Women in Leadership (not as pastor, but in leadership)

"This text [Hebrews 13:7], whatever may be its other value, is mainly of importance, because it indicates three tests of a genuine, God-sent leader. In the firtst place he speaks the word of God, in the second place his faith is fixed on a personal Saviour; and, in the thrid place, his life conforms to the Word of God and to the faith in Christ, and ends in a glorious immortality. Wherever we find those three indications meeting in any man or woman, we may recognize the heaven-sent leader, and it is at our peril if we do not follow such leadership."
---A.T. Pierson preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, 1892.

 

Interesting discussion

Only thing I can add is to tell you what is done at my church, and because we are small, it might not work for everyone.

We have a ladies missionary group. A few ladies are elected as officers each year with the goal to encourage and lead the group toward mission-minded activities (support, prayer etc.) There is a lady President. But our pastor has the final word in decisions and there have been times where his say-so was in disagreement with our group president's; she then submitted to that authority. There are no men in our 'ladies' group, so there are no issues with women in leadership.

Meanwhile, men in our church are encouraged by our pastor to faithfully pray, to go as a group to mission fields for short term projects, and/or to participate as families in mission work.

So basically, missions work for now is segregated - men from women, unless families act as a family unit. Perhaps this is a little safe, but that's typical for us. Not a lot of strife in our flock, I praise the Lord for that and may He continue that blessing.

 

Now how about that, eh? Somewhere along the line the lights must've gone out ;-) I didn't say anyone was, did I? Meaning, I didn't say that anyone was saying that women should submit to someone (men) with incorrect docrine - somehow, it just came into my brain because someone on this thread said that women on this particular forum were teaching men all the time - and yes, dare I say that person was Jim....... what was I thinking? But anyway, I was asking if a woman should submit to a man who teaches incorrect doctrine, seeing as the man is wrong and the woman is right - so she is unable to correct him (teach him) seeing as he is a man, but wrong nevertheless, and leaving him to continue in his incorrect doctrine wouldn't be right, just because she's a woman who is right and can't teach him because he is wrong ..... aw this is getting really complicated now.......... why do I even bother explaining myself? Why? Why? Why? ;-) (and that's a rhetorical question by the way - so please don't answer it).

But, yes, to cut a long story short, I do believe that women can be leaders - the Bible is clear that older (wiser) women are to teach younger (inexperienced) women. And that makes them LEADERS. In some cultures older women are respected because of their age, even if they aren't friendly and approachable, and that's because they have a lot of experience/wisdom to impart. So the point I'm trying to make here is this: One doesn't find much of this in the Christian church today - it's like the culture in society influences the church, and not the other way around. (and I know, I know - no-one said that here, but I thought it's worth a mention ;-) I've hardly come across younger Christian women really honouring older Christian women or heeding their sound advice. Instead there's the attitude of "oh dear, shame look at that poor old granny, she doesn't know what she's talking about, poor old soul - so last century......"

Definition of a leader:
a person who rules or guides or inspires others

So if an older woman teaches younger women she is guiding, ruling or inspiring them.

Sorry, I didn't have time to read the entire thread, so I wasn't aware that Deborah's name had been mentioned prior to my post, so I plead non-compus mentos here (however which way you prefer to spell it) But it's clear, that if Deborah was a judge, she was clearly in a position of leadership, and that over men - whether it was in a church or not. The point I was trying to make is that she's a LEADER, whether it was over men or not. It's there in the OT and I was using it as an example and I clearly stated why she was in the position that she was - I wasn't saying its the same today, did I?

No, I don't disagree with anything in the New Testament! I'm saying there is a place for women to be leaders - and lead OTHER WOMEN - whether it be iin the church or society.

Yes, they were leaders, but not leaders of men! Nowhere did I say they were leaders of men. The question in the OP is "women in leadership (not pastors)" or something to that effect.

I find your comments rather condescending, to say the least. Of course Priscilla is always mentioned with her husband - like I clearly stated in my previous post - Priscilla and Aquilla correct Apollos. If Priscilla isn't in a position of leadership - then why bother saying "her" and "they", why doesn't the Bible say "him" and "he"? Please don't try to take my words out of context, it's annoying. It's like you're talking down to me - which I find a bit disconcerting. I get the feeling you would like to control what I should think and write as welll.......... It's almost like making really slow gestures and talking in a baby voice when trying to explain something to a deaf person or a foreigner - thinking they're stupid, when in actual fact they're just deaf or have a different culture.

Women can be leaders - that's why churches have women's ministries. No women cannot be pastors, nor can women be deacons. Nor must women be presidents - because then they're ruling over men, but God has allowed them to become such - then one must ask oneself WHY? Not so?

Why women cannot be deacons:
I Timothy 3:8-13, "Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."

BTW, I'm quite clear what the Bible has to say about women's roles and responsibilities. It's there for anyone to see, unless they want to fool themselves and say it's not applicable for today.

I trust that makes my position clear. Kapeesh?

 

Goldie, I don't think the issue here is women leading other women; we're pretty clear on that. It's women having leadership roles over men in the church.

 

Anyone who serves on a committee in the church, whether elected or appointed, whether chair or member, does so under the authority of the pastor and deacons (elders). Last time I checked, a committee chair was still essentially a clerical or delegated responsibility position. Enough said. Go and serve.

 

For the sake of the debate, I’ll add my 20 cents (inflation you know).

For the record, I believe the whole counsel of Scripture allows women the capacity of limited leadership in the Church if she is in subjection to her husband (if she is married) and actively under the authority of the Church Pastor (at least the later if she is single) and does not attempt to usurp the authority of the local Church male authority where she is a member.

These allowances (and perhaps even exceptions: see next sentence) above according to the need.

Single female missionaries visiting the local church for instance can "teach" about the culture, religion, give reports, needs, praises etc concerning her locale and work. The pastor and/or deacons should introduce her and give their permission for her to "teach" by asking her to speak.

Now the 20 cents.

Why can we not make the comparison to the Church? This is easy to say and looks acceptable on the surface, but give us a reason.

True, there are profound differences between Israel and the Church even if one is not “dispensational” that truth is evident in Scripture.

But God Himself is the author both of the Nation of Israel and the Church, both are manifestations of the Kingdom of God on earth.

In addition, Paul uses the Law to make OT/NT comparisons of similarity:

1 Corinthians 9
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

KJV 1 Corinthians 14:34 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.

I’ll get back to this passage above in a moment

Deborah was also mentioned:
Judges 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

Huldah also should be mentioned.

14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college) and they communed with her.
15 And she said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me,
16 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read:
17 Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched.
18 But to the king of Judah which sent you to enquire of the LORD, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, As touching the words which thou hast heard;
19 Because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled thyself before the LORD, when thou heardest what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee, saith the LORD.


So, the male divinely appointed priests and authorities went to Huldah for leadership and a Word from the Lord.

What is even more amazing is that (as taught in Theology 101 all over the world) “thus saith the Lord” is the signature of inspiration through a prophet of God.


So, it appears that God has spoken words of direct inspiration through this woman Huldah and the male authorities responded positively.

We can be relatively sure that Paul knew that both these women were prophetesses and spoke in the name of the Lord.

What then does he mean concerning women's silence "as also saith the law"?

Does any Baptist Church keep 1 Corinthians 14:34 to the letter?

KJV 1 Corinthians 14:34 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.

To be strict literalist according to this passage while women are in the Church, they can't give a testimony (which often times turns into a sermonette), they can’t pray out loud, they can’t sing ,they can’t ask questions, they can’t teach children’s Sunday School, lead Children’s Church, they cannot even teach other women while in the Church.
Does this not follow after a literal interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34?

Concerning Paul: he knew that both Deborah and Huldah were prophetesses and spoke in the name of the Lord.

Again, what did he mean then by women being silent in the churches “as also saith the Law” In 1 Corinthians 14:34?

If you address no other question, please respond to the meaning of the 1 Corinthians 14:34 Scripture.


Deaconess:

RSV Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchreae,

Yes, the original language phrase here is dia,konon th/j evkklhsi,aj (a deaconess of the church).

Please understand that these “seemingly contradictory” passages and questions are stimulants for our minds and God given intellect.

Please go back and read my "for the record" statement".

If you must issue an ad hominem, OK, but please at least respond to the questions and “seeming” contradictions as well (and sing me the Te Deum before the conflagration).




HankD

 

Of course they do until they get their husbands home and can twist his arm. It is amazing how many men come to church expressing what their wives tell them at home. Many times a pastor will hear from a deacon what the wife has told her husband at home.

All of the women walk in with their heads covered as they pray too.

 

Well that stinks! I always prefer my beatings to take place under the romantic glow of moon and starlight.

 

AMEN! In these times where people keep twisting what the Bible says to suit their own desires instead of simply obeying, it is good to hear a correct exposition. It is amazing that these issues have only surfaced in the modern era when the women's movement became so powerful.

Debbie Mc

 

Ok, I have to take issue with this, because this sounds like the women aren't even allowed to talk to their husbands about church issues or have an opinion of their own. That's a VERY far cry from allowing a woman to teach usurp authority over the men at church. What do you expect women to do, sneak in and out of the church like mice and act as bobble heads for whatever the men say?

This reminds me of the church I attended as a teenager. The men (all of them, not the board) had their own separate meetings to discuss church business. They talked over all the church issues, made decisions, then when it was time for the business meeting the pastor would announce whatever had been decided and the church as a whole would vote yes or no. The women had no participation in any discussion and didn't speak or ask questions in the business meetings, they just voted yes or no like robots. I felt sorry for the widows and single ladies who didn't have a husband, because they were totally in the dark (although they could give their tithe, of course that was allowed.) I guess some men are so terrified of a different opinion, they won't even let the women know what's going on. That's just nuts.

 

1 Corinthians 14:35
(35) And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


lol...

See what happens when we strip culture from interpreting passages...

How many here that doesn't beleive a woman should teach or preach will actually adhere to this verse?

Do you women that don't believe in women teaching or preaching actually wait to get home to ask your husband to teach you?

This verse is as much the word of God as any other verse.

The only way to properly interpret this verse is to ask what was going on in Corinth to make Paul tell the women to basically, "shut up"..


On the funny side... when we had our children, our 2 youngest are only 11 months apart.. and my wife had a hard time at church with them.. one day she asked me to help her.. and I said JOKINGLY, The bible says that I should learn what you need to know, and when we get home I'll instruct you.....

YOU should have seen the Rollingpin then!

OF COURSE I WAS JOKING!!!

 

What's amazing is that you actually remembered what hit you and saw anything besides stars.

 

In the 1700s a woman like Selina Hastings could, with George Whitefield, lead the Calvinistic Methodists [the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion], yet today she would probably deemed a jezebel by "conservative" "christian" antifeminist organizations.

 

lol.... men have to learn.. for me, it seems it is the hard way!

 

Yes, and in our Baptist Denomination we have had women preachers for a couple hundred yrs now.. .it is not connected with the feminist movement.

 

Evangelizing differs from being a pastor (assuming that is what she did) or having authority or leadership over men in a church.

 

Yes, she had leadership and authority over her denomination of Calvinistic Methodists. She would probably be shocked at the rhetoric of today's neo-Calvinist antifeminist zealots.

 

It is amazing how many divide the titles to keep women, gifted women, out of the pulpit. They are allowed to preach, just don't be called a pastor or deacon.

Some even used these arguments to keep women from the vote right into the 1918's. Why in Canada, women were not even "persons" until five brave women took the battle to the English Senate and were declared to be "persons".

I come from a very chauvenistic England, where even laws were written in light of female actions.

Thank God society is waking up. Maybe one day the churches will catch up.

Cheers,

Jim

 

What makes this okay? Just because she did it? Btw, I am not a Calvinist.

 

Your question reminds me of the time when I was in seminary and a young man asked an elderly missionary from another country who was speaking in class about her right to go as a missionary. She said that if there were not so many lazy men like him then they would not have to go.

Quite a number of years ago my wife I and I were members of a church that was started by two women. They were ladies who saw the need for a Bible preaching church in the area. One of the ladies was elderly when we met her and she told us that the first man who became a Christian became their first pastor. She told me that they "propped" him up there and taught him during the week and helped him get sermons together. She said that eventually he became quite a good pastor. That church is like a lighthouse in the area and is know for good preaching and being a sound disciplemaking church.Today in a town of about 2,000 about 330 people attend that church on a Sunday.