Is it Wrong for Women to Preach in Church?

[Archivist]

Likewise, the fact that men are to be leaders (under Christ) in the local congregation of Christians is not to be changed because it is now outrageous to teach that.
There is NO scriptural proof that Paul only had a specific city or time frame in mind when he taught what he did. There is much more evidence to conclude that he was teaching God's will to all people for all time.

No Scriptural proof that Paul was addressing on a specific city? His letter was to the Church at Corinth. Paul probably had no clue that his letter would be circulated far beyond that city--he had no idea that someday his letter would be compiled in something called The Bible. As to the timeframe, given that Paul expected Jesus to return in his lifetime he would have had no idea that anyone would be reading his letter 2000 years after it was written.

 

[RDKirk]

No Scriptural proof that Paul was addressing on a specific city? His letter was to the Church at Corinth. Paul probably had no clue that his letter would be circulated far beyond that city--he had no idea that someday his letter would be compiled in something called The Bible. As to the timeframe, given that Paul expected Jesus to return in his lifetime he would have had no idea that anyone would be reading his letter 2000 years after it was written.

OTOH, he explicitly directed the Colossians to share his letter with the Laodicians, and expected the Laodicians to share their letter with the Colossians.

Phoebe was a deacon from Centrea, an adjacent city to Corinth--I'd expect, then, that Corinth and Centrea shared information, and it's unlikely the Corinthians and Centreans were unaware of the information in the letter Phoebe carried to Rome.

Would the people around him when he wrote any letter not be aware of what he was telling another congregation? Would he have given them any different instructions for the same situation? Neither seems very likely.

 

[Archivist]

OTOH, he explicitly directed the Colossians to share his letter with the Laodicians, and expected the Laodicians to share their letter with the Colossians.

Phoebe was a deacon from Centrea, an adjacent city to Corinth--I'd expect, then, that Corinth and Centrea shared information, and it's unlikely the Corinthians and Centreans were unaware of the information in the letter Phoebe carried to Rome.

Would the people around him when he wrote any letter not be aware of what he was telling another congregation? Would he have given them any different instructions for the same situation? Neither seems very likely.

But if Paul's instructions were to address a specific situation, we don't know that the "same situation" existed anyplace else. Further, Colossae and Laodicea are only about 10 miles apart--hardly "far away." Unless I've missed something Paul did not give instructions that this letter to the Corinthians be shared with anyone else (please correct me if I'm wrong). Further the possibility that he may have been aware that the information in his letters was being shared does not prove that he intended his letter to be binding on all people for all times.

 

[RDKirk]

But if Paul's instructions were to address a specific situation, we don't know that the "same situation" existed anyplace else. Further, Colossae and Laodicea are only about 10 miles apart--hardly "far away." Unless I've missed something Paul did not give instructions that this letter to the Corinthians be shared with anyone else (please correct me if I'm wrong). Further the possibility that he may have been aware that the information in his letters was being shared does not prove that he intended his letter to be binding on all people for all times.

The people who actually knew him and did share his letters apparently thought so. They did share his letters. Within 80 years of his death, his letters had absolute validity throughout the Church and greater validity among a large portion of Christianity than even the OT.

 

[Archivist]

The people who actually knew him and did share his letters apparently thought so. They did share his letters. Within 80 years of his death, his letters had absolute validity throughout the Church and greater validity among a large portion of Christianity than even the OT.

And, once again, you are speaking of events that happened after Paul's death. Paul had no idea that his letter would be preserved, no idea that someday it would be included in the Bible, no idea that people would be reading it almost 2000 years after his death. The post to which I was responding said that there is evidence to show that Paul's writings regarding women were teaching all people for all time. The fact is that there is no such evidence. It was a letter written to specific people in a specific city ata specific time.

 

[RDKirk]

And, once again, you are speaking of events that happened after Paul's death. Paul had no idea that his letter would be preserved, no idea that someday it would be included in the Bible, no idea that people would be reading it almost 2000 years after his death. The post to which I was responding said that there is evidence to show that Paul's writings regarding women were teaching all people for all time. The fact is that there is no such evidence. It was a letter written to specific people in a specific city ata specific time.

Is it your point that if Paul did not explicitly state a general applicability of a letter, then we disregard that the different congregations--who all knew Paul personally, who had enjoyed Paul's presence among them for weeks or months, teaching much more than was in the letters--accepted Paul's letters to other congregations for themselves as well?

You're saying it means nothing if the congregation at Galatia that knew Paul well accepted for themselves the letter he wrote to the Colossians?

 

[Paidiske]

I think the different congregations would have been much more aware of their own situations and those of neighbouring churches than we are at this distance, and therefore more capable of filtering reliably. "Oh, that bit's just about what's going on over there, this bit relates to us all."

But, you know, if we raise their mutual awareness as a factor, then in Corinth they'd know of a woman deacon in Cenchraea; especially if she was travelling around the Mediterranean delivering letters! And they'd read the words to them in light of Paul's acceptance and praise of such a ministry there and in other places.

 

[Archivist]

Is it your point that if Paul did not explicitly state a general applicability of a letter, then we disregard that the different congregations--who all knew Paul personally, who had enjoyed Paul's presence among them for weeks or months, teaching much more than was in the letters--accepted Paul's letters to other congregations for themselves as well?

You're saying it means nothing if the congregation at Galatia that knew Paul well accepted for themselves the letter he wrote to the Colossians?

No, as I have said several times, my point is that Paul wrote a letter to specific people in a specific city at a specific time. He was not aware that the letter would be published worldwide and that people would still be reading it 2000 years later. It was not a commandment to all people for all time.

 

[RDKirk]

No, as I have said several times, my point is that Paul wrote a letter to specific people in a specific city at a specific time. He was not aware that the letter would be published worldwide and that people would still be reading it 2000 years later. It was not a commandment to all people for all time.

But all the other congregations--who all knew Paul-- accepted all of Paul's letters to themselves.

That makes your point irrelevant.

 

[RDKirk]

I think the different congregations would have been much more aware of their own situations and those of neighbouring churches than we are at this distance, and therefore more capable of filtering reliably. "Oh, that bit's just about what's going on over there, this bit relates to us all."

Where are any writings from the 2nd century suggesting they did not accept Paul's letters in toto?

But, you know, if we raise their mutual awareness as a factor, then in Corinth they'd know of a woman deacon in Cenchraea; especially if she was travelling around the Mediterranean delivering letters! And they'd read the words to them in light of Paul's acceptance and praise of such a ministry there and in other places.

Yes. And?

 

[Paidiske]

Where are any writings from the 2nd century suggesting they did not accept Paul's letters in toto?

Yes. And?

I'm not talking about the second century. I'm talking about as these letters were read for the first time.

My point is, if you know that Paul trained, authorised, approved of and praised women in ministry and leadership roles, you read his words about women speaking and so on in light of that knowledge, and you don't take his letters the way some people do today, as a blanket ban on women speaking/leading/teaching.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not talking about the second century. I'm talking about as these letters were read for the first time.

My point is, if you know that Paul trained, authorised, approved of and praised women in ministry and leadership roles, you read his words about women speaking and so on in light of that knowledge, and you don't take his letters the way some people do today, as a blanket ban on women speaking/leading/teaching.

Yes, and?

In my posts of the subject, I discuss that scripture shows time and time again God asserts a Principle and then delivers a Law that permits men to reach toward that Principle as far as their weaknesses at the time allow. If the Lord made the specifics of His Law as sublime as His Principles, no man could attain them and He would have to condemn everyone.

But the Lord says of the specifics of His Law (which is a compromise to His Principle for the sake of man's weakness): This is not too difficult for you.

This compromise in the specifics of the Law, however, is not a release from His principle, for He clearly expects us to see the direction the Principles upon which the specifics are based and incline our hearts toward the Principles. For those who do not, the Lord says, "Woe unto you! You have neglected the weightier matters of the Law!" He said that to men who fully kept all the specifics, and He acknowledged that they did. What had they left undone? The Principles that the specifics point toward.

OT examples include divorce, capital punishment, supporting the poor, and slavery. In the NT, the Lord also asserts Principles. In the case of this discussion, an NT example of a Principle is: There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Yet, the Lord provides the permission of a compromise to His Principle: It was not possible when this Principle was asserted, for instance, for Christians to instantly abolish slavery--obviously those who were slaves could not, and in that society it wasn't a simple matter for the slaveholders, either. That does not mean men were at liberty to ignore the Principle, however, and they didn't ignore it.

IMO, 1 Timothy 2:12 is the same kind of compromise to the Principle for the sake of man's weakness...but it does not leave men at liberty to ignore it, but to strive toward it as the times make it possible.

 

[Strong in Him]

The people who actually knew him and did share his letters apparently thought so. They did share his letters. Within 80 years of his death, his letters had absolute validity throughout the Church and greater validity among a large portion of Christianity than even the OT.

Yes they had absolute validity. But I am certain that they would have recognised the difference between personal greeting - such as "bring my cloak with you when you come, instruction for local situations - such as "I do not permit a woman to teach", and Christian doctrine; matters pertaining to the Gospel and faith.

I doubt that Phoebe and the other women in Rome commended by Paul for their hard work, nor Priscilla in Corinth, nor Euodia and Syntyche in Philippi would have suddenly repented and resigned their work after reading Paul's words "a woman must be silent." I am sure that no teetotaller would have rushed out and got drunk after reading that Paul advised Timothy to start drinking wine to help with his frequent illnesses. I am sure they knew the situations to which he was writing, and if they didn't have those situations/problems in their church, they would have no doubt skipped over any instruction on the subject.

If not having female preachers/Ministers is, as some claim, God's command and will and applies to all of us today just as much as it did then - why doesn't he make it VERY clear? Why didn't Jesus teach it - as he came to show us God's will - and why didn't ALL the NT writers state it clearly, and stress it, in ALL their letters?
Paul was an intelligent guy; it wouldn't have been too hard for him to write, "the Lord commands that women should never be in leadership", or "the Spirit gives many gifts but will never give the gift of leadership to a woman, since it is God's will that women never lead". Yet he didn't.
Jesus could have said "I will build my church - and women will never lead, or even speak, in it"; he could have emphasised this by making sure he never allowed a woman to speak for him or take God's word to others. But again, he didn't.

 

[Strong in Him]

In my posts of the subject, I discuss that scripture shows time and time again God asserts a Principle and then delivers a Law that permits men to reach toward that Principle as far as their weaknesses at the time allow. If the Lord made the specifics of His Law as sublime as His Principles, no man could attain them and He would have to condemn everyone.

But the Lord says of the specifics of His Law (which is a compromise to His Principle for the sake of man's weakness): This is not too difficult for you.


Yet, the Lord provides the permission of a compromise to His Principle: It was not possible when this Principle was asserted, for instance, for Christians to instantly abolish slavery--obviously those who were slaves could not, and in that society it wasn't a simple matter for the slaveholders, either. That does not mean men were at liberty to ignore the Principle, however, and they didn't ignore it.

IMO, 1 Timothy 2:12 is the same kind of compromise to the Principle for the sake of man's weakness...

Are you saying that because men are too weak/disobedient to lead a church or be ordained, rather than convict/teach them of his will, God compromises his own principles/will and calls a woman instead?
No. God is Almighty God; if he can raise up worshippers from stones, he can raise up church leaders from men. God does not compromise/go back on his will, or teachings, for us. It is sinful man who bows to, serves and obeys Almighty God, not God who bows to serve man. Or maybe God should have said to Saul of Tarsus, "I desire that you preach Jesus as the Messiah ..... if that's alright with you?"

 

[Archivist]

But all the other congregations--who all knew Paul-- accepted all of Paul's letters to themselves.

That makes your point irrelevant.

Again, did Paul know that his letter to the Church in Corinth would be seen by anyone outside of that city at the time he sent it? He did not. Hindsight is 20/20. It is your point that is irrelevant.

 

[RDKirk]

I doubt that Phoebe and the other women in Rome commended by Paul for their hard work, nor Priscilla in Corinth, nor Euodia and Syntyche in Philippi would have suddenly repented and resigned their work after reading Paul's words "a woman must be silent." I am sure that no teetotaller would have rushed out and got drunk after reading that Paul advised Timothy to start drinking wine to help with his frequent illnesses. I am sure they knew the situations to which he was writing, and if they didn't have those situations/problems in their church, they would have no doubt skipped over any instruction on the subject.

In light of Paul's amazing proclamations of the importance of women in spreading the Gospel (and don't overlook how often Paul's disciple Luke explicitly mentions "and also women"), what we need to do is more closely examine what Paul must have meant (and not meant) by "teach."

I've already gone over that in this thread, I think. What Paul was saying is that he did not permit men to be disciples under a woman (nor, for that matter, a woman discipled under a man).

I would not argue he meant that only for the Corinthians. All the churches embraced Paul's letter to the Corinthians from the start, and there is no second century writing so much as suggesting that they made any "that part is only for that city" distinctions.

We have to make sure we are advanced enough in the Spirit of the Lord that we can yet put young women in to a discipleship relationship under men, or young men into a discipleship relationship under older women, before we figure we can discard that particular instruction.

Heck, it doesn't seem we can be too cavalier yet about even putting young men into a discipleship relationship under older men.

 

[RDKirk]

Are you saying that because men are too weak/disobedient to lead a church or be ordained, rather than convict/teach them of his will, God compromises his own principles/will and calls a woman instead?
No. God is Almighty God; if he can raise up worshippers from stones, he can raise up church leaders from men. God does not compromise/go back on his will, or teachings, for us. It is sinful man who bows to, serves and obeys Almighty God, not God who bows to serve man. Or maybe God should have said to Saul of Tarsus, "I desire that you preach Jesus as the Messiah ..... if that's alright with you?"

Do you think that's what I said? Really?

Did God raise worshippers from stones? Or didn't He use weak and disobedient men instead?

Doesn't God in His grace permit men to fall short of His perfection because of their weaknesses?

Jesus answered, "It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but it was not this way from the beginning."

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure that any contemporary mainstream ministry practice is analogous to 1st-century discipleship, at least not in Christianity.

Perhaps in monastic settings one might come close.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm not sure that any contemporary mainstream ministry practice is analogous to 1st-century discipleship, at least not in Christianity.

Perhaps in monastic settings one might come close.

I think you're right. Very little of what's called "teaching" today is in that same model. Most of it is "expounding the gospel" (what Priscilla did with Apollos) or less.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm not sure that any contemporary mainstream ministry practice is analogous to 1st-century discipleship, at least not in Christianity.

Attempts have been made, but they usually end up crashing and burning.