Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic?

[Roseonathorn]

Pork still cause inflammation... If a man watch a female trying to lead him there is of course the risk that he sees her either as a motherfigure or wifefigure or simply as a sexual being - and forgets everything she says, he only remembers the visual. So how will then his wife and mother feel about that. But if he does not see her that way maybe it might be of some good use, of course the female leader should be responsible for what impression she want to make too. So yes somewhat times change but still men and women are going to feel attracted by each other and often men are the visual ones. Women often need to feel loved, touched and kissed. Say if I am to having a discussion with a group that has both women and men, middleaged or older then I prefer not wearing makeup and dress respectably or use makeup sparingly because I want to be taken seriously. If it is basically women or young people or fashionistas, singers, artists, actors or hairdressers or that kind of people I might add more makeup. Because otherwise they might get bored by my natural looks and not care to listen to my message. I might use more colour in my clothes too. A female leader however should no matter looks think of the people the congregation the church and not be tied down with family and housechores so I suspect a woman has hands full of kids unless it is grandkids and housechores. Who will take over for her if she leads? Will her husband do that? Will they share the responsibility? Can the church be like an extended relative of brothers and sisters where noone really feel they are the greatest or the most worthy leader? Was it not so that the leader should be ready to do eaven the pettiest chore and serve even the smallest of them without having lofty thoughts of himself or herself. But I would say that because the world is as it is today I think it is a need to have at least one feamel leader in the church that has as much rights and knowledge as a pastor or priest because there are a few women that dare not talk to or do not think a male priest understand them In some particular christian struggles that maybe women understand better. Not that all women are understanding either, I am not saying that. I also think that a how did You like our church today responce box for the church leaders is good selfevaluation. And a box on anonomous ideas how to improve. You never know what people can write that they otherwise are too scared to stand for to say to a leader. And the leader might not approve of it because the idea came from a particular person so it better be anonomous. It is a follow up of good ideas, and peoples wellbeing and if an idea is tried once or twice and many people dislike it then try another for awhile. You can not please everyone but I suppose people mostly leave church because they either are upset or bored.

 

[bekkilyn]

If you love Jesus, you'll understand what He did for you. If you don't understand what He did for you, I don't know that you can really love Him fully.

Anyway, this is getting a little off-topic, in that it's not addressing the scriptural basis for allowing women to be leaders over men.

Not that I believe this is a basis, but I believe Deborah is an exception that is worth consideration. She went to battle with the army (a king's job) because Barak was too scared to carry out his duty. Does this example have any use in the church today?

You are reading into scripture what isn't there. God called Deborah to be a Judge and it wasn't because Barak was too scared to be a Judge. There is nowhere in scripture that says anything of the sort about the reason God called Deborah is because he couldn't get a man to do the job. Nowhere. It's actually pretty insulting to both God and Deborah to even think this way, because if God wanted to call a man, he would have found one, but he called Deborah because he knew she was the right *person* for the job based on the gifts that *he* gave to her an to none other.

There is also nothing anywhere in scripture that forbids women from being leaders in the church and alternately, *several* examples in the new testament where they are doing just that very thing, and even approved by Paul himself, not to mention that God obviously called them to the task.

Women are *people* with many different gifts, talents, and abilities just like men. There is nothing degrading about being a mother just as there is nothing degrading about being a father...IF...that is what God is calling you to be. However, to assume that ALL women or ALL men are called to certain things simply because of their biology is ridiculous. There is nowhere in scripture that says we are to bury our talents, to not use the gifts God has has given us, and to disobey his calling. In fact, Jesus was pretty clear in his parable of the talents that burying them is not the way to go.

I sincerely don't understand why people don't get this. Are they truly so blind from this gender thing that they don't realize there are real and *unique* people behind these gender stereotypes they want to box everyone into, as if all women are the same and all men are the same?

Maybe you very much want to be a mother, but weren't born a woman...I don't know. I do know that the life you seem to want seems utterly horrifying to me, but then God never called me to be a parent. I even tried marriage for a few years, despite my misgivings, because I believed it was the thing to do once an adult reached a certain age, but in hindsight, I'm pretty sure that fell apart because it was never something God was calling me to and I've never, not even once, since I was a small child, had any desire to be a parent or to have children, and now I know it's because God called me for a different purpose.

However, I know people who practically from birth, all they wanted to do was be a mother or father, and it was their hearts strongest desire.

People are not the same. We need to stop categorizing people by gender and start recognizing each person as a unique creation from God with unique gifts that God has given them for his purpose, and we should not be setting obstacles before one another or attempting to get in the way of God's will for each person. He has a unique, individual relationship with each of us and maybe God is much better at determining what he wants for each person than we are for them, and we can't assume because *we* want something that it is the same for everyone, because each person's God-given heart's desire is different, regardless of race, gender, nationality, etc.

 

[Paidiske]

Not that I believe this is a basis, but I believe Deborah is an exception that is worth consideration. She went to battle with the army (a king's job) because Barak was too scared to carry out his duty. Does this example have any use in the church today?

I don't think so, because it still casts women in leadership as exceptional rather than a norm.

A female leader however should no matter looks think of the people the congregation the church and not be tied down with family and housechores so I suspect a woman has hands full of kids unless it is grandkids and housechores. Who will take over for her if she leads? Will her husband do that? Will they share the responsibility?

How about trusting her that if she's got to the point of being ready to take on a leadership role, she can sort out who'll pick up the kids from school and cook dinner?

My husband works less than I do, and does most of the caring for my daughter, and I pay for a cleaner. Between us we manage. Honestly, it's not rocket science.

But I would say that because the world is as it is today I think it is a need to have at least one feamel leader in the church that has as much rights and knowledge as a pastor or priest because there are a few women that dare not talk to or do not think a male priest understand them In some particular christian struggles that maybe women understand better.

I completely agree, but you'd be amazed how many Christians don't. Even CF only has men as chaplains.

 

[bekkilyn]

Since the entire concept of the Trinity is unbiblical and contrary to what Jesus clearly taught and stated about himself and the Father, that argument won't wash. But that's getting way off topic.

Or even if it was a valid argument, the idea of "equal but with different roles" is a total fallacy with regard to the notion that men can be leaders and women can't. That is inherently unequal. I think others in this discussion (including at least one or two ordained ministers) have already explained that in some detail.

The problem with gender complementarians that they completely ignore what God wants for each person he's in relationship with and try to box God into their own limited biases. Equal but with different roles applies to individual *people* based on their unique gifts and God-given purpose, and not on race, gender, etc. though being of a particular race, gender, etc. may be helpful at times in carrying out that purpose. For example, I'm sure it helped that Paul was already a Jew when he went to a new location and wanted to speak in the synagogues.

I am a Trinitarian, but strongly disagree with the idea that some parts of the Trinity are greater or lesser than other parts, or that there is some hierarchy of authority set up between them. If anything, they are all mutually submitted to one another as we Christians are supposed to be. They are ONE God, the SAME God, and not three different entities. I personally believe it is heresy to believe that God is greater than God regardless of what form he decides to take at any given time.

 

[bekkilyn]

1 Corinthians 5:13
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Paul is using the example of a (for him) current day Greco-Roman household to help the people he was writing to, who would also be familiar with that family structure, to better understand Christ and his relationship with his church, and not the other way around. He was not commanding people to set up their households and their relationships exactly like this family structure (which was put in place by pagan Rome, not God.) He would use a different example for the same message if he were writing to people in our time because our family structures are different.

 

[SkyWriting]

What do you think of 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first'?

I call that historical prophesy.
The writer knows the future.

 

[Sam91]

I call that historical prophesy.
The writer knows the future.

I'll pm you rather than go off topic

 

[ToBeLoved]

Paul is using the example of a (for him) current day Greco-Roman household to help the people he was writing to, who would also be familiar with that family structure, to better understand Christ and his relationship with his church, and not the other way around. He was not commanding people to set up their households and their relationships exactly like this family structure (which was put in place by pagan Rome, not God.) He would use a different example for the same message if he were writing to people in our time because our family structures are different.

I disagree. None of the apostles preached according to culture.

It may be an obedience issue

 

[FireDragon76]

What exactly about not having a penis makes a woman unqualified to preach and administer the sacraments?

I think we need to have better reasons to say that women can't be pastors, other than quoting from scriptural texts that all the evidence points to as being antilegomena- not written by an apostle.

 

[bekkilyn]

I disagree. None of the apostles preached according to culture.

It may be an obedience issue

The apostles most certainly did preach according to the culture in which they lived. If you rip scripture away from the culture in which it was written, then you end up misusing it in very harmful ways, as has been demonstrated numerous times throughout history.

What is actually an obedience issuesis people who try their best to present obstacles and hindrances to other Christians attempting to obey God's will under the assumption that they somehow know what's best for other people better than God does himself, and even worse, doing it in the name of God because they have taken scripture out of its cultural context, deciding that somehow the writers were addressing them personally rather than addressing the people for whom they were actually written. Doesn't mean that they weren't inspired or that we can't learn from the messages that were being taught that can help build our relationship with Christ and to go out and do the work he commissions us to do, but Paul wasn't writing to a 21st century audience 2000+ years in the future when he was addressing particular issues in the particular churches he was overseeing.

Maybe people believe that God speaks to them ONLY through scripture and that he isn't a living God who is actively still working in our lives TODAY and communicating with us through prayer and other ways TODAY. Maybe you think women are unqualified to do anything of any real value to God. Well, even in scripture God rarely calls the qualified, but qualifies the called, as the saying goes.

The wrong thinking in many of these posts is that God's work of being a pastor or anything else is actually being done by the man or woman who God called into that role as if it is *our* work. It's actually God himself doing the work through them, and God is certainly qualified, and I really hope no one argues with that point regardless of who he decides to work through at any given time.

 

[Oldmantook]

Since the entire concept of the Trinity is unbiblical and contrary to what Jesus clearly taught and stated about himself and the Father, that argument won't wash. But that's getting way off topic.

Or even if it was a valid argument, the idea of "equal but with different roles" is a total fallacy with regard to the notion that men can be leaders and women can't. That is inherently unequal. I think others in this discussion (including at least one or two ordained ministers) have already explained that in some detail.

If you don't believe in the Trinity that is certainly your prerogative. You can believe whatever you wish - even if it's not scriptural. You seem to defer to ministers/scholars as if they are the sole interpreters of Scripture. Don't believe everything you read/hear.

 

[aiki]

There were 3 female prophets.

Um, I think there were women in the OT (and the NT) who may have prophesied, but none except for Deborah appear to be established as full-time prophets in the way, say, Isaiah or Jeremiah were.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

From my studies, it seems that what Paul addresses in his 1st letter to Timothy is an issue which pertained to a few uppity, untranquil, formerly paganized women in the church. These specific women were verbose and attempted to usurp the position and teaching of men in the church by replacing it with a form of feminine pseudo-authority supposedly derived by reference to Gnostic type myth and sub-culture, contra the Old Testament Scriptures.

If we consider the nature of the Macedonian culture that thrived during the 1st century during the time of Paul, we can surmise (strongly, I might add) that the underlying meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 may be what Kroeger & Kroeger (2003) share about it in their analysis of its Greek text and its historical cultural background:

We suggest that these verses are not intended as the rationale for prohibiting a gospel ministry for women, but rather they constitute a refutation of a widespread heresy. Specifically, we consider this to be directed against Gnostic or proto-Gnostic mythology glorifying Eve. We have already mentioned the preoccupation of the false teachers with stories they distorted [through fables and myths]. (pp. 117)​

I agree with this conclusion because it is informed by what is known of the Macedonian (Greek) culture of that time, spotted as it was with gnostic type leanings along with the worship of the goddess Diana of the Ephesians and of Apollo, the latter of which involved female priestesses. And it was the intrusion of these kinds of pagan ideological elements that Paul was countering, not some general assertion by godly Christian women that they should be able to lead in various way within the church body as the Holy Spirit may enable them to do.

For more on this, see the following:

Reference
Kroeger, Richard, C., & Kroeger, Catherine, C. (2003). I suffer not a woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in light of ancient evidence. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

 

[aiki]

That's where Paul fails.

"Treating others the same as you would wish to be treated" is entirely subjective.
So following God's law is entirely subjective. Paul missed that. Perhaps because he never saw Jesus in action.

I'm not so sure observing the Golden Rule is entirely subjective. There are a certain set of generally-held and objective moral values and duties to which we all adhere. None of us would want, for instance, to be tortured, or raped, or murdered, or robbed, or betrayed, and so on. That these behaviours are near-universally regarded as morally wrong things to do, suggests that they exist - and originate - outside of, or independently of the individual (ie. objectively).

God's Law originates with God, not us, and is morally right regardless of whether or not any human acknowledges that it is. In this way, God's Law is quite objective.

I don't mean to be rude, but Paul appears to understand the nature of God's Law better than you do. Perhaps this was because he was taught by the direct revelation of Christ:

Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

 

[aiki]

The model left nothing for the men to do but sit at the gate and collect praise. Who do you believe will collect the rewards? God being given the glory and all....

"Sit at the gate and collect praise"? A rather cartoonish (and somewhat bitterly feminist) version of what the chapter actually says.

 

[aiki]

...of violating God's primary laws
Matthew 7:12
Luke 6:31
Romans 15:2

And on what basis, exactly, do you supersede all of God's universal moral laws with the Golden Rule? Christ himself condemns all manner of sinful behaviour: hypocrisy, sexual sin, pride, etc. Is he in violation of the Golden Rule in doing so? Obviously not.

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually, it really does create second-class Christians.

When you're in a situation where you have the knowledge, the skills and experience to undertake a ministry role, where there is no impediment of character, and people refuse to appoint you to that role for no reason other than your sex...

That's not equality. It's demeaning and denigrating. And it absolutely is second-class Christianity. No matter how gifted, how learned or how wise, you must always be the passive recipient of others' ministry, and your potential to contribute to the growing reign of God must always be denied and suppressed.

Sorry, but no. No woman should have the Spirit in her quenched in that way.[/QUOTE my church had a female bishop 40 years ago . I agreed with them then, I agree with them now.

 

[Not David]

As long as you rape church women the same as you want to be raped yourself, then your good.

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

Proverbs 3:27
Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
(wife even)

Rape what?

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

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.

The law of God is eternal. Gods law is not replaced by the law of man.
Where did you get this idea?

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

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

Christians understand the biblical teaching of the trinity. To deny this teaching would mean a person is not a biblical Christian;
from the 1689 Lbcf.
Chapter 2: Of God and of the Holy Trinity
1._____The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
( 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Deuteronomy 6:4; Jeremiah 10:10; Isaiah 48:12; Exodus 3:14; John 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17; Deuteronomy 4:15, 16; Malachi 3:6; 1 Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 23:23; Psalms 90:2; Genesis 17:1; Isaiah 6:3; Psalms 115:3; Isaiah 46:10; Proverbs 16:4; Romans 11:36; Exodus 34:6, 7; Hebrews 11:6; Nehemiah 9:32, 33; Psalms 5:5, 6; Exodus 34:7; Nahum 1:2, 3 )
2._____God, having all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself, is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creature which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things, and he hath most sovereign dominion over all creatures, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth; in his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain; he is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands; to him is due from angels and men, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience, as creatures they owe unto the Creator, and whatever he is further pleased to require of them.
( John 5:26; Psalms 148:13; Psalms 119:68; Job 22:2, 3; Romans 11:34-36; Daniel 4:25, 34, 35; Hebrews 4:13; Ezekiel 11:5; Acts 15:18; Psalms 145:17; Revelation 5:12-14 )

3._____ In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.
( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6 )