-
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!
Is it okay for women to preach but not pastor?
- Thread starter shannonL
- Start date
I have wondered about this for several years now, studied and read many books about Paul's teaching and through the years keep changing my mind.
I know what the scripture clearly states, but my question has always been when does speaking stop and preaching begin. Or what is preaching? Surely, it is all right for a woman to tell the gospel to others.
Then there is the question, when there is no man available to teach, what then?
I am not sure that this can be a black and white subject. It seems that it is okay for woman to serve under the authority of a man so if that is true then she should be able to preach under the authority of a male pastor; however, then that brings up the question about teaching men.
The only thing I know is that I am not sinning if I listen to a woman, teach or preach because I am a woman.
Why can't a woman lead a group discussion when there are men present? Would this be wrong?
It does seem that it is Okay for a woman to preach if her title is "missionary".
This is always an interesting discussion and I like to read all sides of the issue. What did Paul really mean?
I know what the scripture clearly states, but my question has always been when does speaking stop and preaching begin. Or what is preaching? Surely, it is all right for a woman to tell the gospel to others.
Then there is the question, when there is no man available to teach, what then?
I am not sure that this can be a black and white subject. It seems that it is okay for woman to serve under the authority of a man so if that is true then she should be able to preach under the authority of a male pastor; however, then that brings up the question about teaching men.
The only thing I know is that I am not sinning if I listen to a woman, teach or preach because I am a woman.
Why can't a woman lead a group discussion when there are men present? Would this be wrong?
It does seem that it is Okay for a woman to preach if her title is "missionary".
This is always an interesting discussion and I like to read all sides of the issue. What did Paul really mean?
T
TexasSky
Guest
I was appointed to teach a Sunday School, of mixed gender, by men.
The ultimate authority, the people who I answered to, were men.
I tend to believe God meant for men to lead.
However, if your scripture is so weak that you don't know Lydia from the bible, maybe you shouldn't be the male leading.
The ultimate authority, the people who I answered to, were men.
I tend to believe God meant for men to lead.
However, if your scripture is so weak that you don't know Lydia from the bible, maybe you shouldn't be the male leading.
It may be pragmatism but that is the way God has done it for hundreds of years among many people groups. </font>[/QUOTE] gb, God does not do things that are unscriputural and women teaching and exercising authority over men is unscriptural. God may work in spite of sin and even providentially use sin but disobedience to a direct command of scripture is sin... I am surprised that you are arguing that it is not.
... and this is the way God has done it since the first century. Martyrs dying for the faith as witnesses to the gospel has long been a most powerful force in the spread of the gospel.
Again, pragmatism doesn't trump scripture.
I am not trying to be a smart aleck but I am really not interested in reading a book that extols the virtues of "serving God" in a way that is contrary to the way God prescribed.
Lottie Moon was a missionary to China over a 100 years ago. I don't know if she "preached", but she definitely shared the Gospel and helped plant churches. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see a scriptural problem with that nor with their serving in many capacities. Teaching male believers however is one that God chose to disallow.
Mrs. Dianetavegia,
My mother sings in the choir of Biltmore Baptist in Asheville NC. Their choir provided the music for the last NC Bapt. Conv. My mom sat right there and heard Mrs. Lotz bring the message. There was even a big brew hah hah in the NC state paper. One little country SB church around Marion NC pulled out of the convention because of the fact that they allowed Mrs. Lotz to preach. You seem like a fine, southern lady. I don't want to dispute with you. I'm just telling you what I know
My mother sings in the choir of Biltmore Baptist in Asheville NC. Their choir provided the music for the last NC Bapt. Conv. My mom sat right there and heard Mrs. Lotz bring the message. There was even a big brew hah hah in the NC state paper. One little country SB church around Marion NC pulled out of the convention because of the fact that they allowed Mrs. Lotz to preach. You seem like a fine, southern lady. I don't want to dispute with you. I'm just telling you what I know
I am not trying to be a smart aleck but I am really not interested in reading a book that extols the virtues of "serving God" in a way that is contrary to the way God prescribed. [/QB][/QUOTE]
That book shows how a church started through Bible translation by two women who were Wycliffe Bible Translators. In spite of those who would never think of women doing evangelism to eventually get the Bible to a group of people and start a church, God is continuing to use men and women to do duch things. It is not rocket science to oberve history and see how God has moved. Is it perfect? No. But is it working? Yes. Isn't it interesting that the SBC who does not believe in women pastoring will appointwomen missionaries to non-English speaking contries to do evangelism?
You mean to tell me that you do not of one church in the US started by women? There are a number that were started by women and are now pastored by men today.
God will work in spite of what you think.
At one time I was just like you. I did not even think a woman should go as a missionary or teach Sunday School. But when I read that book and understood a few more things about church history I changed. I still hold the position that God wants a man in each church as pastor but he will use anyone who is available to give out the gospel even when men are too lazy.
So many men will watch the world dying into a Christless eternity and be couch potatoes while it is the women working at the church and reaching others. The majority of discipleship groups in churches are led by women who are discipling other women. But the men sit and watch them and do nothing to disciple other men.
Lottie Moon was a missionary to China over a 100 years ago. I don't know if she "preached", but she definitely shared the Gospel and helped plant churches. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't see a scriptural problem with that nor with their serving in many capacities. Teaching male believers however is one that God chose to disallow. </font>[/QUOTE]So you think that going from a non-believer one minute then the next minute they become a believer makes them mature in Christ and able to teach the Bible with doctrinal soundness? Benny Hinn might believe that but I don't. Seems to me that Paul didn't believe that either because he was with them a few years and then sent them follow up letters later.
Charles Meadows
New Member
Scott,
Again, pragmatism doesn't trump scripture.
Well...
Paul himself was pragmatic. I would wager Lydia, and likely Phoebe and others did in fact instruct some men.
The verses in Timothy and in 1 Cor do suggest that women are to be respectful of male headship in spiritual matters - but they do not explicitly say that a woman cannot help disciple a man.
This is an example of literal interpretation getting in the way of scripture. Are we REALLY interested in knowing what scripture prescribes for us (even if it involves admitting we are occasionally wrong - or are we overly concerned not to rock our fundamentalist boat?
Again, pragmatism doesn't trump scripture.
Well...
Paul himself was pragmatic. I would wager Lydia, and likely Phoebe and others did in fact instruct some men.
The verses in Timothy and in 1 Cor do suggest that women are to be respectful of male headship in spiritual matters - but they do not explicitly say that a woman cannot help disciple a man.
This is an example of literal interpretation getting in the way of scripture. Are we REALLY interested in knowing what scripture prescribes for us (even if it involves admitting we are occasionally wrong - or are we overly concerned not to rock our fundamentalist boat?
I started this thread. Let me just say the Bible is very clear. Only a man should Pastor.
If a man needs to be discipled and there is no man present at the time to do the job can't God provide one? If He can part the Red Sea He can provide a man to teach a man. God wouldn't ask us to follow His word and then not be able to provide a way for you or I to adhere to it.
Mr. Meadows please explain how literal interpretation gets in the way of Scripture?
Mr. Meadow how can you "wager" on something Scripture is silent on?
Because the verse doesnt'say explicitly that a woman cannot disciple a man doesnt mean that she can either. Speculation makes for good verbal jousting but that is about it.
Some of the scenarios mentioned in this thread are somewhat like the arguments abortion advocates like to make. (I'm not equating anyone)
They say well what about the woman that was raped by her brother. Well, that makes up about half a percent of abortions.
I'm not saying majority is the final authority.Scripture is Basing your reasoning a very few Scriptual instances that are not that clear against the stronger scriptual rule of thumb to not let women teach men is not that strong of an argument.
I'm no great scholar myself I'm just a missionary on deputation headed to Spain to share the Gospel.
Just throwing this out for discussion.
If a man needs to be discipled and there is no man present at the time to do the job can't God provide one? If He can part the Red Sea He can provide a man to teach a man. God wouldn't ask us to follow His word and then not be able to provide a way for you or I to adhere to it.
Mr. Meadows please explain how literal interpretation gets in the way of Scripture?
Mr. Meadow how can you "wager" on something Scripture is silent on?
Because the verse doesnt'say explicitly that a woman cannot disciple a man doesnt mean that she can either. Speculation makes for good verbal jousting but that is about it.
Some of the scenarios mentioned in this thread are somewhat like the arguments abortion advocates like to make. (I'm not equating anyone)
They say well what about the woman that was raped by her brother. Well, that makes up about half a percent of abortions.
I'm not saying majority is the final authority.Scripture is Basing your reasoning a very few Scriptual instances that are not that clear against the stronger scriptual rule of thumb to not let women teach men is not that strong of an argument.
I'm no great scholar myself I'm just a missionary on deputation headed to Spain to share the Gospel.
Just throwing this out for discussion.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Mat 28:18-20 (KJV1611 Edition):
And Iesus came, and spake vnto them, saying, All power is giuen vnto me in heauen and in earth.
19 Goe ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to obserue all things, whatsoeuer I haue commanded you: and loe, I am with you alway, euen vnto the end of the world. Amen.
Is 'ye' here men only?
And Iesus came, and spake vnto them, saying, All power is giuen vnto me in heauen and in earth.
19 Goe ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to obserue all things, whatsoeuer I haue commanded you: and loe, I am with you alway, euen vnto the end of the world. Amen.
Is 'ye' here men only?
Charles Meadows
New Member
Shannon,
The scriptures are clear that pastorship is a male job. Clearly the man is the spiritual leader of both the house and the church.
Jesus and Paul were not legalists. As Christ is the head of the church so the husband is the head of the wife. But did not Christ use human members of the church in His ministry? If the weaker of the pair can never serve then how have any of us been worthy to share the gospel?
If qualified men are present then they should lead. If not then those who are qualified are called to serve.
I realize that in your rigidity you are trying to be faithful to the scriptures. But God is not capricious. To say that no woman can ever do anything that might put her slightly above a man is to misread the scripture. The Gospel is NOT a new Mosaic Law with different ritual tenets.
The scriptures are clear that pastorship is a male job. Clearly the man is the spiritual leader of both the house and the church.
Jesus and Paul were not legalists. As Christ is the head of the church so the husband is the head of the wife. But did not Christ use human members of the church in His ministry? If the weaker of the pair can never serve then how have any of us been worthy to share the gospel?
If qualified men are present then they should lead. If not then those who are qualified are called to serve.
I realize that in your rigidity you are trying to be faithful to the scriptures. But God is not capricious. To say that no woman can ever do anything that might put her slightly above a man is to misread the scripture. The Gospel is NOT a new Mosaic Law with different ritual tenets.
I am not trying to be a smart aleck but I am really not interested in reading a book that extols the virtues of "serving God" in a way that is contrary to the way God prescribed. </font>[/QUOTE]That book shows how a church started through Bible translation by two women who were Wycliffe Bible Translators.</font>[/QUOTE] I have tried to be careful about what I have said to ensure that I demand nor concede anything more than scripture does. Just deal with the texts.
That is a sinful form of pragmatism... "It doesn't matter what the Bible says as long as it is working". Sorry but no.
IFB's do the same thing for that matter. There is a great deal that women can do on the missions field... and there are a few things they cannot do like teach and exercise authority over male believers.
I don't recall saying this... but it doesn't really matter what I believe. It only matters what God said on the matter.
And God will not "work" in contradiction to His Word in spite of what YOU think.
Then you weren't just like me since I don't believe these things. Women should not teach nor exercise authority over men. That isn't what I "think", it is what the Bible says in context.
I think God wants women to share the gospel, period- whether men are also available or not.
That isn't the point.
Just as it should be.
That doesn't justify a woman or church ignoring God's Word concerning how women are and are not to relate to believing men.
Wager all you want. The scripture doesn't support it however... Prove that Paul was pragmatic.
If you will read through my posts again you will notice that the one exception that I see as a possibility is women helping their husbands disciple men... like was done with Apollos.
No it isn't. It is an example of people who don't like what scripture says... in context... discarding, ignoring, or twisting scriptures that they don't like. There is nothing unloving about saying that God has designed roles for men and women. There is nothing unloving nor unkind about recognizing that God has disallowed certain functions and offices to women.
I am. The question better applies to you in whatever boat you sit in.
I am not the one refusing to deal with the direct, very plain teaching from scripture.
You haven't even explained why you are arguing this point other than your opinion that women should be allowed these roles much less building any kind of biblical case for it. That is a case of starting with your opinion then demanding that scripture conform to it.
I don't see a scriptural problem with that nor with their serving in many capacities. Teaching male believers however is one that God chose to disallow. </font>[/QUOTE]So you think that going from a non-believer one minute then the next minute they become a believer makes them mature in Christ and able to teach the Bible with doctrinal soundness?</font>[/QUOTE] No. I believe that women are allowed to share the gospel with men then take them to mature men who will teach and exercise authority over them.
Like you, Benny seems to think scripture is malleable when it doesn't suit his purpose.
Yes. After he had established church leadership... consisting of a male pastor and males teaching males.
So you think that going from a non-believer one minute then the next minute they become a believer makes them mature in Christ and able to teach the Bible with doctrinal soundness? No. I believe that women are allowed to share the gospel with men then take them to mature men who will teach and exercise authority over them.
Like you, Benny seems to think scripture is malleable when it doesn't suit his purpose.
==================================================================================
According to you, if men wear pants and shoes they are wearing clothes that are not meant for men to wear. Instead of looking at the ant hole in the ground try looking at the forest. For you to suggest I am suggesting anything unbiblical in accordance with God’s plan is much like you suggesting that the men not wear pants and the women be covered. It would be suggesting that men and women only wear sandals too. It would also be suggesting that women do not wear make up because only the prostitutes did during the NT time. Christian women during the time of the NT wore a garment much like the burka and the men wore an outer garment. Is that what you are suggesting? If not, then you are not adhering to the legalistic view of scripture. Have you not taken scripture and applied it in ways you see fit. Certainly you have if you wear pants. Pants were never worn by men or women in the NT.
I agree with you in a perfect world. In some places there is not another Christian other than a woman. Why is it that some women have gone into villages to share the gospel and men have been killed? The men have been a threat to the other men in the village but not the women. Initially those woman shared their faith and trained the men to lead and then the men led. Not one of those men would be capable of leading immediately after becoming a believer. They need help and training. Who do you think does that? The woman who is there.
When I was a student at SWBTS I had gotten to know some students from other countries. When I talked to those coming from many other countries I found out that often it was a woman who was the person who came to their village.
It’s quite hard to dispute the results of God in a world far vast than we can comprehend. I am not willing to limit God in His ways of doing things to reach people. I think it is normal for the man to want to lead and he should. But it is also normal for a man to protect his village and family. Outside men may be viewed as a threat. Men from other countries are viewed as wealthy and possibly be a disruption to their society. I am not willing to say God cannot bring the gospel through a woman.