Women pastors you like

[Marcia]

The problem with interpreting the writings of Paul is that he often does not include the cultural context in his writings. That's because he didn't need to. His letters were directed to specific churches to address specific problems. Today, we read those same letters without any regard to why Paul was writing those letters in the first place.

The reason Paul is addressing women here is because, at that time, idolatrous practices were being adopted by, and spread by, women. Paul is addressing that in specificity. That's why Paul addresses Eve being deceived first, then Adam. Because the idolatry that was being spread in his day was first being spread through the women, and then from the women to the men.

Paul is NOT addressing the issue of women teaching men in general, or in perpetuity.

This is not cultural at all; God gives 2 reasons, neither of which has anything to do with culture but rather with creation and the deception of Eve. Both Adam and Eve sinned but God emphasizes Eve's deception here.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 1 Tim 2:12-14

 

[Johnv]

Marcia, 1 Tim 2:12-14 was addressed earlier, and has already been discussed. It's an admonition of adopting deceptive idolatrous practices, which were being spread through the women in the church.

Again, I'm not saying that this is a permission for women to be pastors, I'm simply saying that 1Tim2 is not a ban gainst women as pastors.

 

[Revmitchell]

Marcia, 1 Tim 2:12-14 was addressed earlier, and has already been discussed. It's an admonition of adopting deceptive idolatrous practices, which were being spread through the women in the church.

Again, I'm not saying that this is a permission for women to be pastors, I'm simply saying that 1Tim2 is not a ban gainst women as pastors.

Tricky words you use here. While it was not intended to be specifically a ban against women Pastors it most certainly applies to that. Women cannot be pastors and obey this passage at the same time.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Go read the past posts again.

My bad Rev. I thought you were saying something else.

 

[Revmitchell]

My bad Rev. I thought you were saying something else.

No worries...........

 

[Johnv]

While it was not intended to be specifically a ban against women Pastors it most certainly applies to that.

Insofar as to address the idolatrous theology that was permeating the churches through its women, and thus being taught to men by the women, yes, absolutely.

Women cannot be pastors and obey this passage at the same time.

If (and that's a big if) there were a passage elsewhere that expressly grants women to be pastors, then this verse would not contradict that passage. AFIK, there's no such passage, which is why I noted that, although the aforementioned passages weren't intended to expressly condemn women pastors, that lack of condemnation in the passages is not a condoning of women pastors either.

 

[Revmitchell]

If (and that's a big if) there were a passage elsewhere that expressly grants women to be pastors, then this verse would not contradict that passage.

Objectively and logically it would. Women cannot be Pastors and be in right standing with this passage. There is just no way.

 

[Johnv]

Objectively and logically it would. Women cannot be Pastors and be in right standing with this passage. There is just no way.

Objectively and logically the aforementioned passages neither endorse nor condemn women as pastors. Likewise, they are not prooftexts for women in the pastoral role.

 

[Revmitchell]

Objectively and logically the aforementioned passages neither endorse nor condemn women as pastors. Likewise, they are not prooftexts for women in the pastoral role.

I know you need the proof text argument. Good luck with that however, this is not about proof text.

There is no way you can be objective and hold you position. The language does not allow for it.

 

[Johnv]

There is no way you can be objective and hold you position. The language does not allow for it.

Yes it does. Paul wasn't addressing the issue of pastors as women in these passages. Therefore, they cannot be used as prooftext as an admonition of women as pastors.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes it does. Paul wasn't addressing the issue of pastors as women in these passages. Therefore, they cannot be used as prooftext[sic] as an admonition of women as pastors.

False, whether or not he was addressing the issue of women pastors makes no difference to whether or not it applies. And to assert such displays you lack of objectivity. Application often reaches beyond the original context in scripture.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Application often reaches beyond the original context in scripture.

Hmmmmmm, so you mean if the context does not fit my view then context has no meaning. :laugh:

 

[annsni]

Women are not to teach or have authority

Women are to keep silent in the churches

Deacons and bishops are a husband.

How does a woman pastor fit into these passages?

 

[gb93433]

During the time of this writing, men and women sat separately. Men sat in what we would refer to as congregation seating, and women sat separated from their husbands in an outer section. The officiant addressed the husbands in the congregation, but not the women outside. (btw, children did not attend either; it was strictly a man-only culture).

In some of the modern cultures today that is still the practice. Men and women do not sit together.

I think it is not a bad idea in that men get to know men better and the women get to know other women better. Years ago when I taught Sunday School to the elderly they chose to have women sit on oen side and men on the other because most of the women did not have husbands who were still living.

 

[gb93433]

Women are not to teach or have authority

Women are to keep silent in the churches

Deacons and bishops are a husband.

How does a woman pastor fit into these passages?

Mrs. Criwell taught a very large Sunday School class of men and women at FBC Dallas. Pastor W.A. Criswell being a conservative I guess then in reality he did not practice what he preached according to some on BB. I suppose that would have made him in a liberal in conservative clothes.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In some of the modern cultures today that is still the practice. Men and women do not sit together.

I think it is not a bad idea in that men get to know men better and the women get to know other women better. Years ago when I taught Sunday School to the elderly they chose to have women sit on oen side and men on the other because most of the women did not have husbands who were still living.

I've tried implementing this in my own home and it didn't go over too well. She put me in my place. Oh for the good ole days! :laugh: Despite the cultural context. Women still should not be pastors. There is no indicator in scriptures that women held that position. Certainly they held positions of prestige and were an invaluable resource for the early church. Yet to be the head of the episcopate was not found. Even reading Church history it is clear women did not take on that particular role.

 

[Johnv]

How does a woman pastor fit into these passages?

The contextual argument would be as follows:

"Women are not to teach or have authority" referrs to the issue of idolatrous theology that was permeating the church through the women to the men at the time.

"Women are to keep silent in the churches" referrs to women sitting outside the congregation who are talking to their husbands in teh congregation.

"Deacons and bishops are a husband" actually referrs to being a husband of ONE wife, and is a reference to sexual purity, not gender specificity.

 

[Johnv]

In some of the modern cultures today that is still the practice. Men and women do not sit together.

Very true. It is still a practice in some sects of Orthodoxy for women to be separated from the men. In Orthodox Judaism, a "mechitza" physically separates the women from the men. Among Christians, seperate seating was common in many churches (including Baptist), well into the 18th century. It was common in places in the US as late as the 1940's. Also, amish congregations are separated by gender as a doctrinal rule.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The contextual argument would be as follows:

"Women are not to teach or have authority" referrs to the issue of idolatrous theology that was permeating the church through the women to the men at the time.

If that was true, he would have told the men in Galatians to be quiet.

"Women are to keep silent in the churches" referrs to

Incomplete post, eh ?

"Deacons and bishops are a husband" actually referrs to being a husband of ONE wife, and is a reference to sexual purity, not gender specificity.

How do you know this ?

 

[Johnv]

If that was true, he would have told the men in Galatians to be quiet.

That's like saying if God ahbored polygamy, he would have told Solomon not to marry multiple women. The issue isn't addressed in 1 Kings because that wasn't the intent of the narrative. Likewise, the issue of disruption wasn't the intend of the letter to the Galatians.

Incomplete post, eh ?

Sorry, my bad. I fixed it.

How do you know this ?

A common argument is that, if Paul's intend was to say "Bishops should be men", then he would have said "be a husband", or "be men", or, "be a husband of A wife". But he said a husband of ONE wife. Although polygamy was not a common practice at the time, bigamy and adultery were rampant, as was a permeation of polygamy into certain facets of Jewish society.