Is it okay for women to preach but not pastor?

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

 

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.

 

Deal with the text.

 

double post

 

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.

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.

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.

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

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

 

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.

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.

That is scriptural.

That is not.

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.

Deal with the 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

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

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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?

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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

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.

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

That's true.

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 ]