Women & Apologetics

[SeekJusticeLoveMercy]

Is it wrong for a woman to teach an apologetics class at church?

 

[Bubblies]

I don't believe the religious and church rules that we have now are things that God really cares about. If a woman is teaching about God, then I'm sure God has no problem with it.

 

[Freedom63]

Is it wrong for a woman to teach an apologetics class at church?

Of course not.

 

[Publius]

Is it wrong for a woman to teach an apologetics class at church?

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. - 1 Tim 2:11-12

 

[Cuddles333]

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. - 1 Tim 2:11-12

This verse and the 1Cor14 verse are not referring to today. They were dealing with women who had been teachers in their former pagan religions.

 

[Freedom63]

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. - 1 Tim 2:11-12

We can easily tell when you try to apply this verse to today that you are simply proof texting out of context. Why...because to apply it like this would be directly contrary to much scriptural revelation. Even in the early church there were some women leaders. Jesus removed the inequality between men and women. This verse was obviously dealing with a specific time and place.

 

[hedrick]

A woman is far from equal than a man and it is because of this verse.

I doubt that. Catholics don't use Scripture the same way as Protestants. The prohibition of females priests is because of the tradition of their Church. They have enough flexibility in applying Scripture that no one or two Scripture passages are deciding.

And even if they did take scripture literally: The same word that's translated "women" can also be translated "wives." The same word is used in 1 Tim 2:11 and 3:11. If you understand "wife" in one place and "woman" in the other, you get either female deacons and wives not teaching their husbands -- which permits female leaders, or qualifications for wives of deacons, and women not teaching men -- which does not. Which translation we use depends upon our understanding of what the author would likely have meant. Since Paul is known to have said that the man is the head of the marriage, and he also likely acknowledges a female deacon (although that is also disputed), there would certainly be room for the other reading if Catholic tradition leaned that way.

 

[Bubblies]

If that is true then how come women cannot enter the priesthood? If there is equality then how come there is none when it comes to this matter? I'm not talking about protestants, I'm talking about the real church. A woman cannot perform the sacraments within the church. Women are considered lesser and it is all because of this verse which has been interpretted and applied to women throughout the age. Now things are a little bit better a nun can perform the service at church and give out the sacraments but she cannot perform any of the Sacraments. A woman is far from equal than a man and it is because of this verse.

Real church? There is no real church, only people trying to serve God the best way they know how.

Paul was talking to a specific church about specific issues relating to them, and he was influenced by, or at least respecting the very sexist society.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Is it wrong for a woman to teach an apologetics class at church?

Nope.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. - 1 Tim 2:11-12

If that was a universal rule, then Paul broke it on more than one occasion.

This passage doesn't mean what patriarchal misogynists want it to mean.

Female preachers and teachers and leaders have existed in the Church for two thousand years. While they may not have held pastoral office, that didn't stop them from participating in every other area of life in the Church at some time or another.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Matariki]

From my understanding Paul was referring to women teaching men, women are (or were) supposed to play the role of the assistant. However, that didn't mean that women couldn't teach other women or children. It meant that Man was to carry the message and bare responsibility for it, aka headship. It didn't mean that woman couldn't chime in with advice, correction or help teach.

The problem I have always had with this piece of scripture is that it sets up a situation for non-equality, mind you its important to note that Paul never said women were stupid or inferior.

Though I believe that this was more something to do with the culture of the time + our misinterpretation = stigma to women teaching. It could of been possible that Paul said what he said to protect women from exploitation. Which says to me that he had the best intention and like the rest of scripture its to be respected.

 

[Freedom63]

If that is true then how come women cannot enter the priesthood? If there is equality then how come there is none when it comes to this matter? I'm not talking about protestants, I'm talking about the real church. A woman cannot perform the sacraments within the church. Women are considered lesser and it is all because of this verse which has been interpretted and applied to women throughout the age. Now things are a little bit better a nun can perform the service at church and give out the sacraments but she cannot perform any of the Sacraments. A woman is far from equal than a man and it is because of this verse.

The "real church"?? Get real!!

Though such arrogance does not really deserve a response...I will point out that the reason should be obvious. It is because the Catholic church chooses to ignore God when it comes to male female equality.

 

[lux et lex]

A woman can think and reason just as well as any other man. She should be able to teach. Her voice is as valid as any man's. Thinking that a woman should shut up and stay still is the work of that idiot Paul. Paul's word is not divine why should we listen to him?

Agreed.

 

[Publius]

1 character

 

[CryptoLutheran]

List examples of these occasions, please.

Paul had a habit of associating with and praising women of strong character and drive. For example, Paul's friendship with Priscilla and Aquila (note that Priscilla is consistently mentioned before her husband when they are mentioned together), who traveled with the Apostle until they reached Ephesus where they decided to settle down. In Ephesus, Apollos came preaching but was rather ignorant, and so Priscilla and her husband decided to instruct and guide Apollos to a better and fuller understanding of Christ and Christianity.

Paul is also a friend or acquaintance of St. Phoebe, a deaconess and matron of the Church community who is mentioned by the Apostle in Romans 16. The Apostle also mentions St. Junia, who along with her husband were apostles. In his epistle to the Philippians he mentions Euodia and Syntyche and calls them fellow workers in the Gospel.

In 1 Corinthians 11 the Apostle speaks of women prophesying in the Church, while I contend that much of Paul's rhetoric is intentionally tongue-in-cheek vis-a-vis head coverings; the point still stands that Paul accepts and anticipates women speaking--preaching in fact--in the Church.

If women were to be nothing more than silent and submissive little church mice then Paul clearly violated what he had said to Timothy by teaching about women preaching and prophesying, associating with strong, independent and vocal women who were in positions of importance and authority in the Church and instructing others to help them, respect them and give them whatever aid was necessary to continue in their work for the kingdom of God.

That's true, but this doesn't negate the verse I posted.

It doesn't have to negate it, it just has to stand as a fact on its own.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Publius]

Paul had a habit of associating with and praising women of strong character and drive. For example, Paul's friendship with Priscilla and Aquila (note that Priscilla is consistently mentioned before her husband when they are mentioned together), who traveled with the Apostle until they reached Ephesus where they decided to settle down. In Ephesus, Apollos came preaching but was rather ignorant, and so Priscilla and her husband decided to instruct and guide Apollos to a better and fuller understanding of Christ and Christianity.

Paul is also a friend or acquaintance of St. Phoebe, a deaconess and matron of the Church community who is mentioned by the Apostle in Romans 16. The Apostle also mentions St. Junia, who along with her husband were apostles. In his epistle to the Philippians he mentions Euodia and Syntyche and calls them fellow workers in the Gospel.

In 1 Corinthians 11 the Apostle speaks of women prophesying in the Church, while I contend that much of Paul's rhetoric is intentionally tongue-in-cheek vis-a-vis head coverings; the point still stands that Paul accepts and anticipates women speaking--preaching in fact--in the Church.

If women were to be nothing more than silent and submissive little church mice then Paul clearly violated what he had said to Timothy by teaching about women preaching and prophesying, associating with strong, independent and vocal women who were in positions of importance and authority in the Church and instructing others to help them, respect them and give them whatever aid was necessary to continue in their work for the kingdom of God.

It doesn't have to negate it, it just has to stand as a fact on its own.

-CryptoLutheran

If the text was arguing that women should be excluded from all ministry, then you might have a point, but it is not. It's arguing that women should not be elders and pastors. That is very different from saying that women shouldn't be in ministry. Women have always been and will always be in ministry. We delight that women are in ministry. The question is: How are they going to be in ministry, and what are they going to do? What are the roles they will have in ministry and what are the roles that are going to be reserved for elders and preachers who are godly, qualified men?

The issue isn't whether women should be excluded from ministry, but whether any of the women serving with Paul in ministry fulfilled roles that would be inconsistent with a limitation of eldership to men. When you study the passages describing all of these women you'll see that none of them fulfilled roles that would contradict Paul's teaching on the proper role relationship of men and women in the church, and especially and all male, godly, qualified eldership.

Following on that, one might ask, "Well, what about Priscilla?

Priscilla taught Apollos, and she was always listed first-Priscilla and Aquila." Look, I've had plenty of Priscillas in my life, and I'm thankful for them but let me tell you that the most Priscilla-like women that I have met have no desire whatsoever to be pastors or elders. They've greatly impacted pastors; they've given wise and godly counsel; they've even had to administer some admonitions to preachers; but they've done it privately and respectfully of those men's spiritual authority in the church.

It's not a power thing for them. I think it's very dangerous for us to go back and try to reconstruct Priscilla and Aquila's relationship. Paul doesn't tell us what their relationship was like. We have precious little about how they related to Apollos. So, what do you see happening? People try and read things into the text and then argue from the things they've read into the text for a particular view.

And then, there's Deborah.

What about the prophetesses in the Old Testament? Well praise God for them. I say that for a couple of reasons. By the fact that God chose women to be prophetesses in the Old Testament, and by the way, in the New Testament as well, you see evidence that God and the authoritative, Holy Spirit inspired prophets and apostles who wrote Scripture did not think that women were some sort of inferior being incapable morally or intellectually to fulfill some significant role in the Kingdom. You have just gotten proof positive that God, who wrote Scripture and the men that He used to write it were not chauvinists. They openly declared that God used women in these extraordinary ways.

So let's stop and praise God for that forever debunks the idea that the "thugs" that wrote Scripture were knuckle-dragging Neanderthals that just need to be enlightened into our modern ways of looking at women which are much more higher and more appreciative and affirming ways of looking at women.

No, these men who wrote Scripture acknowledged that God used intelligent women for significant roles in His kingdom-even the roles of prophetesses. Let me also say this. The office of prophecy and the act of prophecy are not tied together. Saul, it was said, was numbered among the prophets. He didn't have the office of prophet, and his prophesying was taken away from him.

Second, God used a lot of folks in the Scripture as conduits to speak to His people that were not taken to be role models for how the offices of the church were to be operated. For instance, Balaam, the enemy of God's people was used to prophecy to God's people. And friends, without being offensive to my dear sisters in Christ, let me remind you that Balaam's ass was also used to prophecy to the people of God. He used a donkey to speak His word to Balaam. So, God can use anything He wants to prophecy, and is may or may not have any implication whatsoever with regard to the issue of office in the Church.

Finally, female prophetesses, especially in the Old Testament, are the exception that proves the rule.
For instance, if you look at the story of Deborah, it is clear that one reason that God brings Deborah onto the scene to take up that role as a judge and a prophetess, is because Barak is failing to live up to his responsibilities. So, to rebuke Israel, God raises up Deborah to basically say, "Barak, get off your butt and do your work, man. You're called by God and you're falling down on the job. If you fall down on the job, then I'll just raise someone up that normally is not called to be in this role." So she's the exception that proves the rule in that regard.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Interesting claims, but I stand by the scripture I cited.

Understood.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jase]

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. - 1 Tim 2:11-12

Paul's culture was not the same as today. One needs to learn cultural variances to be able to apply scripture to modern day.

 

[Armistead14]

Another doctrine that becomes confusing due to culture. During Paul's time women weren't allowed to be formally educated as men, most learned at home under the husband or another tutor. Most cultures still viewed women as property of the father or husband and most christians followed these traditions. A women had little legal rights, couldn't divorce, etc...

In Corinth former pagan women were coming into church and probably mixing pagan babbling rituals with christianity. Paul gave clear rules that a woman couldn't lead a church, for one...it was illegal and against tradition.
Women certainly worked in other areas, but always under the authority of a man.

We can't hold biblical advice given to one culture would remain the same for changing cultures, today women aren't property, educated and can take care of themselves without men.

 

[dayhiker]

I'm with those that see the patriarchal 1st century Christians as in a different place than we are in today. A few churches today like the patriarchal way of life. The Roman Catholic church men are fighting to keep that going in the west and I think its costing them a lot of adherents. Those can obey literally that women should teach.

I'm of the mind that women can teach as well as men and that's fine with me. There is enough comments in the Bible of women doing things for God that I don't think God has a problem with it.