-
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!
Women at the pulpit
- Thread starter atestring
- Start date
williemakeit
New Member
I can see Bro. Jim filling out his Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong envelope now.
A boy in my 5th grade class had an opposing view. He said that Adam was smarter than Eve. Eve, he said, was tempted by a snake and gave in. But Adam was tempted by a naked woman. I guess he could understand giving in to a naked woman better than giving in to a snake. I wonder if that kid was clever or if he heard that line from someone else.
Paul says that the woman was the one who was decieved. He seems to be implying that the man was not. Maybe Adam was rebellious but not decieved. And Paul some might interpret the passage to say that women are more inclined to being decieved than men.
It is interesting that this teaching on women not teaching men or usurping authority over them comes right before the qualifications of overseers, which include being the husband of one wife. Taken as a whole passage, it seems clear that women are excluded from this role.
When we talk about women in the pulpit, we need to realize that 'the pulpit' is not a Biblical thing. The early church met in homes, primarily, from the evidence we see in scripture, and not in chuch buildings. The furniture of the home would include the table-- Paul speaks of the Lord's table. They would gather and eat an actual meal. In their gaterings, various members of the body would speak to edify the assembly. I Corinthians makes this clear. It was not the case of only one person speaking and giving a sermon each week and no one else being permitted to speak. So the 'pulpit-pew' concept is not a concept that scripture teaches. In a Biblical church meeting, people take turns speaking. More than one person can give a teaching, sing a solo, prophesy, speak in tongues with interpretation, etc.
The question is what role a woman has in this kind of Biblical sermon. Some take the passage in I corinthians to mean absolute silence. But chapter 11 speaks of women praying prophesying with their heads covered or uncovered. Was he saying women should cover their heads while doing these things in public, or while home alone. If they have to cover their heads while praying at home alone, do they have to cover their heads in the bathtub or in the shower, or does head covering have to do with church meetings? If it has to do with church meetings, then does I Corinthians 11 indicate that women could pray publicly in the assembly and prophesy? Would this mean that the 'keep silent' passage is referring to a specific problem, like the women 'judging' the prophecies by asking Socratic style questions, for example?
As for absolute silence, I think most people oppose this, allowing women to participate in congregational singing, or say 'amen' with the crowd in churches that have a bit of liturgical responsive reading.
Does the New Testament teach us to have congregational singing? I Corinthians 14:26 seems to imply solos. And 'speak to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' could be done in the form of solos.
When the brethren gathered to pray when Peter was imprisoned, either they did not have an absolute silence view of the role of women, or else Rhoda violated the rules. She went in and spoke, saying that Peter was at the door.
"Paul says that the woman was the one who was decieved. He seems to be implying that the man was not. Maybe Adam was rebellious but not decieved."
"
Which would actually be worse. Being fooled is one thing, open rebellion on the other hand...
"I guess he could understand giving in to a naked woman better than giving in to a snake. I wonder if that kid was clever or if he heard that line from someone else."
"
This is the moment I make a snarky remark about women being tempted by ahum.. snakes.
"
Which would actually be worse. Being fooled is one thing, open rebellion on the other hand...
"I guess he could understand giving in to a naked woman better than giving in to a snake. I wonder if that kid was clever or if he heard that line from someone else."
"
This is the moment I make a snarky remark about women being tempted by ahum.. snakes.
Adam did not know that he was naked or that The woman was naked. This was normal to them and He was as naked as she was.
Many theologians believe that Adam was the one who sinned rather than his wife.
He could have taken responsibiltiy for both of them . Saying that women are inferior because Adams Wife ate the forbidden fruit first is not a good argument for women being inferior.
Today women are treated as inferior by many churches and denominaions. One example is the fact that most Southern Baptist Churches will not ordain a woman to be an evangelist or a youth leader or a childrens minister but would ordain a man for the same roles. Even though the consensus is that as long as they are not a senior Pastor. I know of some women that do not get the tax breaks that a man doing the same job gets.
Many theologians believe that Adam was the one who sinned rather than his wife.
He could have taken responsibiltiy for both of them . Saying that women are inferior because Adams Wife ate the forbidden fruit first is not a good argument for women being inferior.
Today women are treated as inferior by many churches and denominaions. One example is the fact that most Southern Baptist Churches will not ordain a woman to be an evangelist or a youth leader or a childrens minister but would ordain a man for the same roles. Even though the consensus is that as long as they are not a senior Pastor. I know of some women that do not get the tax breaks that a man doing the same job gets.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The way many view that -- it is "perfect porn" because God "created" humans to be affected or stimulated when men view a naked woman.
But if Adam truly saw her naked form as "nothing" to be interested in more than having nice flowing hair or a beautiful face -- then it would appear that the serpent was wiser than any animal in the garden but Adam was dummer than any human on earth today.
If Adam saw an unclothed Eve as nothing more interesting than a well-formed buffallow how would we get to the point of a human race?
Ok so what if that is NOT what was actually happening (a much more likely option).
In the Bible it is an abomination to appear before the Lord unclothed.
Some suppose that just as Moses' face shone brightly when he came down off the mountain from speaking with God for just 40 days (so much so that the people could not look at him and asked him to veil his face) - so also sinnless perfect Adam and Eve wore robes of light - as do the angels. Unclothed from our POV in terms of animal skins or fabric - but fully clothed in terms of not having their nakedness exposed.
(This is the no-porn version. Where we preserve the idea that God made us to be affected by the naked form of the opposite gender - but did NOT make that the normal mode of doing business every day. Rather - a private venue -- not a public one)
Or do you suppose that the "knowledge of good an evil" was either the "evil knowledge that nakedness is wrong" or the "good knowledge that nakedness is wrong"??
In Christ,
Bob
[ March 26, 2005, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]
Does this allow for women Evangelist? </font>[/QUOTE]I surely hope every believing woman evangelizes and that every evangelist is not just exercising their gifts in the chruch building and bilking people of their money. A true evangelist does nopt like churches very well. Their passion is the souls of non-believers and winning them to Christ.
A man that I met in 1975 who was a nominal Christian had never been followed up on. For years he has seen it as a waste of time to spend much time with believers. He is continually winning people to Christ. He has "it" when it comes to evangelism. He sees the value of follow up but his passion is still evangelism. Now he is teamed up with a person whose passsion is follow up and loves the relationship they have.
That reminds me of the time when I was in seminary and a young man asked a woman speaker who had been a missionary for about 30 years the question, "What gives you the right to be a woman missionary?" Her response was, "If there weren't so many lazy men like you we wouldn't have to go." He never said another word.Originally posted by atestring:
MANY PEOPLE THAT WANT WOMEN TO BE SILENT IN THE CHURCH GIVE LOTTIE MOON AND ANNIE ARMSTRONG OFFERINGS!
WOULD YOU GIVE TNE OF THOSE OFFERINGS?
Marcia
Active Member
What If I said this is a "strawman" argument?
You have not bible Reference in this post to back up your statement. </font>[/QUOTE]Still on the straw man thing? Did you not ever understand what was meant by that? It's the name for a logical fallacy. If you said that to what I say here, it would not make sense because I am not making a straw man argument.
Is one only allowed to post a view if Bible verses are used to back it up? If so, we better delete a lot of posts!
I think it's a lot of verses -- too many to post. It's an argument developed from several passages, such as only nameing men as overseers and shepherds, and the stating that the husband is the spiritual head.
I don't believe in dividing over this issue.
They won't even ordain their women as chaplains to work with just women in the military and hospitals.
Show me one case where a male pastor directly counseled a lady in the NT church. You won't find one. That was the role of the deaconess.
Isn't it nice to know that the SBC does not believe in women pastors but yet they will have women teaching those male pastors in class in their seminaries?
Is that a case of convenient theology?
Many pastors stand up to the pulpit and tell how women should not work outside of the home and yet have women secretaries. Isn't that just amazing hypocrisy?
Is that a case of convenient theology?
No one is saying that the Bible teaches women are inferior!
It is a matter of different roles for men and women.
I used to be a strong feminist before I trusted Christ, and I see no Biblical support for a woman to be a pastor. Only God could change me like that. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with you. But I can show you a letter from Dr. Rankin's office that I have where it is stated that they do not send women missionaries to English speaking countries. However they do send them to non-English speaking countries though. What are those women doing other than planting churches through their evangelism.
Again what they say and do is not in complete agreement--hypocrisy.
These were women missionaries that were sent to a foreign country for the purpose of evangelism. But while they were there we do know they won people to Christ and churches were started. That is one thing the SBC often does not tell you. Ask some of those from other countries you knew from your seminary days. When I was in seminary I met several students who spoke about women starting the churches they attended in their home country.
Personally I think it is better if a man pastors and starts the church. But in some cases it would be very unwise to send a man because he would be a threat to the men in the villages. There are plenty of cases where women have started churches and trained the local men who came to Christ to lead the church.
It is not always so cut and dried as sometimes the picture is painted.
At SWBTS a woman is teaching Hebrew. While at the same time Patterson and his wife preach about the woman's place in the home and as a support to the husband. Patterson has also spoken about how he would not want to do anything different than the local church. Yet week after week she teaches Hebrew to current and prospective pastors. She teaches the pastors. Isn't that different than what a churches does?
Again I believe it is a case of where their practice of convenience does not match their voice of proclaimed theology.