Women Can't Preach

[cubanito]

Deborah asked Barak to come. She never commanded him, she as prophetess repeated the command of God to Barak.
Judges 4: 6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-naphtali, and said unto him: 'Hath not the LORD, the God of Israel, commanded, saying: Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?"

She went with Barak because he would disobey God if she did not. Jud 4:8 And Barak said unto her: 'If thou wilt go with me, then I will go; but if thou wilt not go with me, I will not go.'

She was then by Barak's side, never actually taking the lead, but in support of a weak man.

How this can be used to support women leading Churches is beyond me. It shows a woman doing everything she could to obey both God and man, and in a strictly supporting role.

It IS true that she "judged Israel." That is a situation described as people coming to her for advice and decisions, NOT one of her imposing decisions on the people. Even so, the people are called CHILDREN for they were not acting as men:

5 And she sat under the palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in the hill-country of Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

This is unfortunately a common situation in many Churches, were men from birth have been taught to suppress their agressive masculine traits, were they are told time and again women are better at everything, and were every commercial and TV sit com portrays them as stupid and uninvolved. Something happened in the 1800's were Churches became heavily feminized, and an emasculated form of Christianity became the norm in Protestant Churches as it had been long in Roman and Orthodox ones.

While I would take neither, I would rather be led by a woman than by an emasculated man. Check out all the cursing JC did starting in Mat 22 running into 23, this was flat out cursing. Check out Pauls using the word "copros" that was the street form of excrement, and Isaiah comparing his own good works to a used menstrual rag. Sometimes I get so sick of many men in my local church walking around with a plastic smile, talking softly in that "churchy" code language that I could spit. To their credit, the pastor is not one of these, and most members very much enjoy my loud, rambunctious ways. Recently the pastor asked if people could move up at least one pew. He meant next time, but I took off my shoes and climbed over to the front pew. What a shock, there was laughter in the sanctuary!

JR

 

[Faith.Man]

Well said and mostly correct (she was Samaritan, not fully Gentile). There is a balance here, and we are not Muslims. Still, I would caution against a man PRIVATELY evangelizing a woman or vice versa. Such intense emotional situations can easily lead to sexual temptation. Our Lord was incapable of sin, and He spoke to her in a public area.

Notice that the Scriptures command for women to be taught, which was radical at that time. Women are in no way inferior to men before Christ, as JC is in no way inferior to the Father. Yet there is an order, even in the Trinity, and women are to be in subjection to men in this world if for no other reason than God says so.

Women were the last to desert JC at the cross, except for John. He appeared first to women. There is no demeaning of women here. There is, however, a proper order to follow. Women are not to usurp the authority that God set up. I am here not suggesting by any means that a woman must remain in a physically abusive relationship.

JR

JR

Good thoughts, well expressed. I think the difference here is women of modern times have the same resources we men do. In that sense to make them subject to a man's teaching seems out of place with the will of Christ and the teaching of the Apostles.

Also, Jesus fulfilled the Gospel as it was in the OT. But Jesus also spread the Gospel to non-Jews and commissioned Paul as a Gentile preacher to the lost. Some churches had a lot of pagan influences which still infiltrate some of our denominations. Some denominations have brought sin into the church, compromising good Christian theology for political correctness. I do not believe women in today's church should be judged in the same way as they were in the early church. I believe Brother Paul pointed out specific instances of wrong behavior for both men and women. If that were happening today, I would agree 100%.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. If so, I am not too proud to admit my error especially one who is teaching in love.

God bless,
Faith.Man (aka Bob)

 

[solideogloria94]

I would like to submit this article as food for thought. It's a tad presumptuous to assume that those who believe women should preach are not taking the Bible seriously. The Bible is what I base my whole life on - yet I do not hold your view on the issue. There are committed believers on both sides, so let's not be harsh. Just as we as a church do not condone slavery anymore, despite it being accepted in the Bible, indicates that while the Bible was written TO US it was not written FOR US. Context is key. You can twist words to mean anything if you don't look at how the original audience would have heard the message.

www
rachelheldevans
com/blog/mutuality-let-women-speak

(just remove the spaces and add periods between www and com)

 

[busdriver72]

Anyone who says "Women can't preach" has never been married.
I get plenty of sermons!

 

[MikeBigg]

What puzzles me about the verses in the OP is that they come so closely after v31 which says "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged."

All meaning all. Surprisingly.

Also, there is some question about verses 34 and 35 - some manuscripts have them at the end of the chapter (these are the only verses in the Bible where the location is uncertain) and the original Greek is in a different style to the preceding part of the chapter, leading people to believe it was written by someone else and added after.

In my view, there is sufficient doubt in the authenticity of those verses that doctrine should not be based on them.

I know you won't agree, I just wanted to place another side to the story in this thread.

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[MikeBigg]

It's a tad presumptuous to assume that those who believe women should preach are not taking the Bible seriously. The Bible is what I base my whole life on - yet I do not hold your view on the issue. There are committed believers on both sides, so let's not be harsh.

Well said.

Regards,

Mike

 

[cubanito]

I would like to submit this article as food for thought. It's a tad presumptuous to assume that those who believe women should preach are not taking the Bible seriously. The Bible is what I base my whole life on - yet I do not hold your view on the issue. There are committed believers on both sides, so let's not be harsh. Just as we as a church do not condone slavery anymore, despite it being accepted in the Bible, indicates that while the Bible was written TO US it was not written FOR US. Context is key. You can twist words to mean anything if you don't look at how the original audience would have heard the message.

www
rachelheldevans
com/blog/mutuality-let-women-speak

(just remove the spaces and add periods between www and com)

I have been praying as to whether or not to respond to this post. How to respond in a kind manner and yet state the truth. I do not know how to respond without seeming to personally attack Rachel Held Evans who has not even posted here.

I will limit myself to suggesting that anyone interested look for themselves at Ms Evan's words and actions. What churches she champions, and which she condemns.

To quote someone who while not at all a fundamentalist, understood the heart of the Gospel: "At the end there will be two kinds of people. Those that say to God 'Your Will be done.' and those to whom God says 'your will be done.'"

As Ms Evans says: “The Bible doesn’t give us a blueprint,” said Rachel Held Evans to a group of about sixty students and adults gathered in a classroom at the College of William and Mary Sunday, February 10th. “Instead, the Bible gives us history and traditions, and stories and proverbs and poetry, well mostly stories. And stories don’t fit very well into a blueprint,” she explained. “The fact that it’s not a blueprint; that’s what brings us into community with one another.”

I will take my blueprint and study it well, and y'all can keep your community stories. That is the essence of the fundamentalism Ms Evans so dislikes.

JR

 

[BluesLamb]

The bottom line is that women are not suited for official worship. If they were, the bible would allow them to preach.

 

[samarinka]

I heard a man say that it's actually impossible for me not to check out any woman on a podium in a sexual way. That was news to me. Outrageous really, but what can you do? They can't help how they were born...

In light of this, it's understandable that it doesn't really work for men to have female preachers. As a female manager I know how difficult it is for men to take women seriously in a position of authority.

Women CAN preach though. I have heard good sermons by at least one female minister.

Perhaps if the men so darn easily distracted we can ban them from certain services and have girls only sermons where women who are so inclined can preach their hearts out to other women.

I agree that the bible is clear on this though, and I don't really understand the reasoning of women who are ministers in churches like the C of E or Lutheran. Can't they read the Bible?

 

[astein]

At age 17 she knows more than Joyce Meyer, I'm impressed...

That is, however, impressive.

 

[astein]

It was Adam, not Eve, through whom sin entered the world.

Eve is of Adam.

The blame is on the serpent, who lied.

 

[astein]

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It's important to distinguish that Paul meant there was no male nor female under a specific circumstance, and church leadership does not qualify along with many other aspects of daily life. Households, work, etc.

James 2:2-4 For if there come unto your assemblyhttp://www.christianforums.com/#fn-descriptionAnchor-a a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

 

[MikeBigg]

I agree that the bible is clear on this though, and I don't really understand the reasoning of women who are ministers in churches like the C of E or Lutheran. Can't they read the Bible?

The Bible is only clear when you fail to include context and fail to do proper exegesis on the passages.

I mentioned in a previous post the difficulty with the verses in the original post.

A few verses earlier Paul was saying all could prophesy (presumably that isn't done in silence) yet in v34 we are told that women should be silent?

Both verses cannot both be right. How do you explain that?

I think that one issue alone makes the subject non-clear. There are other issues, too, including bad translation from the Greek.

There are essentially 2 sides to the debate: 1) Egalitarian; 2) Complimentarian. You will find that on both sides of the debate are sincere, devoted, intelligent Godly people. Here's 2: Gordon Fee, involved with the NIV translation, a Biblical scholar and author; Wayne Grudem, involved with the ESV translation, a Biblical scholar and author. These two sincere notable Christians don't agree.

How, then, can the subject be clear?

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[samarinka]

@Mike, I am not qualified to participate in any theological debate. All I was saying is

1) This is not a skills issue. Women can preach really well. The issue is what the bible says and whether you take it seriously or not.


2) I have read the passages that we are all familiar with, that aren't exactly encouraging women to teach men or really speak a lot in church at all.

I interpret these passages as being incompatible with a female minister unless she ministers to an all-female congregation, or manages to do the job with minimal actual talking in church....

Prophesizing is different from being a minister, isn't it? Not that I am any expert but I would have thought the holy spirit picks whoever he wants to prophesize through and the person doesn't have a lot of say about it. If the person happens to be a woman then obviously she's fine to prophesize, just like the passage you quoted.

As a woman I obviously think it would be more fair if women could be ministers. But I take the bible seriously and I can see that there might be a few reasons why men might be just a tiny tad more suited, everything taking into consideration.

Since I don't want to be a minister myself, I really don't have a big problem with the bible stand on it.

But if you want to have a big debate about this, I am not the right person. I 'm just stating my understanding of the situation.

 

[MikeBigg]

As a woman I obviously think it would be more fair if women could be ministers. But I take the bible seriously and I can see that there might be a few reasons why men might be just a tiny tad more suited, everything taking into consideration.

That's cool. I take the Bible seriously, too, but I find that what we have written in our English bibles in many cases is not what the original writers intended.

I agree with you that the English text we have in most modern translations is quite clear - whether we should have that text is the big question.

We put so much trust in the translators.

I'm not a theologian, but have looked at this topic a bit. Slightly off topic is the way translators use "man" instead of "person". Take a look at psalm 32:

Psalm 32 KJV;NRSVA - Blessed is he whose transgression is - Bible Gateway

"blessed is he ...", "blessed is the man ..." in the KJV which is excluding to women. Whereas the NRSV has "happy are those ..." - an inclusive term and more in keeping with the original language.

I think there is some truth in the suggestion that the translations have been biased against women, that it has had the effect of putting them down somewhat. If this then informs the translations of the difficult gender passages, we could end up with a doctrine that was never intended.

I certainly know women who do feel put down by the translations.

I'm not really interested in a theological debate - just really wanted to point out an alternative view.

Kind regards,

Mike

 

[DeaconDean]

I just want to pint several issues I see here.

1. It was mentioned earlier that "It was Adam, not Eve, through whom sin entered the world." While this is certainly true, I just want to point out that Eve "sinned" before she took and ate of the fruit and presented it to Adam. In Genesis 2:16-17, we read: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." notice well what Eve said to the Serpent when he came to her: "And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." (Gen. 3:1-3) Question: Where in the command from God to Adam did He forbid Adam from touching the tree or the fruit? Was not Adam put in the garden to "dress it and keep it? Nowhere was it commanded not to touch it. So technically, Eve addded to the comand of God.
2. Context should always play the most important factor in sound biblical hermanutics. Joseph prince said something once that has always stuck with me: "If you take text out of context all your left with is a con." In the days of Paul, it was perfectly acceptable for people to have "slaves". Hence the letter to Philemon. Todays society forbids slavery, because it was mentioned, and even rules given for the treatment of slavery, does that mean we should "own" slaves today? To quote Paul: "God forbid!"
3. While times change, the word of God does not. Women are allowed to evangelize, see the example of the womwn by the well. However, women are not allowed to led because of what happened so many thousands of years ago. But there is nowhere set by presidence in the scriptures anywhere where women are allowed to be the "undershepherd" of the church.

Sorry, but I don't see it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[samarinka]

I'm a relatively new Christian. Is it only fundamentalists that actually say women can't preach because of these verses?

In Sweden where I come from, being a minister in the national church is practically a female profession these days, particucularly in the younger generations. Women can be bishops in the national church too.

Even in a "free" church which I believed was bible believing, a woman preached (and did a fabulous job). That was sort of general evangelical church.

I just find it surprising, because I think it requires a fair amount of creative interpretation to get those verses to mean anything other than "sorry ladies!".

Another question is, how serious is this? For example, my mother was buried recently by a female minister. Could it be said that this was not a proper burial?

What would Jesus say if he ran into a female pastor?

Is this issue just a theological wrangle or do people end friendships or lose jobs over it?

 

[DeaconDean]

I'm a relatively new Christian. Is it only fundamentalists that actually say women can't preach because of these verses?

In Sweden where I come from, being a minister in the national church is practically a female profession these days, particucularly in the younger generations. Women can be bishops in the national church too.

Even in a "free" church which I believed was bible believing, a woman preached (and did a fabulous job). That was sort of general evangelical church.

I just find it surprising, because I think it requires a fair amount of creative interpretation to get those verses to mean anything other than "sorry ladies!".

Another question is, how serious is this? For example, my mother was buried recently by a female minister. Could it be said that this was not a proper burial?

What would Jesus say if he ran into a female pastor?

Is this issue just a theological wrangle or do people end friendships or lose jobs over it?

I see by your "faith" icon, your a Lutheran.

I know that at one time, a stalwark of the Lutheran faith was a belief in "sola scriptura".

Martin Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."

Martin Luther once believed in it, and in fact, replied to the Roman Catholic church saying:

Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!

Luther’s explanation of the Third Commandment in the Large Catechism says the “Word of God is the true holy thing above all things.”

One of the stawwarks of this area and Fundamentalists is the principle of "sola scriptura".

Show me from scripture, a woman in the position of priest, bishop, pastor.

Just because this church, or that denomination, at this time, or times past ordain women as pastors, what does the sacred wit say?

Its not a matter of "creative interpretation to get those verses to mean anything other than "sorry ladies!", its "What does the Word of God say".

And in the OT, there were no women as priest.

In the NT, there is no record of women as bishop/elder or pastor.

Evangelists, yes. "Come see a man who told me all ever I did. Is this not the Christ?"

"but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

But as bishop/elder, pastor, no I'm sorry, its not there.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[MikeBigg]

I just find it surprising, because I think it requires a fair amount of creative interpretation to get those verses to mean anything other than "sorry ladies!".

Its all about the context in which the letters were written.

On the basis that a passage can't mean now what it didn't mean then, one has to find out what the people who read the letters would have understood by them.

Historians really help us to understand what the passages were intended to say.

Regards,

Mike

 

[samarinka]

Its all about the context in which the letters were written.

On the basis that a passage can't mean now what it didn't mean then, one has to find out what the people who read the letters would have understood by them.

Historians really help us to understand what the passages were intended to say.

Regards,

Mike

Mike, I don't really see that. I mean --- a historian required to understand what the bible means?! ---- why?! Up until the 1960 people simply read it as it was. Now suddenly a historian is needed!

I don't buy that, it seems ridiculous and I am just not talking about this female minister thing.

Note: As a female manager in IT, I am 100% confident that women could do all the technical elements involved in being a minister. The question is whether Gods word is to be taken seriously or not...!

Is a historian needed to interpret "Thou shalt not kill too" and John 3:16 too?

Of course, if Paul was just some chap who had a bit of a funky psychedelic experience while out travelling to Damascus, and then happened to write some letters that got preserved, then, no problem. What he says is relevant in relation to his culture and era. But if that was the case, then why should I bother with his letters AT ALL?

But if it's the inspired word of God which just happened to be documented by the Apostle Paul, then surely we ought to take it at face value?

There is nothing in the Bible that says: When reading this, please apply it only as far as it is compatible with the culture you live in, and socially acceptable to your contemporaries. Please make sure not to cause any offense! Thank you in advance, "The Holy Spirit".

This female minister situation is just one of many situations where I am struggling with this feeling of

• "either it's true and then we'd better not mess around with it". OR
• "it's not true, so why should I even care what it says. The editorial in the Guardian on this topic makes a lot more sense".