Is it Wrong for Women to Preach in Church?

[Friend-of-Jesus]

C'mon, you can't quote God and not provide chapter and verse.

And because you've claimed to be directly quoting God, we must insist that the chapter and verse you provide be a direct "thus saith the Lord" quote.

Or was that a Poe's Law example?

There are many

 

[RDKirk]

What's a "Poe"? Edgar Allen? Ravens flying about squawking "Nevermore! Nevermore! Nevermore!"?
Hearts pounding away under the floorboards (ew...)? People bricked into the walls?

"Poe's Law" is an Internet forum concept born right here on Christianforums.com.

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views

 

[RDKirk]

There are many

Shouldn't be hard to give us one of those quotes, then.

 

[RDKirk]

This seems a little bit confusing!

Only word of God matters? Not God himself, not Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, not the bride of Christ?

Where did God say that no woman should preach? Paul wrote that he personally did not permit a woman to speak in church, not God, because of the social mores of the day (2000 years ago).

Paul didn't exactly say that, either.

 

[Brokenhill]

You equate preaching a sermon in a church with exercising authority over a man?

Certainly. Preaching is a form of teaching, shaping the way someone thinks and what they believe in. Parents exercise authority when they teach their children.

 

[Brokenhill]

Do you also feel the same way about women authors who write books about Jesus? Do you feel that only women should read their books? And what about women in colleges and universities who teach Bible classes, do you think they should be fired from teaching?

We could go through a lot of what-ifs, but when discussing the Word of God they don't really amount to much.

Scripture talks about being "in the assembly" and certain functions or roles are given/described in that setting. So, that's all I can really speak about. When there are saved Christians gathered together for worship/study as we see in the NT, then in those settings Paul teaches that women are not to teach or exercise authority over the men.

 

[Brokenhill]

God gives authority, and in many cases the church recognises that.
If a woman stood up in the middle of the sermon and said, "I'm taking over this sermon; you don't know how to preach." THAT would be challenging, and taking authority over, a male preacher. But a woman who says, "I have been praying and I believe God wants me to preach", submits to men to have that call tested, is trained by men and who has the permission, authority and prayerful support of the whole church before being licensed as a preacher in that church; all of this being done in prayer - is not rebelling against anyone or trying to grab authority by force.



It is not wrong to answer God's call.

There are many different ways to usurp or set off-balance authority. You don't have to use force. You can undermine authority in other ways.

God does not call people to roles which He has previously described as being in error. God does not contradict Himself nor what He teaches us through scripture.

 

[RDKirk]

Certainly. Preaching is a form of teaching, shaping the way someone thinks and what they believe in. Parents exercise authority when they teach their children.

No, preaching is not a form of teaching, especially not as "teaching" was understood in 1AD. Specifically, a 1AD teacher was someone who took disciples. In every example of "preaching" in scripture, the preacher does not make disciples of everyone preached to. Being preached to was not synonymous with being taken as a disciple.

 

[Vicomte13]

"Poe's Law" is an Internet forum concept born right here on Christianforums.com.

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views

Ah. Hmmmm. That's interesting. Hence the "sarcasm off" tag (/sarc). I like it. It's probably true.

 

[Brokenhill]

Then why did he not rebuke his friends Priscilla and Aquilla for letting Priscilla teach Apollos?

3 points:
First: 1 Corinthians 14:34 says "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says". Paul mentions in the "churches" (Greek="ekklesia" strongs G1577), which is an assembly. I assume that the teaching in 1 Tim. 2 is within the same setting, because in 1 Tim. 3 we read about "offices" (deacons/elders).
Priscilla & Aquila took Apollos aside privately, and they were not in an assembly of Christians (Apollos was teaching in the synagogue, Acts 18:26).

Second: Priscilla was accompanied with her husband, she was not alone in the matter. Husband and wife are seen as 1 flesh in God's eyes, and it is likely that they were both being proper in God's eyes by following God's hierarchy of authority, as seen in 1 Corinthians 11 (God is the head of Christ who is the head of Man who is the head of Woman). If Priscilla was assisting Aquila, by his lead, and they were doing it in private, I don't see a contradiction.

Third: Apollos was "only acquainted with the baptism of John" (Acts 18:25). Therefor, he was not yet truly IN Christ (so not a Christian), because he had not been baptized into Christ via water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. See Galatians 3:27, Acts 19:1-3, and Acts 2:38.

 

[dreadnought]

Did you read the next verse?

Next verse of what?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

So in fact I think that the Church WAS vested with that authority, but that it was the teaching authority of the Church - which was the Apostles in the time of Paul and the 12, but is the Bishops and Pope today - which set the rule originally, then updated it. In other words, Paul had the authority then, and the Apostles had it then, because they were put over the Church. They are dead, and their successors have the authority now, because they are put over the Church. The authority itself reposes the Church through the Holy Spirit.

The RCC hierarchy has already stated that women cannot be ordained, given a theological explanation as to why they cannot be ordained, and furthermore stated that the matter is not to be discussed - that Rome has spoken and the case is closed.

Now, this is quite different from the way you look at it. You look at it as all contained in that book, in which case, with regards to your first comment, I am at least as qualified as you are to read a First Century document and interpret it, and in that document what Jesus said, and Jesus' authority is crystal clear in that.

It's not a matter of your interpretation vs. mine. On this issue, the consensus of 2000 years of church history are on my side.

Either way I look at it, the Apostles rules on blood, and Paul's rules on hair and women teaching are not valid. Either they WERE valid, because of the authority of the Holy Spirit Jesus sent into the Church allowed them to modify the law he gave to address the situations of that time - and the same authority has since modified Paul's and the Apostle's decisions back to those that Jesus originally said and did. In which case we get where we are. Or else they were not valid in the first place, because the Apostles were not given the authority to override and replace the commandments of God, in which case long hair and blood sausage never were a problem.

The third possibility, namely that the tension that you perceive between Jesus and Paul doesn't really exist, that Paul was affirming the practice of Jesus, who called exclusively men as apostles, and that Paul's instructions retain their validity today. I'm at a loss to imagine on what basis you think Paul's instructions were reversed.

As far as the Shroud goes, it is neither a matter of faith or legend, but of solid forensic science, and yes, solid science does matter.

Solid forensic science dates the shroud to between 1260 and 1390 AD. Or do you view scientific evidence, like scriptural and historical evidence, as something only to be considered when it fits your preconceived dogmas?

 

[Brokenhill]

No, preaching is not a form of teaching, especially not as "teaching" was understood in 1AD. Specifically, a 1AD teacher was someone who took disciples. In every example of "preaching" in scripture, the preacher does not make disciples of everyone preached to. Being preached to was not synonymous with being taken as a disciple.

When people gather together in a worship building, they are willingly submitting to the authority of the leaders/organizers that run that place of worship.
So in line with that, they are submitting to the preaching that is offered. In that context, the preacher is using his knowledge and his motives to shape what the people believe. Regardless if they agree with everything, the participants are still submitting (to an extent) to the authority granted to that preacher.

Now, I would agree that "preaching" also exists outside of that context, such as a soap box preacher on the sidewalk in LA or something. People are walking by, some choose to listen to the preacher, most ignore and keep on walking. So I guess in that case preaching does not always equate to authority. But in the regular public assembly of Christians, it's a different story.

 

[Smidlee]

Even in the New Testament, prophetesses were given ear. In other words, even men listened to them because they spoke the words of God. They were merely a vessel God was using. So it wasn't the women advising the men or holding authority over men, but God. This would have been true in the Old Testament, especially. However, Judges 4:4 says, "Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time.

If you really want to see this further, it wasn't just in church that women were not to speak or have authority over a man, but anywhere. How about women bosses. Or queens, or prime ministers? Or Mary?

You need to read the rest of the story. Deborah tries her best to get a man ;Barak to take the lead but he wouldn'tgo unless she went with him. This revealed the sorry state men were in when they needed a woman to be in charged. Notice Deborah said the Lord had commanded Barak yet he didn't listen.
It's a shame for men to have a woman as their leader.

 

[Strong in Him]

I could say the same thing to you - maybe you haven't either, even if you think you have.

And maybe I have. I believe it, the church believes and confirms it, and the Lord has never corrected/punished me or shown me I am wrong.
He still guides his children today, and sends his Spirit to convict or sin. Why is he not capable of guiding and correcting women who "get it wrong?"

 

[Strong in Him]

God said to women, "you are not to preach".

Where?
And if he did, why did/does he use us?

 

[Smidlee]

God said to women, "you are not to preach".

Where? It only states a woman in the church not to preach to men. It says nothing about other women and children.

 

[Vicomte13]

The RCC hierarchy has already stated that women cannot be ordained, given a theological explanation as to why they cannot be ordained, and furthermore stated that the matter is not to be discussed - that Rome has spoken and the case is closed.



It's not a matter of your interpretation vs. mine. On this issue, the consensus of 2000 years of church history are on my side.



The third possibility, namely that the tension that you perceive between Jesus and Paul doesn't really exist, that Paul was affirming the practice of Jesus, who called exclusively men as apostles, and that Paul's instructions retain their validity today. I'm at a loss to imagine on what basis you think Paul's instructions were reversed.



Solid forensic science dates the shroud to between 1260 and 1390 AD. Or do you view scientific evidence, like scriptural and historical evidence, as something only to be considered when it fits your preconceived dogmas?

Rome has spoken about many things over the ages. Sometimes it has done so brutally and evilly. Sometimes, wisely. Women teach and hold all sorts of leadership positions within the Church. They aren't priests, but priests are not the only (or even the primary) teachers. In any case, Rome has also spoken regarding clerical celibacy. Rome does things the way Rome does things.

And the Catholic and Presbyterian Churches are in decline, emptying out, hollowing out. I'm not going to go out there and fight for things that I do not believe. More importantly, I'm not going to finance them.
In Europe, churches are being bought out and becoming mosques.

For about 1400 of those 2000 years of tradition, the Christian churches had the power to KILL to enforce discipline. They used that power with reckless abandon, and thereby tainted themselves in the same way that Germany is tainted forever by its past, or America by its slavery past. One always must hang an asterisk by the record of any of the old murderous churches of the past (which is all of them that came out of the 1500s), because by doing what they did, they demonstrated that they are capable, as institutions, of marching militantly en masse and proudly in the armies of Satan and doing deeds as black as hell.

That's why arguments from tradition are only so strong. When your tradition allowed you to commit genocide and burn people alive...when you're an American or a German, or a Presbyterian or a Catholic, you cannot thump that drum of traditional authority TOO loudly, because your ancestors squandered it by behaving exactly like ISIS Muslims today.

Other Churches are growing and waxing.

Tradition is an argument that has to be made gently. When it is made authoritatively, like the old clenched fist of the Catholic and Presbyterian past, people turn and walk out the door, and they are right to do so. Our churches do not have very great moral authority, precisely because they were so very evil and murderous, for so very long. Catholicism and Presbyterianism have the obligation to make their arguments and appeals humbly, because when they did so arrogantly they became murderers and were deprived, by everybody else all around them, of the power and authority to ever be in the position to do that again.

Between the First Century and the Twenty First is the Sixteenth and Seventeenth - in which Christianity very nearly committed suicide on exaggerated claims of authority. The Churches didn't die them, but they murdered enough people horribly that they lost any ultimate claim of infallibility or truth - they have already demonstrated that they are not completely trustworthy in carrying out their method and mission.

That is why yes, in the end, my own authority to judge supersedes the opinion of the Pope and the Church. The Pope and the Church, after all, used to consign people to the flames. and THAT Catholic Church had to be violently destroyed on the battlefield rather than allowed to live. Fortunately, it changed. The point is that it CAN fail, so yes, you are ultimately the final and absolutely judge of all things in the court of your mind, including your God.

We have all judged all the gods - of the Greeks, of the Norse, of the Muslims and Jews and Hindus, and of the Christians. We have decided that the Christian God is acceptable to us, so we follow him. The other Gods we have diminished to "gods" and reject them. And it is well. But people following our God murdered people too, so we have no grounds to be too terribly comfortable in the traditions of our religion, and we can never cede the ultimate authority to judge everything that we will allow to hold court in our minds - including the gods and God - before we let them, or even Him, in there.

For a god to be God we have to open the door and let him in. So yes, we are the ultimate judge of truth, when it comes to ourselves. It can be no other way. Tradition can be a helper, but in the end it all comes down to you yourself alone, and me, and each other, in the temple of his own mind.

Nobody can MAKE you believe anything.

The tension that I perceive between Paul and Jesus, and between the Apostles and Jesus, and between the Apostles and each other, and between Jesus and the theologies of the various Churches, does really exist. It is not a fiction, it is not imagined, and it is the case before my court, where I am the judge. So sneering at the fact that I am the final authority over my own religion, as you are over yours, accomplishes nothing...other than ensure that the same sort of approach to people that has caused the Presbyterian and Catholic Churches to die out before our eyes continues. Nobody is going to by the "Who are YOU" approach from some arrogant Christian anymore. Nobody is going to cede that authority. The arrogance is obvious. It's the REASON Catholicism shattered in the first place, it's the REASON that all of those people were murdered by the Christian churches, which in turn is why the Christian Church has such comparatively little credibility relative to what it once had. Actions have consequences.

When you say "solid forensic evidence", have you even studied it? What is your degree, a B.A., or a B.S. or a higher scientific degree? Do you even know what you are looking at when you look at the "solid forensic evidence", or are you taking it on the authority of somebody you read? I have the education and training to be able to parse that material correctly, and I have examined it quite deeply. You do not know what you are talking about and are just taking somebody else's word for it. (I will acknowledge that I, too, am taking other people's word for it - I am trusting that the forensic reports and thermochemical analyses I have read have been done honestly and reported honestly. We know from global warming science that scientists themselves are often dishonest when their careers are at stake.)

In any case.
Not much point in our continuing this discussion. You are incapable of persuading me of anything, because I reject your assertions of authority, and you obviously reject my reasoning.

So let's say goodbye and walk away now. No good can be served by continuing to communicate.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Not much point in our continuing this discussion. You are incapable of persuading me of anything, because I reject your assertions of authority, and you obviously reject my reasoning.

Indeed, it seems that you reject the authority of anything but your own prejudice. I wonder why you even bother to invoke the authority of Jesus, since you - and only you - seem to have attained sufficient understanding of everything yourself. Jesus, if truly is Lord, couldn't possibly have taught anything that might make you uncomfortable...

 

[RDKirk]

Where? It only states a woman in the church not to preach to men.

Where does it say that?