Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

[annsni]

Ann, we've talked about this before. No evangelical feminist is "tossing out" any part of the Bible. In fact, they are giving the text a prayerful, careful treatment in this process.

I will strongly disagree with you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

No, not at all. I'm a full egalitarian.

Well, you are asserting your full disbelief that the Pauline Epistles are inspired of God. At least you are consistent!

 

[jaigner]

I will strongly disagree with you.

I don't know how else I can explain this to you. You're a level headed person, Ann, and I also think you would suspect that neither of us are right on every single issue. I'm not asking you to change your position on the issue, but to drop the insistence that I'm "throwing out" portions of the Bible, which I'm absolutely not. I love the Bible. I use the Bible as the final word on all issues of faith. I spent a bunch of money to study the Bible at a well-known evangelical institution. I think I'm right about this issue, but if I'm wrong, it's not because I've thrown anything out. It's because, though I've tried to be faithful, I'm fallen. I'm simply not going to get it all right this side of the ultimate perfection of my faith.

Well, you are asserting your full disbelief that the Pauline Epistles are inspired of God. At least you are consistent!

This is just a very sad statement. I pray you're set free from whatever makes you feel the need to be right at all cost. Blessings, friend.

 

[Dr. Walter]

This is just a very sad statement. I pray you're set free from whatever makes you feel the need to be right at all cost. Blessings, friend.

I took a lot of time to deal with every argument that "AliveinChrist" presented. I don't read any responses by him or by you. If I am wrong on so many counts then why not at least respond? Right will always be right regardless who lifts its banner - you are not lifting its banner but complaining when someone does.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Ansni...

AIC - You continue to post articles that say the same thing - we ignore the clear teaching of Scripture. I can easily post articles that say the exact opposite of the articles that you are posting but it will not change your mind. Seek God in this matter - not man. It may make a huge difference.

Regarding all the articles, one reason is that I currently have a broken finger, which makes typing laborious and difficult. In adition, sometimes I find material that is so good, that I couldnt do any better. :laugh:

Such as this...

How does all of this lead up to women ministers? Perhaps you are thinking that although we have laid a biblical foundation for "neither male nor female" in Christ, certain verses in the New Testament still seem to ban women from ministry positions in the church. Let's examine these verses for the true interpretation.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Corinthians 14:34).
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

In these verses, Paul cannot be addressing women who were in the ministry, but rather those in the congregation who were out of order. How do we know this? We have many such proofs, many from Paul himself. Here is a partial list of women who were all in influential positions of leadership in the early church.
Pheobe (Romans 16:1-2): This woman was a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, who was beloved of Paul and many other Christians for the help she gave to them. She filled an important position of leadership. It would be a difficult stretch of the imagination to say that this woman fulfilled her duties without ever speaking in the church!

Priscilla (Acts 18:26): Priscilla and her husband Aquila are often mentioned with great respect by Paul. Together they were pastors of a church in Ephesus, and were responsible for teaching the full gospel to Apollos. We are informed that they both taught Apollos, and pastored the church together. In fact, Priscilla is sometimes listed ahead of Aquila when their names come up. This has led some to speculate that of the two, she was the primary teacher and her husband oversaw the ministry. At any rate, we see here a woman in a very prominent position of teaching and pastoring. (Other references to Priscilla and Aquila are Acts 18:2, 18; Romans 16:3, and I Corinthians 16:19).
Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3): Here we see reference to two women who were "true yokefellow" and who labored with Paul in the advancement of the gospel.

Junia (Romans 16:7): In this verse we see Paul sending greetings to Andronicus and Junia, his "fellow-prisoners" who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a woman's name. In some modern translations, an "s" has been added (Junias) because the translators were so sure a woman could not be an apostle, that they assumed a copyist has accidentally dropped the "s." However the proper male ending would have been "ius," not "ias." No church commentator earlier than the Middle Ages questioned that Junia was both a woman and an apostle.

Though there were other women throughout the Bible in positions of leadership, such as prophetesses, evangelists, judges, leaders, etc., the above references should be enough to establish that women were indeed a vital and normal part of church leadership. Paul expected women to speak in the church, or else why would he have given the following directive? It would have been useless to give directions for women who were speaking in the church, if they were never allowed to do so.

1 Corinthians 11:5, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

Furthermore, if Paul believed that all women should never teach or speak in church, why does he commend many women who did just that?
With all this in mind, what then do we make of the troubling verses that command women to be silent in the churches? First of all, we must interpret those verses in light of what we have just established--that there were women in leadership positions of the church.

Obviously, Paul is not writing to them. He is must be addressing another issue entirely--the women who were loud and unruly during the service, causing disorder and confusion..

When he wrote the Corinthians, he was dealing with a church that was very disorderly in their services. Much of the letter was spent correcting excesses and abuses. Some of these pertained to women in particular and some were to the entire church. Paul is not being prejudiced against women when he instructs the Corinthian women to keep silence. In the early church the seating arrangement was quite different from our modern day churches. Men were seated on one side of the church while the women and children were seated on the opposite side. This is still practiced in many cultures today.

The women of Christ's day were generally uneducated and usually only the men were privileged with an education. Due to this situation, when the church met the women were tempted to shout across the room and ask their husbands the meaning of whatever was being taught. This disturbed the service. Paul was simply saying during the service, "Women, keep your children quiet and you be quiet, and if you have anything to ask your husbands, wait until you get home." Because of the new equality that Christianity brought to women, it could be that some of them were taking their freedom too far, to the point of being obnoxious.

When Paul wrote to Timothy, he gave him a similar directive. Again, it is important to understand the context in which the letter was written. In I Timothy, a careful reader becomes aware that many severe heresies and false teachings that were being dealt with. We can draw a conclusion here that many of the proponents and victims of the false teachings were women. Timothy pastored in Ephesus, and it has been suggested that goddess worship might have played a large part in Paul dealing so severely with the women. Ephesus was a primary center of the worship of Diana or Artemis. The heresies being taught might have suggested that women were authoritative over men and had higher access to spiritual knowledge than men did.

Regardless of the particulars, in both cases we can see that Paul is dealing with specific incidents in specific churches for very particular reasons.
We must understand that many of Paul's epistles dealt with local problems and his commandments are not meant to be taken as "commandments" across the board for all situations. Rather, we are to seek the Lord for the basic principal that needs to be incorporated in our churches. Because of Old Testament precedents that had already been set, apparently it never occurred to Paul to re-establish the case for women in ministry. Why would he need to?

The early church took it as a matter of course that Jesus would call and ordain anyone He chose--and that settled it! As a matter of fact, the Bible mentions a prophetess who was in the Temple when Jesus was brought there as a baby. Her name was Anna (Luke 2:25-35), and she was one of two people who recognized Jesus as the Messiah because of her sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.

Paul's writings are sometimes misunderstood today because we do not know all the details that led him to write as he did. We must rely on the Holy Spirit, and the rest of the testimony of Scripture to interpret how we are to apply these things to our everyday lives. Scripture should always be compared with other Scripture and the context taken into consideration. Even in Paul's day, there were those who tried to twist the meaning his words.

"...His (Paul's) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do other Scriptures, to their own destruction" ( 2 Peter 3:16).
It is a fair conclusion that the testimony of the bulk of Scripture, church history and God's anointing upon them, all speak plainly for women being able to fulfill all positions of the five-fold offices of apostle, prophet, pastor, evangelist and teacher.

MINISTERING TODAY

It has always been a strange doctrine that will allow women to go to foreign mission fields and teach heathen men, but will not allow the "heathen" men at home to be taught by the same women! It makes absolutely no sense to think that a female who is learned in the Scriptures cannot teach a male who is unlearned.

Additionally, it is acceptable for many women to teach Sunday School to children, and for mothers to teach their sons. Where do we draw the line and say to the women that can no longer teach a male once they reach a certain age? This may seem like a ridiculous scenario, yet there are those in the church who teach along these lines.

http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=141

 

[Alive in Christ]

Dr Walter..

I took a lot of time to deal with every argument that "AliveinChrist" presented. I don't read any responses by him or by you. If I am wrong on so many counts then why not at least respond? Right will always be right regardless who lifts its banner - you are not lifting its banner but complaining when someone does.

I am currently trying to use "copy and paste" material, due to a broken finger, which makes keyboard responses slow, laborious and sometimes painfull.

Its the best I can do right now.

...and whats worse is I cant play my banjos or guitars!!: BangHead:

 

[Alive in Christ]

Jainer...

Originally Posted by jaigner
Ann, we've talked about this before. No evangelical feminist is "tossing out" any part of the Bible. In fact, they are giving the text a prayerful, careful treatment in this process.

I am in complete agreement. These are clearly "people of the book". They hold the scriptures in the highest regard.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ansni...


"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Corinthians 14:34).
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

In these verses, Paul cannot be addressing women who were in the ministry, but rather those in the congregation who were out of order. How do we know this?

This writer presents his own idea which has no basis in the very context of the scriptures he has just quoted but must go outside the context, outside the letter to support his supposition he forces upon this context. He then goes to ask a rhetorical question about these very same texts and then proceeds to jump completely out of the context to find his answers to his own unproven assertions. This is pure and plain eisgesis at its very best.

He ignores the immediate context of these verses because Paul explicitly in Corinthians context denies his whole suppositional assertions.

1. It is written for "all the churches" "churches" - vv. 33-34
2. It is for "women" in the churches not just for certain women
3. It is in a context of order and decore in the public assembly
4. It is explicitly stated to be the "commandments of the Lord" - v. 36

He completely ignores the contextual reasons that Paul gives in 1 Timothy 2:12-14. No, he has to jump out of the context and PIT QUESTIONABLE EXAMPLES that are built upon silence against explicit precepts.

We have many such proofs, many from Paul himself. Here is a partial list of women who were all in influential positions of leadership in the early church.

Pheobe (Romans 16:1-2): This woman was a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, who was beloved of Paul and many other Christians for the help she gave to them. She filled an important position of leadership. It would be a difficult stretch of the imagination to say that this woman fulfilled her duties without ever speaking in the church!

There is nothing in this context to demand she was in a position over men or had a public speaking/teaching position in any church. The Greek term "diakona" means merely a "servant." Paul's description of how she served him fits the 1 Tim. 6 description of the widow over 60 that was to be supported by the assembly. She could very well be descriptive of the elder widows in 1 Tim. 6 and Titus 2 with responsibility to teach the younger women. She was going to Rome to conduct some sort of buisness that she needed help from the Christians in Rome, rather coming to exercise any kind of leadership or rule. No hard evidence here to support the eisgetical interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:33

Priscilla (Acts 18:26): Priscilla and her husband Aquila are often mentioned with great respect by Paul. Together they were pastors of a church in Ephesus

.

There is no explicit passage that says Priscilla was a pastor anywhere! That is circle reasoning. You make an assumption that immediate context does not support and then proceed to read into your external illustrations exactly what you are trying to prove but the illustration says no such thing!

There is nothing wrong with a woman outside the public congregational service joining her husband in sharing truth with Apollos! They were present at the public meeting held by Apollos and waited until afterward to speak with him privately as there is no indication this was a public debate

Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3): Here we see reference to two women who were "true yokefellow" and who labored with Paul in the advancement of the gospel.

Not true at all! He does not identify them as "true yokefellow" as their are PLURAL women and this is a singular designation addressed to the one who is to help them resolve their quarrel between each other:

2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.
3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel,

There is nothing in the Scriptures that prevent women from being witnesses and sharing the gospel. Nothing is said here about being Pastors of the church or public teachers over men in the church. Their labor was probably supportive of Paul's ministry as they probably ministered to him as did Phebe.

1 Corinthians 11:5, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

Furthermore, if Paul believed that all women should never teach or speak in church, why does he commend many women who did just that?
With all this in mind, what then do we make of the troubling verses that command women to be silent in the churches? First of all, we must interpret those verses in light of what we have just established--that there were women in leadership positions of the church.

First, this text does not permit women to LEAD in praying or prophesying in the public service. Second, John Gill says the phrase "prayer and prophesy" was a summary description of the public worship service. Paul is appealing to their sense of decore concerning women in the assembly uncovered participating under the leadership of men in prayer and prophesying.

Every Biblical example you provide is SILENT concerning the SPECIFICS required to prove your position.

Every interpretation you provide is based upon INFERENCES that are not necesssary to understanding the text in its context.

Your hermeutical approach is backwards as you PIT examples against PRECEPTS in order to overturn what the precepts seem to explicitly say and the examples have to be forced to say what they do not actually or explicitly say.

 

[Jerome]

John Gill says. . .

Read the Bible it is much better and higher authority than John Gill.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Dr Walter...

I cant make you..or Ann for that matter..believe the truth regarding this issue. All I can do is present it. I have done that. The Holy Spirit will have to take it from there.

I and a few others have made it clear.

You all are free to continue to reject scriptual truth, in order to cling tenaciously to the horribly inapropiate theology of "keep the women in thier place, with their mouths shut." Archie Bunker would be proud.

God have mercy

 

[mandym]

You all are free to continue to reject scriptual[sic] truth,

God have mercy

That's right you are free to do that.

 

[DHK]

Yes, yes, yes. One day we will be very embarrassed about this, probably more so than we're embarrassed by the horrific racist opinions of many Baptists. Like W.A. Criswell for instance. The things that this man said about african-americans should be embarrassing for us all today.

Show me in the NT any example of slavery that compares with the slavery that the African-Americans faced in America. Your butchering and total ignorance of the culture of both America and the Bible astounds me. Perhaps you better learn more before you post and embarrass yourself even further.

We will be embarrassed more than this at some point. And it's probably won't be long.

For some reason I am embarrassed for you when I read your posts. Perhaps it is my ability to empathize with others.

No, dude. Paul was speaking to a certain people in their particular context. It was not an overarching command to put tape over women's mouths for all eternity. It was a direct admonition for the difficult life of a woman in a horribly patriarchal world.

So you do away with the commands of Scripture and justify that negation because they don't fit your culture. You make culture supreme, more supreme then the Bible itself. We are to adapt the Bible to our culture according to your style of hermeneutics.

If that is true, and God called you to be a missionary to Africa where the culture of one of the tribes dictated that all of the women go topless, what would you do? Advise your wife to do the same? Teach your children to fit in? Say that it doesn't matter what the Bible teaches about modesty, for we live in a different culture now, then they did in the first century and everything is relative to the culture you live. After all that is the approach you are taking to Scripture, isn't it?

Everyone really needs to stop this "so you got it right and Paul got it wrong" nonsense. Paul got it right. He got everything right. But we can't just cut out the picture of 1st century life and superimpose it over 21st-century American life.

Why? What is your authority in life? Is it your culture or your Bible? I know where I stand. And when the culture is wrong, according to the Scriptures, then it is the culture that needs to change not the Bible.

That is irresponsible Biblical treatment. Our exegesis asks "what was Paul saying to these particular people in their particular historical context." Our interpretation asks "what is this saying to us today."

So, in John 19:30, when Jesus said to the Jews (and disciples) of that particular time and period in history, "It is finished," it was only applicable to them.? Those words don't have anything to do with us? Salvation was only finished for the people gathered around the cross in the first century, at that time and place. It is all relative to that culture. Jesus didn't die for us, because he lived in a different culture, correct?

Jumping straight from reading to application is dangerous. And in this case here, it has greatly limited the Church's potential.

Yes it has, It has limited our potential to being saved, much less to have order in the church which Paul was teaching Timothy about in those pastoral epistles.

 

[annsni]

Dr Walter...

I cant make you..or Ann for that matter..believe the truth regarding this issue. All I can do is present it. I have done that. The Holy Spirit will have to take it from there.

I and a few others have made it clear.

You all are free to continue to reject scriptual truth, in order to cling tenaciously to the horribly inapropiate theology of "keep the women in thier place, with their mouths shut." Archie Bunker would be proud.

God have mercy

I was going to respond to your former post but Dr. Walter did a fine job of it and I won't need to repeat what he said.

However, I do want to say that I hope your finger heals quickly! I've broken two fingers and it's terrible how much those hurt and affect your daily life!

However, I do believe that you are completely wrong that you are presenting the truth. You are presenting modern age interpretations of Scripture and not one that is orthodox to the church through the ages. Yes, women have a GREAT role in the life of the church in teaching and leading but that must be in the boundaries of Scripture. We see a lot of liberty in Christ but each of those liberties are bound by the Word of God and we must follow them in order to be blessed and glorifying to God. I do not believe that women are to just be consumers at church and sit around and do nothing, leaving their gifts at the door but I do not ever believe that a woman can EVER be a pastor as per the clear teaching of Scripture. NEVER is there an order for a woman pastor, never is there an example of a woman pastor and never is there a commendation of a woman pastor. Pastor is male, plain and simple. Women are not to teach men, plain and simple. However, women have a VITAL role in the body of Christ and without them, I do believe the church would not be half as effective as it is. But we cannot step outside of the boundaries or else we are in sin and that is not a place I ever wish to be.

 

[Jerome]

Women are not to teach men, plain and simple.

Oops. Conservative SBC President Bryant Wright apparently didn't get the memo. A lady at his church teaches a coed Sunday School class.

I guess Louie Giglio also needs to be straightened out? He has Beth Moore teach at his Passion extravanganzas!

Even CBMW booster John Piper has invited women to teach at his Desiring God conferences.

 

[annsni]

Oops. Conservative SBC President Bryant Wright apparently didn't get the memo. A lady at his church teaches a coed Sunday School class.

I guess Louie Giglio also needs to be straightened out? He has Beth Moore teach at his Passion extravanganzas!

Even CBMW booster John Piper has invited women to teach at his Desiring God conferences.

And these are in church...where?

Passion is for college students - what many would still consider children/young people and not fully adults.

A conference is not a church.

I guess I should have stated - "in the church".

 

[Jerome]

Pardon me.

I thought when you said

Women are not to teach men, plain and simple.

you meant that—women are not to teach men, plain and simple.



I see the caveats have begun.

So, does Sunday School "not count" as teaching "in the church" in your contruct too?

 

[jaigner]

Show me in the NT any example of slavery that compares with the slavery that the African-Americans faced in America. Your butchering and total ignorance of the culture of both America and the Bible astounds me. Perhaps you better learn more before you post and embarrass yourself even further.

Thank you for your kind words, friend. Now go back to your highly important job of moderating this forum.

 

[annsni]

Pardon me.

I thought when you said



you meant that—women are not to teach men, plain and simple.



I see the caveats have begun.

So, does Sunday School "not count" as teaching "in the church" in your contruct too?

The caveat is what Scripture says. In church. Sunday school counts since it IS in church. A conference might not count but I personally am not comfortable with a woman teaching a man doctrine or Biblical studies. But in school or something like that? That's a different story. That's outside of Scripture.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dr Walter...

I cant make you..or Ann for that matter..believe the truth regarding this issue. All I can do is present it. I have done that. The Holy Spirit will have to take it from there.

I and a few others have made it clear.

You all are free to continue to reject scriptual truth, in order to cling tenaciously to the horribly inapropiate theology of "keep the women in thier place, with their mouths shut." Archie Bunker would be proud.

God have mercy

have you ever had any training in hermeneutics? Obviously not, as what you presented violated the very basics of hermeneutics. Every cult and every false teacher existing applies the very same tactics used in your articles and that is why we have the confusion we do today.

I listed the very eisgetical tactics that you would use and that is exactly what you did:


1. He was a woman hater
2. He was merely providing temporary advice wisdom to deal with a male dominated culture
3. He was not inspired
4. Examples in scripture trump precepts in scripture
5. He was not speaking for God but only for himself
6. etc., etc.,

These great scholars violate very simple rules of hermeneutics.

1. They ignore the contextual reasons given by the writer
2. They pit contrary examples against precepts
3. They take from contexts where women can instruct other women and children
4. They take from contexts of male rebellion against God and make the use of women in leadership positions the standard instead of the exception.
5. They read congregational settings into contexts where none exist
6. They read inferences contrary to precept and positive examples.

You did not provide anything that can honestly be called "truth." What you presented was the consequences of faulty hermeneutics and thus ERROR!

 

[DHK]

Thank you for your kind words, friend. Now go back to your highly important job of moderating this forum.

First answer my question:

Show me in the NT any example of slavery that compares with the slavery that the African-Americans faced in America.