Is it Wrong for Women to Preach in Church?

[jimmyjimmy]

How far it extends isn't something I'd make blanket pronouncements about. It's something I'd work with individually on a case-by-case basis, preferably in person and within the context of a pastoral relationship.

I don't want you to ignore anything to "please" me. In my ideal internet world, we'd all be able to respect that we're each doing the best we know how, and to interact politely and with an aim to encourage and support one another.

Your reply is devoid of scriptural backing or instruction. I am shocked.

 

[Paidiske]

Try Romans 12:15-18.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Try Romans 12:15-18.

Is that how I should handle racism in the church? Better yet, is that the way you handle racism in the church?

 

[Paidiske]

Is that how I should handle racism in the church?

Racism in what context? By whom? In which church? It's not a one-size-fits-all question.

What I mean is, how you reply to a child in Sunday school who says something racist, is going to be completely different to how you respond to official pronouncements from a church institution which are racist.

 

[Brokenhill]

1. That verse says that Paul was set apart for the Gospel. The issue of female preachers is not the Gospel; Paul was concerned with the Good News of Christ, not the gender of the person who delivered that news.
2. If you consider that Paul taught on women's roles in church, you have to consider also, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 in which he says that a woman may pray or prophesy.
3. This doesn't answer the question, "where does GOD say ......?" Saying, 'well Paul was called by God, so if Paul says it, God is saying it', is not sufficient.
Paul also said that it is good not to marry, 1 Corinthians 7:1; that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair, 1 Corinthians 11:14, and should not cover his head, 1 Corinthians 11:7; that any widows under the age of 60 should not receive financial assistance from the church, 1 Timothy 5:9-11. Did God say/command these things also? If so, why do people get married? Why didn't God specify the length a man's hair should be? Why do bishops wear hats? And why doesn't the church say to a 35 year old woman with small children, who has just lost her husband, "sorry, you're own your own; Paul says that women like you are idle gossiping busybodies," 1 Timothy 5:13?

Conversely, where in Scripture does Paul say, "in order to preside at communion/the Lord's supper, you have to be ordained and wear a dog collar"? Nowhere. Yet how many churches allow only ordained people to administer the sacraments?
If you're going to argue that, "Paul was called by, and spoke for, God; therefore whatever he says, God commands", you have to consider everything that Paul says and do it - and not do anything that Paul doesn't teach or address.

1. The structure of the church is an attachment to, or extension of the gospel. But I agree it is not the gospel itself.
2. I see no contradiction with 1 Cor. 11...an exception is provided where women can prophesy, but they must wear a headcovering to show that they are still submitting to their head(s): Man, Christ, and God.
3. I'm glad you brought up 1 COr. 7. Notice verse 12: "12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.". Paul specifically mentions that it is his opinion, and not God's inspiring words. Paul does not say it's his own personal opinion for women not to teach in 1 Timothy, and as further proof Paul mentions "AS THE LAW ALSO SAY" and he appeals to creation "FOR ADAM WAS FORMED FIRST"--the law of Moses was given by God, and God had a purpose in creating man before woman as that is how God established family structure, hence the "patriarchal" age.

You have the bigger burden by proving that Paul was not inspired when he wrote certain things, but yet he was inspired while writing other things.

 

[Brokenhill]

In the military, an officer--no matter how new and green--holds a position of authority over every enlisted person--no matter how experienced and wise. The officer is always the one in authority.

However, all officers must take marksmanship training, and the marksmanship instructors are the authorities over everyone on their training ranges.

Yet, all marksmanship instructors are enlisted. So how does the enlisted instructor have authority over the officer he is training?

Because the commander of both of them has said to the officer: "While on my marksmanship range, you must do as my marksmanship instructor tells you, or you will answer to me."

This is delegated authority for a specific mission. The enlisted person may instruct within the field allotted to him by the commander, but he cannot discipline. The real authority--the authority that has the power to discipline--is still within the commander.

So in a modern congregation, the head of the "Children's Church" may be a woman. In her role, she probably has the delegated authority to tell a man who has no children there to leave the room. But she has no authority to discipline him. That authority rests with the elders of the congregation.

Let me see if I'm understanding your point correctly in the context of this thread:
If a women has been delegated to preach by the church leaders (elders), then she is not usurping authority because 1. she has an authority figure above her? And 2. she does not have authority?

In 1AD, a "teacher" was someone with disciples. That was true of Roman teachers, Greek teachers, and Jewish teachers. His disciples accepted his doctrine, followed him where he went, and obeyed his commands. That's what Paul meant by "teacher"--the same relationship he himself had with Gamaliel, the same relationship the disciples of John the Baptist had with John, the same relationship Jesus' disciples had with their Lord.

A teacher in 1AD wasn't merely someone who stood in front of the room and read from a prepared lesson. A teacher in 1AD actually was a boss--very much so--and that's what "teacher" meant to Paul.

Paul did not permit men to be discipled under women. He also didn't permit women to be discipled under men (which is what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 14).

It seems to me that you're reading a bit into the text.
In 1 Cor. 14 Paul simply says 'it is improper for a woman to speak in the assembly". That doesn't sound like a specific group of disciples under a woman.

Also, let's consider 1 Cor. 1:
"10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name."

The way that you are talking reminds me of this--that people were considering themselves disciples of men rather than just disciples of Christ! And it was a problem. But when we see the passages about women being in submission, it's not in this kind of context. In my opinion your point is weak.

 

[Strong in Him]

1. The structure of the church is an attachment to, or extension of the gospel.

WE are the church.
We are the church on this forum, or if we held a house group meeting in a cafe we'd be the church in the cafe, or pub. If a group of Christians met in the open air to hold a service of worship, they'd be the church in the park.
We don't need a building, or all the rituals and trappings that go with meeting in that building, to be church.

2. I see no contradiction with 1 Cor. 11...an exception is provided where women can prophesy,

If someone is taking 1 Timothy 2:12 literally, then a woman who is praying or prophesying is not being silent.

3. I'm glad you brought up 1 COr. 7. Notice verse 12: "12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.". Paul specifically mentions that it is his opinion, and not God's inspiring words.

He doesn't say that in verse 1; he says "it is good for a man not to marry." Why doesn't he say "in my opinion" here too?

and as further proof Paul mentions "AS THE LAW ALSO SAY"

That's not proof. Firstly because I see nothing in the Jewish law which says that God has commanded that a woman should never be a Rabbi or teacher. Secondly, Gentiles were never under the Jewish law; it was given to those that God himself had rescued from Egypt - they became his people. And thirdly, even if we HAD been under the law at some point, Jesus came to fulfil the law. The writer of Hebrews also said that the Old Covenant was broken so a new one was needed - prophesied by Jeremiah, Jeremiah 31:31-34, and brought in, and sealed, by Jesus, Matthew 26:28.
So even if the old law had said, "women must not teach and know their place", or something similar; what did Jesus say and do? He allowed women to follow him, support him financially, learn from him and speak for him. He revealed to a woman that he was the Messiah and chose a woman to be the first witness of his resurrection. AND told her to go and find the men, who were all in hiding, tell them the Good News and give them a message. Jesus talked, and listened to, women, healed, taught and forgave them and restored their dignity and self esteem; 2000 years later, people are trying to do the opposite by saying, "you're disobedient; God hasn't called you to do that, repent and believe the Bible." (Not your words, but some have said that.)

and as further proof Paul mentions "AS THE LAW ALSO SAY" and he appeals to creation "FOR ADAM WAS FORMED FIRST"--the law of Moses was given by God, and God had a purpose in creating man before woman as that is how God established family structure, hence the "patriarchal" age.

That's not proof either. Dogs were created before humans; does that mean they have more authority than us because they were created first?

God created Adam and then said, "it is not good for him to be alone" and created Eve to be his companion and helper. Genesis doesn't say that Eve was inferior because she was created second; Genesis 1:26-27 says that men and women were created by God, in his image. God told Eve after the fall, that her husband would rule over her, but that's not how it was in the beginning.

You have the bigger burden by proving that Paul was not inspired when he wrote certain things, but yet he was inspired while writing other things.

I wouldn't dream of saying that Paul was not inspired by God. What I am saying is that not everything that Paul uttered is FOR us; to be accepted and applied by us today.

The NT was not dictated. Paul, and others, were inspired to write what they wrote, but the Holy Spirit did not bypass their personalities when he inspired them. So when Paul wrote, "I wish that those agitators would go the whole way and emasculate themselves" Galatians 5:12, is that the Holy Spirit saying that he wishes - desires - that certain men should go and cut their bits off? No. Those are Paul's words; the words of a man who is so exasperated by men saying that in order to be saved you have to be circumcised - and keep the law - that he says "well let them go all the way and cut everything off, in themselves." The sentiment, that it is wrong to teach salvation by circumcision, is from the Spirit - the words are Paul's.
Similarly, Paul asked Timothy to bring his cloak and scrolls to him while he was in prison, 2 Timothy 4:13. And told Timothy not to drink only water, but to drink wine because he had been unwell?
Were those words inspired by the Holy Spirit? Maybe; maybe the Spirit prompted Paul to remember that he needed those things, and that impure water would likely make Timothy sick. Are they FOR US, today? No. We have no way of taking Paul's cloak to him, and don't have to start drinking wine just because Paul told Timothy to do so.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying; Paul was inspired to write what he did, but we have to consider the people he was writing to, and their circumstances, rather than assuming that ALL Paul's words are a) commands from God and b) to be applied by us today.

 

[Wolfe]

accordance with their understanding of God's will for their lives

many atheist understand personally, that Gods will is destructive, tells you to beat and rape people, stone gays, and murder and brutalize entire towns.
Would it be oppressive to tell them they're wrong?
If they were Christians, would it be oppressive to deny them what they "think" is Gods will?

Many people misunderstand the covenant of abraham, and the promise of Jesus. Many atheist still assume that the old laws apply to everyone, and I'm sure that atleast 1 christian out there does this as well.
Would it be entirely appropriate to deny them the right to kill as they see Gods commands?
God undeniably commanded quite a lot of stuff, that if done would spark a negative view of that person.

Our duty as Christians, not just the church, but all of us.
Our duty is not to "empower" peoples misunderstandings, that's incredibly destructive.
Our duty is to help bring understanding to the texts of the Lord, we may of imperfect understandings, but God is no moron, and he has made his will pretty clear, if you've studied it, as we all should do.
He has made it obvious what is not good, and what is good, so to say that we have no way of understanding Gods will reliably, either says that God has no foresight, or that we're all retarded.

 

[Paidiske]

Obviously in a community, we need to set boundaries against destructive behaviour. Nobody is arguing that people should be allowed to hurt or maim others. (That's a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, as I see it).

Our duty as Christians is to proclaim the good news. But it is not our duty to try to control how others act on it. And if we disagree, we should do so remembering that it is before the Lord that we each stand or fall; and that the Lord will uphold his servants (see Romans 14:4).

 

[RDKirk]

3. I'm glad you brought up 1 COr. 7. Notice verse 12: "12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.". Paul specifically mentions that it is his opinion, and not God's inspiring words.

No. Paul is saying in the case of a believer married to a believer, he's specifically quoting Jesus (Matthew 19); but in the case of a believer married to a pagan, he is not specifically quoting Jesus (because Jesus never spoke of a believer married to a pagan).

A few verses later, Paul affirms that he himself is indeed speaking under inspiration of God.

 

[Dave-W]

Notice verse 12: "12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.". Paul specifically mentions that it is his opinion, and not God's inspiring words.

You misunderstand what the apostle is saying. I know what you say here is a popular opinion, but it is not true.

When Paul says something is "Not I but the Lord.." he is saying that it can be found in the OT. When he says "I say, not the Lord, ..." he is saying it is NEW revelation from God not written in the OT. It is still just as inspired and just as binding.

 

[woobadooba]

When he says "I say, not the Lord, ..." he is saying it is NEW revelation from God not written in the OT. It is still just as inspired and just as binding

Prove it.

 

[Dave-W]

Prove it.

Not the thread to do that in.

If you are TRULY interested (as in interested enough to change your mind) then I suggest you do your own study on it.

 

[RDKirk]

Prove it.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

If you are one of those people who don't believe the Pauline letters are inspired scripture, that is a debate for a different thread.

 

[woobadooba]

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

If you are one of those people who don't believe the Pauline letters are inspired scripture, that is a debate for a different thread.

It has already been shown in here that Paul shared a personal belief based on the distress of the times. It was not a rule given by God. See post #111. I'm sure our understanding of inspiration is not the same.

 

[woobadooba]

Not the thread to do that in.

If you are TRULY interested (as in interested enough to change your mind) then I suggest you do your own study on it.

Don't make statements of fact unless you can back them up.

 

[Dave-W]

Don't make statements of fact unless you can back them up.

Whether or not I back a statement on Paul's writings being inspired has little to do DIRECTLY with "women preaching." It is off topic.

Which means you have to abide by the Site rules which does NOT call into question the writings of Paul.

Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.​

IOW, you cannot just write off something as "just his opinion" and ignore it.

 

[woobadooba]

Whether or not I back a statement on Paul's writings being inspired has little to do DIRECTLY with "women preaching." It is off topic.

Which means you have to abide by the Site rules which does NOT call into question the writings of Paul.

Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.​

IOW, you cannot just write off something as "just his opinion" and ignore it.

Excuse me, but I am the one who started this thread. I was simply responding to your statement, which addresses what appears to be an unfamiliar hermeneutic you either ascribe to or have made up. I was only asking you to back up your statement.

Instead of admitting you can't back up your statement, you have falsely accused me of rejecting Paul as an inspired writer, and of breaking CF rules. I am not guilty of either.

I never said Paul wasn't an inspired writer. You misunderstood me. Pay attention.

 

[Strong in Him]

Whether or not I back a statement on Paul's writings being inspired has little to do DIRECTLY with "women preaching." It is off topic.

Well no it's not; not really.
The verses that people quote to "prove" that women can't/shouldn't preach were all written by Paul. If they are Paul's opinion only, and not inspired; we don't need to take too much notice of them. If he was writing a command from God, however, that was for all churches in every age and culture; obviously that's different.

I am sure that Paul was inspired. He was inspired by God to write the instruction and advice that he did to the churches that had asked him for it. But we need to look at his writing and consider who it was addressed to, what kind of writing it is and how the people who received that letter would have understood it at the time.
In the case of 1 Timothy 2:12; it is my understanding that women were being allowed to learn for the first time. This is maybe why Paul says LET the women learn, in verse 11. But in their desire to understand, they were asking questions in the service (see 1 Corinthians 14:34; "if a woman would learn, let her ask her on husband at home"), and disrupting everyone. So when Paul wrote, "let a woman be silent ... I do not permit a woman to teach" - and it has been pointed out that Paul says "A woman", not "all women generally" - that could well be inspiration from God on how to deal with that problem at that time. I don't see, however, that we have the right to assume that this is a command from God, for us today, 2000 years later in our churches. Scripture doesn't say that this is God's command and will for all churches, and Jesus didn't teach it. The early church all believed that the Lord would return again in their lifetime anyway. I doubt they had any concept of the church that exists today - split into many denominations, with many practices and traditions that they all consider so important.

Yet God is the same. He calls, and uses, women today as his instruments and mouthpieces for the Gospel; just as he used Sarah, Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, Hannah, Isaiah's wife, Ruth, Naomi, Mary Magdalene, the woman at the well, Philip's daughters, Phoebe etc etc.

It's not God who is the problem; nor is it women who hear his call, obey and preach or pastor a church. The problem is when people read verses that were not written FOR them and try to apply them, rigidly, today instead of asking the Spirit to show us how, or if, they apply to us.
I, for one, am not going to start drinking just because Paul told Timothy to drink wine instead of water. I'm not going to grow my hair long just because Paul says that nature teaches us that long hair on a woman is natural.
It's about application; not inspiration.

 

[Blade]

woobadooba... forgive me but.. why are you asking MAN? Your not here to please man .. its what your Father says. For those He calls.. He equips..