Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic?

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I believe scripture means what it says. When it talks about women not being in charge of men, I'm happy enough that I've understood what it means. But do times change?

1 Cor 14:33 - 35
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Tim 2:11 - 15
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. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

In Genesis, the sign of (physical) circumcision was supposed to be an everlasting covenant. But in the NT, physical circumcision and the Old Testament laws were done away with (fulfilled in Christ). Although Gentiles were still not supposed to eat meat with blood, or commit sexual immorality. I can understand this - New Testament, New Covenant.

But, wasn't part of the sign from God that the OT laws need no longer be adhered to by NT believers, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles (e.g. Cornelius and his household). What about women teachers who claim (or appear to have) the Holy Spirit poured out on them? Is this false, as there is no new covenant since the New Covenant?

So what about when women defy these verses, but are acting with genuine love to their congregations? (Not that I have seen this). What about if there are no male Christians in a newly established church, or if the only male Christians are recent converts? Is it too legalistic to say that women can never teach or have authority over a man?

Where Paul states "as the Law also says", what about Deborah, whom God specifically sent to Barack? I guess she wasn't teaching a man (or men). Is the no women rule a general good rule to follow, but when/if God wants, He would demonstrate that His exception is inspired by Him?

I'd be interested in thoughts that are consistent with scripture, but not the tired old excuses like "that was just the culture at that time" or similar, when Paul clearly links the requirement for women not to be leaders to Eve's sin (which is timeless).

(Oh - by the way - I'm probably what some might consider a somewhat (male) chauvinist. I like the idea of women getting married, staying home and being pregnant by the kitchen sink, but I know there's not a bible verse that says it that way. I also have known one or two women to be better than most men at what they do, and several online that are smarter than a roomful of rocket scientists - certainly moreso than me. I think that if scripture didn't prohibit it, I wouldn't mind the idea of women leading men).

[Edit: Just to clarify the above, so people don't take me as a complete chauvinist pig, it is the Golden Rule somewhat. If I were a woman, I would love nothing more than to get married, stay home and be barefoot and pregnant, so I'm not wishing on others something I wouldn't wish on myself. I do think I'd prefer to be a woman for this reason. But I also understand that some people - even women - really do enjoy going out to work... for some reason].

Thanks for your comments, and please be civil.

 

[SkyWriting]

I believe scripture means what it says. When it talks about women not being in charge of men, I'm happy enough that I've understood what it means.

Gods laws are obsolete. They have been replaced by local government law.

Even in scripture about women being silent, it was becasue local law required it. Not becasue of religion.

We now live in the age of Grace through Jesus, which is a far better agreement.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Gods laws are obsolete. They have been replaced by local government law.

Even in scripture about women being silent, it was becasue local law required it. Not becasue of religion.

As I stated in the text:

1 Tim 2:11 - 15
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. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This has nothing to do with local law. Your answer should be consistent with what scripture teaches.

 

[~Zao~]

As I stated in the text:

1 Tim 2:11 - 15
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. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This has nothing to do with local law. Your answer should be consistent with what scripture teaches.

Saved thru childbirth in the scripturally spiritual sense means to reproduce little Christs. How is your great commission the 120 were sent on coming along? Are you aiding in His work in this way?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Saved thru childbirth in the scripturally spiritual sense means to reproduce little Christs. How is your great commission coming along? Are you aiding in His work in this way?

This is the most consistent explanation I've heard for this passage (with the rest of scripture), but still it seems strange. Paul could have phrased it differently, or at least targetted it at both men and women.

 

[Kerensa]

1 Tim 2:11 - 15
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. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Serious Bible scholars consider that the letters to Timothy, along with several of the others attributed to Paul, were not written by Paul but come from a later period in early church history. They therefore shouldn't be taken as absolute requirements for doctrine. Evidence shows that there were women involved in leadership roles in the early church right from the beginning. Paul even names and praises several of them! So how could he seriously have been against female church leadership?

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

The trinity is a great example of equality with designated hierarchy. Jesus is equal to God and has all authority over everything and yet he is submitted to the Father. This model is part of our DNA as ultimately we are wired differently. God created man 1st and put him over the works. Man has different roles than the woman. All scriptures is inspired by God and you cannot dismiss Timothy. The male is not superior for having been designated this role and at that the leaders must be submitted to the LORD as well and the children submitted to the parent as the citizen to the government and the employee to the employer.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I believe scripture means what it says. When it talks about women not being in charge of men, I'm happy enough that I've understood what it means. But do times change?

1 Cor 14:33 - 35
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Tim 2:11 - 15
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. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

In Genesis, the sign of (physical) circumcision was supposed to be an everlasting covenant. But in the NT, physical circumcision and the Old Testament laws were done away with (fulfilled in Christ). Although Gentiles were still not supposed to eat meat with blood, or commit sexual immorality. I can understand this - New Testament, New Covenant.

But, wasn't part of the sign from God that the OT laws need no longer be adhered to by NT believers, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles (e.g. Cornelius and his household). What about women teachers who claim (or appear to have) the Holy Spirit poured out on them? Is this false, as there is no new covenant since the New Covenant?

So what about when women defy these verses, but are acting with genuine love to their congregations? (Not that I have seen this). What about if there are no male Christians in a newly established church, or if the only male Christians are recent converts? Is it too legalistic to say that women can never teach or have authority over a man?

Where Paul states "as the Law also says", what about Deborah, whom God specifically sent to Barack? I guess she wasn't teaching a man (or men). Is the no women rule a general good rule to follow, but when/if God wants, He would demonstrate that His exception is inspired by Him?

I'd be interested in thoughts that are consistent with scripture, but not the tired old excuses like "that was just the culture at that time" or similar, when Paul clearly links the requirement for women not to be leaders to Eve's sin (which is timeless).

(Oh - by the way - I'm probably what some might consider a somewhat (male) chauvinist. I like the idea of women getting married, staying home and being pregnant by the kitchen sink, but I know there's not a bible verse that says it that way. I also have known one or two women to be better than most men at what they do, and several online that are smarter than a roomful of rocket scientists - certainly moreso than me. I think that if scripture didn't prohibit it, I wouldn't mind the idea of women leading men).

Thanks for your comments, and please be civil.

If a woman wants to serve the Lord as Pastor, leading her small flock in righteousness, who can stop her? Only the congregation she is in. So be it.
But one big rant on this issue, I know of a woman Pastor that preaches God as a female. I believe this crosses the line and why I voted no.
Blessings

 

[SkyWriting]

As I stated in the text:

1 Tim 2:11 - 15
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. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This has nothing to do with local law. Your answer should be consistent with what scripture teaches.

That teaching violates the golden rule of treating others just as you would wish to be treated. Paul has added his own terms to scripture... (Treated the same except for women).

- I want the women to adorn themselves with respectable apparel, with modesty,

- not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes (granted - scripture is teaching that Local customs, not scripture are rule)

Paul may chat freely and preach but:
"A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness.
"I do not permit
- a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man
- she is to remain quiet.

I can do as I please but:
- A widow should be enrolled if she is at least sixty years old,
- the wife of one man, and well known for good deeds such as bringing up children, entertaining strangers, washing the feet of the saints, imparting relief to the afflicted, and devoting herself to every good work.
- But refuse to enroll younger widows.

So you can see that Pauls teaching violates the golden rule of treating others just as you would wish to be treated. Paul has added his own terms to scripture.

Here is where Paul's teaching fails:

Matthew 7
In everything, then,
do to others as you would have them do to you.
For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.
Enter through the narrow gate.

Luke 6:31
And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

Here is the priority of local law:
1 Cor 14
Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Romans 13:1-7
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

So if local laws allow for women to speak in church, or even wear mens clothes like jeans, or preach, then that is God's law now. If ex-cons can be preachers, then so can women, if law allows it.

 

[~Zao~]

No. The bible makes it quite clear that there are leadership roles not suitable for females to fill.

No one, not even Paul, has made it clear the unsuitability. Animals created before the male unseats the theory male was created first and all other arguments can be debunked too, so I don’t really see that as a legitimate option.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I believe scripture means what it says. When it talks about women not being in charge of men, I'm happy enough that I've understood what it means. But do times change?

1 Cor 14:33 - 35
For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Tim 2:11 - 15
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. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

In Genesis, the sign of (physical) circumcision was supposed to be an everlasting covenant. But in the NT, physical circumcision and the Old Testament laws were done away with (fulfilled in Christ). Although Gentiles were still not supposed to eat meat with blood, or commit sexual immorality. I can understand this - New Testament, New Covenant.

But, wasn't part of the sign from God that the OT laws need no longer be adhered to by NT believers, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles (e.g. Cornelius and his household). What about women teachers who claim (or appear to have) the Holy Spirit poured out on them? Is this false, as there is no new covenant since the New Covenant?

So what about when women defy these verses, but are acting with genuine love to their congregations? (Not that I have seen this). What about if there are no male Christians in a newly established church, or if the only male Christians are recent converts? Is it too legalistic to say that women can never teach or have authority over a man?

Where Paul states "as the Law also says", what about Deborah, whom God specifically sent to Barack? I guess she wasn't teaching a man (or men). Is the no women rule a general good rule to follow, but when/if God wants, He would demonstrate that His exception is inspired by Him?

I'd be interested in thoughts that are consistent with scripture, but not the tired old excuses like "that was just the culture at that time" or similar, when Paul clearly links the requirement for women not to be leaders to Eve's sin (which is timeless).

(Oh - by the way - I'm probably what some might consider a somewhat (male) chauvinist. I like the idea of women getting married, staying home and being pregnant by the kitchen sink, but I know there's not a bible verse that says it that way. I also have known one or two women to be better than most men at what they do, and several online that are smarter than a roomful of rocket scientists - certainly moreso than me. I think that if scripture didn't prohibit it, I wouldn't mind the idea of women leading men).

Thanks for your comments, and please be civil.

There are no scriptures that tell us that God allows for women to be installed as either pastors or Elders in the local assembly.

 

[~Zao~]

There are no scriptures that tell us that God allows for women to be installed as either pastors or Elders in the local assembly.

No only that they were.

 

[YeshuaFan]

No only that they were.

Where does it state that in the NT then?

 

[~Zao~]

Where does it state that in the NT then?

Just about every where a female name is mentioned, whether the church was in their house or they welcomed others in. It’s vanity to imagine that wasn’t the case.

 

[SkyWriting]

Man has different roles than the woman.

We all do choose our roles as we see fit.

I hold (others) in the same esteem, as I would wish others to think about me.
For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

Discrimination is not allowed. The letters to the churches fail.
Unless they are deferring to local government, which is Godly.

1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

 

[~Zao~]

By choice, we all do.
I hold (others) in the same esteem, as I would wish others to think about me.
For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

Discrimination is not allowed. The letters to the churches fail.
Unless they are deferring to local government, which is Godly.

1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Peter (read in the Greek) established Jesus’ silence before those who caused His sufferings, the unbelievers, to which example was the drawing point. Paul’s letters stand up in the spiritual sense where Christ is the head. It falls at the letter of the law because no human can die for another. Or live for another and expect salvation. Only thru Christ is that possible.

 

[SkyWriting]

Peter (read in the Greek) established Jesus’ silence before those who caused His sufferings, the unbelievers, to which example was the drawing point. Paul’s letters stand up in the spiritual sense where Christ is the head. It falls at the letter of the law because no human can die for another. Or live for another and expect salvation. Only thru Christ is that possible.

In the physical sense, any person can choose to die to save another person.
Even non-believers have that option. But spiritually, you're correct.

 

[Dave-W]

I know of a woman Pastor that preaches God as a female. I believe this crosses the line and why I voted no.

Understood, but I have heard of men who preach God is a homosexual. I have also heard the hymn "In the Garden" is actually an illicit sexual liaison between God and some woman.

Go figure. Anyone can be led astray. I don't think women or men differ much on that item.

 

[Kerensa]

The trinity is a great example of equality with designated hierarchy. Jesus is equal to God and has all authority over everything and yet he is submitted to the Father. This model is part of our DNA as ultimately we are wired differently. God created man 1st and put him over the works. Man has different roles than the woman. All scriptures is inspired by God and you cannot dismiss Timothy. The male is not superior for having been designated this role and at that the leaders must be submitted to the LORD as well and the children submitted to the parent as the citizen to the government and the employee to the employer.

The trinity is another concept that's totally unscriptural, but that's another story.

 

[Albion]

It has been said before, but for this kind of discussion to be effective it is necessary to recognize that some Protestants--not the mainstream of Protestantism, to be sure--think that women should be silent in church, period, and not have any position that could be considered as being above men.

BUT most churches which take the generally negative position about this matter think that God intended that men be the pastors, not that women should have no roles in any way amounting to "leadership." In those churches, women occupy many leadership positions, but just not as ordained ministers/priests. The majority of the world's Christians belong to these churches.