WOMEN SPEAKING IN CHURCH

YIKES!!!!

 

The Scriptures are pretty obvious about the outward role of a woman in the church. Much of that role has to do with their position(s) in regards to the males in the congregation. Authority is the big issue. God has distinct lines of authority, whether it be in the home or in the church. For a woman to speak in the church does not necessarily mean that she is usurping the authority of the men placed over her. For example, I have no problem with our women saying amen--what is the difference in that and a woman singing? They are voicing their praise and agreement for what has been said. However, I don't believe it is right for a woman to carry a sermon or devotion to the general populace--or to lead the singing. "Lead" is the key word there.

 

It doesn't matter what we're for or against...What matters is what the Bible says.

[I Cor. 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. [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.

[I Tim. 2:12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Some people like to say these commandments were only given to those particular churches to whom Paul was writing, but this is not true. There is a reason for women not usurping authority over or teaching a man.

[I Tim. 2:13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression

When a woman speaks in the church, she is in direct violation to a commandment of the Lord.

[I Cor. 14:37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

-Chris

[ March 28, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Calvinist1985 ]

 

Should some allowance be made for the fact that customs may differ between then and now?

 

Don't forget to read the whole context, gentlemen! There are plenty of passages in the Bible on who should have the authority in the home and in the church. There is sufficient evidence that teaches us that men are to pastor the church.

This passage specifically forbids women to speak in tongues . It does not mean that a lady can not open her mouth in a church building.

 

Does God ever change?

 

My view:

[I Tim. 2:12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Hmm, what is not being allowed in this Scripture? Is it NOT teaching or NOT usurping authority over the man?

If it is NOT teaching then a woman cannot even teach sunday school or lead the Children's Church.
If it is NOT usurping the authority of the man then she can teach in ANY environment as long as she has the pastor/deacon stamp of approval.

IMO

HankD

 

I don't care if the Pope of Rome puts his stamp of approval on a woman teaching in any environment because God said it ought not be!

 

You make an interesting point. Since such issues generally raise more problems than they solve I've alsway kept quite about it, but acknowledged that women should never be in leadership roles in the church (this is to continue the illustration God has given us when He created us male and female), but the idea of a woman taking on various roles, under the authority of the church leaders does make sense, although whether a pastor or deacon authorizes it or not, a woman teaching men in church is wrong. We might as well have Pizza and Root Beer for the Lord's supper.

Jack Lewis
radioJesus.com

 

So, Bro Jack,

You were a little unclear.
Do you believe that the strict literal sense of 1 Tim 2:12 excludes women from teaching children in Sunday School and leading Children's Church?
If not why not?

I don't and personally feel that as long as its clear that she is supported by the local church male leadership and no one is uncomfortable, it should be allowed (adults as well as children).

Then there is the matter of singing a solo.
This is not being silent.

Or the matter of women missionaries presenting the work which they are doing within the confines of the local church.

If we are going to be strictly literal then none of these things can happen.

HankD

[ March 29, 2002, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Women should not speak in Church, Men should not speak in Church. The Holy Spirit is seen in speaking through both men and women in Scripture. Let the Holy Spirit do the talking, Through whomever.
Ken

 

Dear Ken (or anyone),

I believe your answer begs the question.

You say, "let the Spirit do the talking", but can the Spirit say one thing in the Scripture and do another thing in practice?

That the Holy Spirit does the communicating is a given and does not answer the legitimate question as to the exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:12.

Given the given, why did Paul (an apostle inspired by the Holy Spirit) say for women "to be in silence" in the churches and what is the scope of that silence?

Apparently the will of the Spirit can be or was being overidden by the women in question.

Can they pray aloud? Sing? Teach children? Teach each other?

If so, why? If not so, why not?

Is this a universal directive from the Spirit (through Paul) or just to the local church which Timothy pastored?

I know that this is a troublesome doctrinal question. But that is one of the reasons for the BB, is it not, to deal with Baptist doctrine troublesome or not?

HankD

[ March 30, 2002, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

To go so far as to say women can't teach children is to go beyond common sense. Mothers have always been the primary educator of their children. It's obvious that that is not what the passage is speaking of. It's also obvious that in virtually any mixed group, especially with married women (who no longer feel the need to act demure so they can appeal to a potential husband) women will dominate the discussion. I rarely find exceptions to this. I also find that with rare exceptions the long-winded, nonsense contributions are also offered by women. I one puts aside the pressures of modern political correctness, it's easy to see the logic in Paul admonition, and the boundaries.

When it comes to a music special, I would agree. When it comes to teaching adults, I would disagree, unless she is the only person able and qualified to teach.

The trouble with making such a semantical assault on the term "literal" is that you must leave your brain behind to do so. When you read the entire passage in context, and do not allow our modern cultural nonsense (political correctness) to interfere, the message is clear.

Jack Lewis
radioJesus.com

 

Bro.Jack;I don't know about you but I certainly would not want to teach a group of widows.First of I'm not quallified never having been a widow,I think that in situations such as that it only makes sense that a woman be the teacher.Not only the adult ladies but also jr. and sr. high girls should be taught by a woman,that is unless they are combined with the boys.Also there certainly is nothing wrong with a woman teaching young children.

 

Dear Bro jack,

Thanks for your honesty, though I didn't appreciate the ad hominem.

HankD (trying to find where he left his brain).



[ March 30, 2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Paul speaking in the Spirit?

Where is that assumption Scriptural? Was Paul speaking in the Spirit when He said a woman is saved in Childbearing? Or is that Old Jewish belief coming through?

Was Paul speaking in the Spirit as He asked for the thorn in the flesh to be taken away? If so, Why did the Spirit then have to tell Him, "My Grace is sufficient."?

One other point: Paul spoke on Grace in abundance, Why did he not know it was sufficient? I do not need grace if I have bad eyesight, It might come in handy if I am looking with lust on who I should not be looking at.

Paul assumed that Jesus was coming in his lifetime. Did the Holy Spirit inspire that? That is why Paul made the remark about those that sleep and were sick. He did not understand why they were dying. So he had to come up with a reason for it.

Ken

 

Dear Ken,

You said (quoting someone else?)

>>"Paul speaking in the Spirit">>

That is not an exactly correct way of defining the work of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Personally, I did not use that phrase.

Other questions you asked…

>>Was Paul speaking in the Spirit as He asked for the thorn in the flesh to be taken away? >>

Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he recorded that he had asked for the thorn in the flesh to be removed.

>>If so, Why did the Spirit then have to tell Him, "My Grace is sufficient."?>>

For the benefit of you and I and the millions who would come afterwards.

>>One other point: Paul spoke on Grace in abundance, Why did he not know it was sufficient? I do not need grace if I have bad eyesight, It might come in handy if I am looking with lust on who I should not be looking at.>>

Again, Paul was moved by the Holy Spirit to write what he did for our benefit.

>>Paul assumed that Jesus was coming in his lifetime. Did the Holy Spirit inspire that? That is why Paul made the remark about those that sleep and were sick. He did not understand why they were dying. So he had to come up with a reason for it.>>

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul reinforced what Jesus had said concerning His Second Coming.

Matthew 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

This fact concerning the day and the hour of the Second Coming had not been revealed and will not be revealed to men even after the Ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven. The Holy Spirit moved Paul to write within the allowed boundaries of Paul's human knowledge concerning the Second Coming.

HankD

[ March 31, 2002, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]