Women pastors you like

[Jerome]

You are saying that you know what Paul had in his mind. We're just basing it on what he actually said.

What he actually said?
Really?
In I Tim. 2, Paul didn't say "in a "church situation"", "unless "with her husband"", "in a "private session"", "outside the "general gathering"", "unless "in civil government"", etc., etc., etc.

"Standing on the Word"?
Standing on a mountain of caveats is more like it.

 

[Johnv]

Note that in 1 Corinthians 14, he says "As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches."

1Cor14 has been discussed before. I wrote a paper on this in college. The passage reads, "...As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

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). It was typical for the women to call out to their husbands in the congregation to find out what was being said from the pulpit. This back-and-forth chatter was extremely disruptive to the service. Paul called for wthe women inthe sidelines to remain silent, and called for men to give women the instruction given to them once they got home.

Today, women are no longer segregated from the congregation. They sit next to their husbands. Also, today, single women are allowed to attend church (also forbidden back then). Children, too, attend with their parents, which was then forbidden. We no longer have the conditions that existed in the context of this verse. Coed congregations and electronic sound systems, plus the fact that most people today are educated enough to take notes, have made the original context of this verse a non-issue. If we are to apply anything from this verse to today's application, it would be that the congregation should remain silent, and not interrupt the preacher, while he is speaking. This applies to anyone in the congregation, be they men, women, or children.

This verse is NOT a call for women to be banned from the pulpit. Anyone of any church that uses the aforementioned verses to ban women preachers is guilty of seriously perverting scripture. I don't say that lightly. There is no room for doctrinal interpretation there. Unfortunately, many churches and denominations have done exactly that.

 

[Jim1999]

Cultural setting is an integral part of understanding the context of scripture, and a principle aspect of hermeneutics.

Showing slide shows and movies in a modern church is a part of cultural changes adopted in modernity and certainly not approved by Paul.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[annsni]

1Cor14 has been discussed before. I wrote a paper on this in college. The passage reads, "...As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

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). It was typical for the women to call out to their husbands in the congregation to find out what was being said from the pulpit. This back-and-forth chatter was extremely disruptive to the service. Paul called for wthe women inthe sidelines to remain silent, and called for men to give women the instruction given to them once they got home.

Today, women are no longer segregated from the congregation. They sit next to their husbands. Also, today, single women are allowed to attend church (also forbidden back then). Children, too, attend with their parents, which was then forbidden. We no longer have the conditions that existed in the context of this verse. Coed congregations and electronic sound systems, plus the fact that most people today are educated enough to take notes, have made the original context of this verse a non-issue. If we are to apply anything from this verse to today's application, it would be that the congregation should remain silent, and not interrupt the preacher, while he is speaking. This applies to anyone in the congregation, be they men, women, or children.

This verse is NOT a call for women to be banned from the pulpit. Anyone of any church that uses the aforementioned verses to ban women preachers is guilty of seriously perverting scripture. I don't say that lightly. There is no room for doctrinal interpretation there. Unfortunately, many churches and denominations have done exactly that.

So in other words "all the churches of the saints" doesn't really mean that?

Oh - and I don't see anything in Scripture saying that single women couldn't be in church. As a matter of fact, we see instruction to older men and younger men, older women and younger women. We see instruction to singles and marrieds. I don't see anything that would say that singles are not allowed in church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The fact is many women in the Early Church played significant roles and edified the church by different means. However, that does not imply they were pastors or took the role of an episcopate.

 

[Johnv]

Annsi, I don't need to tell you that verse-lifting usually results in misapplication. Once can't simply take a verse like "all the churches of the saints" and make a whole doctrine out of it. The entire passage and its context must be considered.

As far as Scripture not saying that single women couldn't be in church, Paul wasn't addressing the morality of the custom whereby women sat where they did.

The fact is many women in the Early Church played significant roles and edified the church by different means. However, that does not imply they were pastors or took the role of an episcopate.

You make a good point. I'm not attempting to make a claim that these passages allow women to be pastors. I'm simply saying that these passages are were not intended to be a ban on women as pastors.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Annsi, I don't need to tell you that verse-lifting usually results in misapplication. Once can't simply take a verse like "all the churches of the saints" and make a whole doctrine out of it. The entire passage and its context must be considered.

As far as Scripture not saying that single women couldn't be in church, Paul wasn't addressing the morality of the custom whereby women sat where they did.


You make a good point. I'm not attempting to make a claim that these passages allow women to be pastors. I'm simply saying that these passages are were not intended to be a ban on women as pastors.

No they are passsages to put a curb in gossiping, looking like prostitutes, showing off wealth vainly and the rest. However, there does seem to be an overtone as everyone has a place. And its best to operate in such a way as to honor that to prevent confusion. So, I'm not certain they are entirely permisive of women pastors. I don't see a problem with a woman leading a study group for women but as pastor?

 

[Tom Bryant]

No, I'm saying that we must apply all of scripture, including Paul's letters, in accordance with the context, content, and audience. Paul was not addressing all women everywhere for all time.

To say "we're just basing it on what he actually said" is an excuse to not have to study to show oneself approved.

That's an awfully slippery rock you've climbed up on. By that logic, since Paul was addressing those in the mid east and Europe about the exclusivity of Jesus, it was only meant for them?

What else are we to base it on besides what he said? It's interesting that you quote that when the context of 2 Timothy 2 Paul is talking about studying the Scripture not the fables of this world.

 

[Tom Bryant]

What he actually said?
Really?
In I Tim. 2, Paul didn't say "in a "church situation"", "unless "with her husband"", "in a "private session"", "outside the "general gathering"", "unless "in civil government"", etc., etc., etc.

"Standing on the Word"?
Standing on a mountain of caveats is more like it.

Jerome, read the passage. He is talking about women in the church.

 

[Revmitchell]

So in other words "all the churches of the saints" doesn't really mean that?

Oh - and I don't see anything in Scripture saying that single women couldn't be in church. As a matter of fact, we see instruction to older men and younger men, older women and younger women. We see instruction to singles and marrieds. I don't see anything that would say that singles are not allowed in church.

While I do not support women Pastors John is correct on this passage even the historical setting behind it.

 

[Johnv]

Nice try, Tom Bryant, but that argument is a straw man argument. Are you truly saying that context, content, and audience should not be a consideration when interpreting or applying scripture?

While I do not support women Pastors John is correct on this passage even the historical setting behind it.

I'm humbled. Thanks.

Again, I'm not saying these passages support women as pastors. I'm simply saying that the context of these specific passages does not address the topic of women in a pastorate role.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Not at all JohnV. I am saying that those issues should not change what is written in Scriptures in several areas and based not on a cultural stand but on Genesis 1-3.

It's not a straw man at all. I am asking how far you are willing to go with your argument that we must interpret Scripture from historical and cultural context. You set the standard, I am just asking how far you are willing to go in applying what I think it is a wrong standard of interpretation. I am not saying that's what you believe because I don't think it is. I am saying that the logical outgrowth of that position is a very slippery surface.

 

[Johnv]

I am asking how far you are willing to go with your argument that we must interpret Scripture from historical and cultural context.

It's not a matter of degrees. We must always interpret Scripture with its context in mind. To disregard context is an open door to misinterpreting and misapplying scripture.

 

[Tom Bryant]

I would say that using culture to over ride the whole impact of Scripture is an open door to changing what the Scripture says.

We're going to differ on this, so it's really fruitless to continue discussing it.

Again, I want to make it clear that I don't think you're doubting the exclusivity of Jesus. That was never my intent.

 

[Jerome]

Hmmm...I Timothy 2...context is "in the church"?
Is it really?
I am looking and looking, I don't see "in church" anywhere in the chapter.

I will therefore that men pray every where...[oops he meant to say in the church]

...that women adorn themselves in modest apparel...[modest just when they are at church, yeah:thumbs:]

Or the following verses...
...then must be blameless [while at church!]

...Not given to wine [while at church:thumbs:]

...he must have a good report of them which are without [huh? I thought it was in-church behavior that counted]

 

[Revmitchell]

I would say that using culture to over ride the whole impact of Scripture is an open door to changing what the Scripture says.

No doubt......

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No doubt......

Really? To take it out of its original culteral context and put our context 2000 years later means we are loosing its significance? I honestly don't get that. It would seem to me that to apply scripture and descifer it only in our modern context could lead to error much more so than the original intent. Thats like saying the autographs don't need to be inspired because we have scripture 2.0

 

[Revmitchell]

Really? To take it out of its original culteral context and put our context 2000 years later means we are loosing its significance? I honestly don't get that. It would seem to me that to apply scripture and descifer it only in our modern context could lead to error much more so than the original intent. Thats like saying the autographs don't need to be inspired because we have scripture 2.0

Go read the past posts again.

 

[annsni]

Annsi, I don't need to tell you that verse-lifting usually results in misapplication. Once can't simply take a verse like "all the churches of the saints" and make a whole doctrine out of it. The entire passage and its context must be considered.

Which is why I'm looking at more than just a few words or one verse. I've discussed the whole of Scripture - multiple books, multiple recipients of the letters.

As far as Scripture not saying that single women couldn't be in church, Paul wasn't addressing the morality of the custom whereby women sat where they did.

You brought that up as an argument about the culture. I showed where the culture was not the issue but a standard that is above the culture.

You make a good point. I'm not attempting to make a claim that these passages allow women to be pastors. I'm simply saying that these passages are were not intended to be a ban on women as pastors.

I think they were. Since Scripture is our guide book for all that we do, we can see that there were no pastors in the early church, no presidence for women pastors and Paul was clear about a woman's role in the church. I think that's pretty clear, honestly.

 

[Johnv]

I would say that using culture to over ride the whole impact of Scripture is an open door to changing what the Scripture says.

I agree completely. Using a contextual component to override scripture results in an incorrect application and interpretation. However, using context to correctly apply and interpret scripture is paramount.

Again, I want to make it clear that I don't think you're doubting the exclusivity of Jesus. That was never my intent.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

I think they were. Since Scripture is our guide book for all that we do, we can see that there were no pastors in the early church, no presidence for women pastors and Paul was clear about a woman's role in the church. I think that's pretty clear, honestly.

To be fair, there were no women in many roles, both church and secular. But that was a cultural norm for the day, and not necessarily a moral absolute for all.