in making a stand concerning the role of women in church since the Bible makes a clear statement on the subject.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
God was NEVER vague.

He wasn't vague when He said through Paul that women were not to teach nor usurp authority over men.

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.

Nothing in scripture is authoritative to you unless it says "This is a command from God"? So now it is blasphemy to trust the inspired writings of the Apostle Paul over your opinion?

It is ALL His Word. It ALL has authority... whether He spells it out or simply states it.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Scott J:

I do not oppose women witnessing to men.

[/QB]

So you do know the outcome of that? The book I mentioned earlier was very much the case. Two women went to a village to translate the Bible into the language of the native people. In the process they led some men to Christ and the start of a church was formed. Once that church got well underway the ladies left and the men led. Those ladies taught the men until they believed and could lead the church. They were the only two Christians in the village who came to share the gospel.

I do not believe you have any scriptural ground for a woman never leading men. We see the example in Deborah who was leading a man in the OT. Isn't God still God? He doesn't change does He? I believe that men must lead if a strong church is to be developed and provide an example for the men. But I see no command against women sharing their faith and starting a church. Of course you do not have a church technically until you have believers anyway. Would someone ever pastor non-believers?

The verse you cite in 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a command. You cannot change the verb tense to something that is not there. It is a statement not a command. You cannot change the tense to something that is not there.

Did you look at the text in your Greek NT?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by terriloo:


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?

That is a very difficult situation and would probably depend a great deal on how incapacitated your husband is from his injury and whether it is permanent or temporary.

I am not trying to evade your question at all. There just isn't alot of detail to go on. In general, I would suggest you use influence rather than a dictatorial approach. Give him as many opportunities to lead in decision making as you can even if he almost always defers back to you especially if you have children around.

Try to get your husband to listen to tapes of men preaching or teaching or maybe audio books.

"Tender Warriors" on audio might be a good choice. It is very interesting and has some very good things to say about the man's responsibility to lead his family.

Not trying to pry to much so if you don't feel comfortable don't answer but I was wondering if you and your husband were unequally yoked at marriage. It just seems odd from the rest of your post that a mature Christian lady would marry a man unprepared to be her spiritual leader.

2) is "in general". ... 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?

You could effectively invalidate the whole NT with this line of reasoning.

Tongues went out for several reasons. One, the most detailed scripture on it in I Cor says it would cease. Two, it was given for a sign to the Jews and for the validation of the Apostles who wrote scripture. Three, it required apostolic authority. Four, miracles are used at specific times performed by specific groups or individuals to validate a change. There were long periods in the OT without miracles. Our long period without miracles will end as well under virtually any escatalogical viewpoint you hold.

Women of today have as much education as men.

Not all of the women in Paul's day were ignorant. gb may or may not want to give his insights but there were cities under Roman rule where women had extensive rights if the historical references I have seen were accurate (yes gb, I do read, like, and respect history... just not on the same level as scripture).

The very fact that Paul addresses the possibility of women teaching men or to seize authority in the congregation suggests that they had significant ability if not education.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by gb93433:


I do not believe you have any scriptural ground for a woman never leading men.

You didn't cite scripture and you still have not dealt directly with the scripture.

We see the example in Deborah who was leading a man in the OT.

Deborah was a judge, not a priest and not a king. None the less, God cursed Barak for not stepping forward and leading... so to say this is a ringing endorsement of female leadership is a tremendous stretch.

But I see no command against women sharing their faith and starting a church.

I already agreed with that... but I would say that the two women probably went too far.

Of course you do not have a church technically until you have believers anyway. Would someone ever pastor non-believers?

That's true.

Did you look at the text in your Greek NT?

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.

The only link between the two things is the one you have decided to make. They aren't even within the same context within the epistle. This part of the second chapter deals with the appropriate behavior of women. The last few verses are personal exhortations to Timothy.

[ June 09, 2005, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: Scott J ]