Woman who preaches in Church

[Truth7t7]

Thats right. If the message or word or situation is honoring God and his word nothing else should come into it. When we hear Gods word and when Gods spirit is at work it does not even register as to who is speaking the words because you are beyond the fleshly or physical body and into the spiritual realm of God. Which is Christs church which can happen anywhere on earth regardless of race.

God explicitly speaks in his word for women to be silent in the church, and that Bishops and Deacons must be married "Men", as has been shown several times

Jesus Is The Lord

1 Corinthians 14:34-35KJV
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 3:1-13KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

[stevevw]

It's a strange argument because it ignores that women faced martyrdom along with the men. It's not as if they were trying to protect the women and prevent them being killed. It's also a strange argument because it makes out that this was some sort of testosterone-fuelled action-adventure, rather than being hard work, yes, but not necessarily harder than the lives that many people faced in the ancient world.

No thats only strange to you if you view the world that way. Most people I think don't. Its just commonsense and pragmatic and theres no identity politics in it or that needs to be brought in.

We do the same all the time and we usually don't question it as its just a natural part of how we see things. Like I said males dominate the building industry and we have accepted that without problems in the past.

This goes back to the idea of using the best or most suitable or talented people regardless of identity to get the job done. Sometimes that ends up being all one sex or gender or race. Its not because of politics but thats just how it pans out.

Now I am not necessarily saying this was the case with the early church. But I think it was a consideration considering the reality of the conflicts with the early church and the need to have authoritive figures who could physically stand up against the threats.

I am also not saying that women could not do this or be marty's. That is you taking what I am saying and then taking it to the extreme that I must mean banning women. All I am saying is that on the face of it it this particular situation seemed more suitable for men.

Not that it must be all men as there were probably some women who were also suitable. But rather more generally. Hense we haad majority men in the early church. Otherwise I cannot think of any other reason in allowing such a situation that modern society would call descrimination or oppression of women.

I didn't even say it was because of women's reputations. I said that having a small group of women and men, not married to each other, sharing such an intimate, high-intensity experience as Jesus's inmost circle, would have been socially challenging. Would the husbands of those women have been happy to let them do that, for example?

Isn't that about social repretations or expectations. Why would the husbands be unhappy. Perhaps worried about what others would think.

Given that they were killed, what does handling it "better" even mean? It's not that they were more willing to face death.

Its not necessarily the killing but the killing of disciples shows that they faced hostility and threats along the way. They were probably often faced hostile people as well as saving others. Th threats probably increased as more were saved as this became a threat to establishments and those in power. Similar to what happened to Jesus as His ministry progressed.

 

[stevevw]

God explicitly speaks in his word for women to be silent in the church, and that Bishops and Deacons must be married "Men", as has been shown several times

Jesus Is The Lord

1 Corinthians 14:34-35KJV
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 3:1-13KJV
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

I notice it mentions bishops a couple of times. This may explain why so many of the 70 disciples were bishops. They were only a few years out from Christs crucifixtion and the teachings of Paul and the disiciples would have been ringing in their ears with these verses. Then they passed this knowledge to the next generation and so on.

 

[stevevw]

The Bible cannot be understood as Christians do understand it by judging it through "todays standards", otherwise the entire call to follolw Jesus, while knowing it will involve getting stoned to death, having one's head cut off, getting crucified, starving on remote islands and ending up used as lion food would all be called out as major breaches of international human rights. This is the amazing thing about how Christianity came to be in the first place, every power that was at the start, was trying to destroy it, from Jesus' infancy on.

We do have this verse "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28 NKJV

However, even that does not require some sort of 50% target, which as far as I can see, is not relevant.

I suspect that we have two different aspects at work. Christs church for which there is no male or female. But also the religious and political component about how the church should be structured.

This could be applied to socialy as a whole and the world. We have Christs teachings and His church and we have the world dominion. Each has beliefs in how the world and reality is ordered and they clash with each other.

 

[stevevw]

According to Luke Jesus sent them out and told them to stay in the places which welcomed them - not to travel from house to house.

I would imagine there were houses that said no as it says if a twon rejects you then wipe your feet and move on. But I could imagine that there was some rejection or rough nights leading up to wiping their feet of a town.

I honestly don't think that believers in the New, or the Old, Testament worried about safety, what was suitable etc.
It was about calling and having faith in the God who called. If God called, or told them to go, they went, or they didn't.

Yes but I still think the social norms which have always more or less been around that society needed to protect women and they were more volnurable would have been at play. Its a practical and realistic concern. I mean they did plan for these missions.

So Deborah became a military leader. Esther was a Jewish girl, married to a pagan king. She was asked to approach the king, without his permission, and ask him to overturn his edict that would have wiped out the Jews. She said - in effect - "you pray, I'll go and if I perish I perish".
Ruth was sent into the fields to work among foreign men, very risky. She went.
Abigail intervened, ignored her husband's words and prevented a war with King David. (She later married him.)
And Jonah ran away.

I am not saying women were not facing threat or lacked courage or ability. Its just a general observation as to why males dominated. Like for example Josiah was fighting battles and there were mainly men. BUt there were probably some women. But considering it was open warfare and going through cities facing threats males were more suitable. Just like we acknowledge today.

What about their belief that God would protect them as they did his will?

Yes God protects David as a boy against mighty odd with the Philistines. Of course but much of what happened still required practical applications. They still needed to fight and defeat the enermy. It wasn't as if God fired the arrows or used the clubs.

Though I reckon he had something to do the the walls coming down at Jericho. But then when you think about it the vibrations of the army marching around the city may have lossened the stones lol.

It's not really.
God can call, and send, whoever he wishes. Yes, sometimes it might be dangerous, rough or involve forgoing a few home comforts. But a) God can provide and protect, b) he knows who he wants to send, their qualities etc, c) I don't believe he would send someone somewhere if they were going to immediately be killed and d) discipleship and obedience is not about saying "that sounds a bit rough, I don't fancy it."

OK but if we go with your logic then why did God not send more women. Or women instead. If the outcome was always going to be the same and GOds special powers protected people then theres no reason to send in anyone particular. Yet He sent the vast majority of men.

Could be for the same reason that he used predominantly Jews. Women, and Gentiles, were unclean and may not have been accepted.
It's more about culture than physical strength.

Ok thats another consideration. But then males dominated in the time of Christ where there was no Jews or Gentiles, women or men. But I agree some things would have been subject to culture without any logical reason apart from belief and tradition.

You actually make a good point though about God singling out the Jews as His nation over other people. That would seem descrimination to modern identity morality. In fact it is a contributory factor to why the Jews are hated so much today.

 

[Paidiske]

But I think it was a consideration considering the reality of the conflicts with the early church and the need to have authoritive figures who could physically stand up against the threats.

I just find any idea that this is particularly gendered quite weird. We have records of women standing up against threat and oppression of Christians. Why would we think they couldn't?

All I am saying is that on the face of it it this particular situation seemed more suitable for men.

And I am saying that your stated reasons for drawing that conclusion don't seem at all congruent with the reality of their experience, to me.

Isn't that about social repretations or expectations. Why would the husbands be unhappy.

With their wives neglecting their households and running around the countryside with a rabbi and a bunch of unrelated men? I can think of lots of reasons the husbands would be unhappy.

Its not necessarily the killing but the killing of disciples shows that they faced hostility and threats along the way.

My point is, that women faced this alongside men. And no less well. (And we continue to do so!) So the argument that this is some sort of reason for women not to be in ministry just makes no sense, to me.

 

[stevevw]

I just find any idea that this is particularly gendered quite weird. We have records of women standing up against threat and oppression of Christians. Why would we think they couldn't?

I don't know. I don't think its weird but rather normal assumptions society makes. Its just a default social assumption I guess based on lived experiences. I know there were women who faced threats and persecution and are just as capable as men.

But I am not talking about individuals but as a group, as a gender. Generally we percieve males as being more suitable or capable of dealing with conflicts and physical threats.

You have to remember the world back then was not like today with all the antidescrimination and legal protections. It could be barbaric. Look at the Romans they were crucifying people, putting their heads on stakes to scare others from defying their rule.

And I am saying that your stated reasons for drawing that conclusion don't seem at all congruent with the reality of their experience, to me.

Ok and of course you have a right to express how you feel and see things. Thats part of trying to determine whats going on. But I am trying to look at this objectively asking why would they use such a dominance of males.

No personal reasons but just trying to understand their reasons back then. I think this may help us understand the issue of the church today. Afterall this was the church just after Christ which was setting the foundation for the church to come.

With their wives neglecting their households and running around the countryside with a rabbi and a bunch of unrelated men? I can think of lots of reasons the husbands would be unhappy.

Yes which relates back to why I said their reputations. People would talk and frown down on it and then have a go at the women and men for that matter for engaging in such behaviour. It happens today.

But that would not stop unencumbered women who do not have a husband or family or home to look after. Then there is the modern day idea of equality where some would say why not the women instead of the men. The men can stay home and look after things.

In fact make it the other way around. Have majority women and minority men which would then put the spotlight on the men being scrutinised for their behaviour. What that deviate bloke doing hanging around with a bunch of women lol.

My point is, that women faced this alongside men. And no less well. (And we continue to do so!) So the argument that this is some sort of reason for women not to be in ministry just makes no sense, to me.

I am not talking about all minsitry or stopping women from ministry or leadership roles. I was speaking about a spedific issue of why the early church was dominated by males. Thats all.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know. I don't think its weird but rather normal assumptions society makes. Its just a default social assumption I guess based on lived experiences. I know there were women who faced threats and persecution and are just as capable as men.

But I am not talking about individuals but as a group, as a gender. Generally we percieve males as being more suitable or capable of dealing with conflicts and physical threats.

So basically, because we have a cultural bias that says women are less capable, we should treat that as normative?

I don't think so.

I am not talking about all minsitry or stopping women from ministry or leadership roles. I was speaking about a spedific issue of why the early church was dominated by males. Thats all.

If you're not talking about women in ministry and leadership roles, why are you posting in a thread about women preaching?

 

[stevevw]

So basically, because we have a cultural bias that says women are less capable, we should treat that as normative?

I don't think so.

But its not necessarily a bias as in a negative bias. You seem to be placing a negative connotation on perhaps a natural human belief or assumption that males are usually but not always more suited for dealing with certain situations such as threat and conflict.

The negative norms come when we take that natural tendency or suitability and we apply it to all situations that don't warrant it. So males may be good at say combat or dealing with the physical and rough aspects of conflict but they then make that dominance apply to every aspect of the military such as medics, admin, intelligence ect ect and deny women. Or completely deny capable women of combat roles.

But the basic reality that males are more suited for specific aspect of war such as the front line fighting, heavy infintry, ect is not a bias but as natural consequence that men generally are built for such roles.

Its not a hard and fast rule as women should not be barred from entering this aspect if they are up to it. But on average they are not. Its the same reaon why women don't play against men and physical sports. Its just an accepted and well acknowledge reality we have observed for millenia for good reason.

If you're not talking about women in ministry and leadership roles, why are you posting in a thread about women preaching?

Because women can be in ministry and leading roles without being the leader of the church overall. I would imagine that as the disciples and bishops set up the churches they used women in ministry and leadership roles apart from the overall head of those churches who were the male bishops.

 

[Mike McK]

I stated that by the time trans people are in the pulpit, Jesus is an afterthought. Allowing women to pastor is the beginning to the slippery slope to that point.

I haven't seen a church with a woman pastor that didn't have terrible theology in other areas.

 

[Jermayn]

I haven't seen a church with a woman pastor that didn't have terrible theology in other areas.

Yes, it almost always leads straight to liberation theology.

 

[Mike McK]

Yes, it almost always leads straight to liberation theology.

Among other things.

 

[Paidiske]

But its not necessarily a bias as in a negative bias. You seem to be placing a negative connotation on perhaps a natural human belief or assumption that males are usually but not always more suited for dealing with certain situations such as threat and conflict.

Seems pretty negative to me, whether it's "natural" or not. It can only lead to capable women being overlooked and prevented from contributing, because people see them as inherently lesser.

But the basic reality that males are more suited for specific aspect of war such as the front line fighting, heavy infintry, ect is not a bias but as natural consequence that men generally are built for such roles.

This has nothing to do with ministry. Not even in the first century.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I haven't seen a church with a woman pastor that didn't have terrible theology in other areas.

You have not been looking very widely.

 

[Mike McK]

You have not been looking very widely.

Well, you're pretty obnoxious this morning.

Why don't you give us an example of a church that violates God's Word by having a woman pastor, but is not off the tracks in other areas.

 

[Mike McK]

Seems pretty negative to me, whether it's "natural" or not. It can only lead to capable women being overlooked and prevented from contributing, because people see them as inherently lesser.

If somebody sees them as "lesser" then that is an issue they'll have to deal with. The Bible doesn't say that just because God assigned gender roles, that one is "lesser".

Why would women be prohibited from contributing in those areas God allows?

This has nothing to do with ministry. Not even in the first century.

Not directly. It has to do with God's order and roles for the sexes.

 

[Paidiske]

If somebody sees them as "lesser" then that is an issue they'll have to deal with. The Bible doesn't say that just because God assigned gender roles, that one is "lesser".

I am answering a quite different point from @stevevw, there.

Why would women be prohibited from contributing in those areas God allows?

It's my experience that no matter what women are allowed to do, there's always someone who has a problem and wants to make the prohibitions stricter.

 

[Mike McK]

I am answering a quite different point from @stevevw, there.

But since you responded to me, it's presumed that your words are directed at me.

It's my experience that no matter what women are allowed to do, there's always someone who has a problem and wants to make the prohibitions stricter.

That's not a valid excuse. If that's the case, then you correct that person. You don't ignore the Bible's prohibition on women pastors.

 

[Paidiske]

But since you responded to me, it's presumed that your words are directed at me.

I was literally quoting steve in that comment. I don't know how you took it as directed at you.

 

[stevevw]

Seems pretty negative to me, whether it's "natural" or not. It can only lead to capable women being overlooked and prevented from contributing, because people see them as inherently lesser.

You keep making assumptions that any talk of males being suitable for some roles means banning or overlooking women. Nowhere have I said that and in fact have kept pointing out this is not about overlooking or banning women.

I used the example of the military. The military or police is open to all males and females. So no one is banned or overlooked. But still there is a dominance of males. Thats because this is more suitable for males and more are inclined to do such a job even though females can join.

Thats just the way it goes with some jobs or situations. Theres not excluding. It just turns out that way due to the natural way things work. Tall people will always end up in basketball, Indigenous and Islander people dominate league, blokes dominate brickie laborers, women dominate teachers and nurses, idiots dominate politicians lol. Only joking there are some good pollies.

This has nothing to do with ministry. Not even in the first century.

It may have considering it was the most threating time of the church and that many would have been killed in the process. Jesus did say "Behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves".

But if all this is irrelevant than we are still stuck with why there was a dominance of men. Maybe it was something cultural like you said. But if thats the case should we not condemn them as culture can often be biased based on belief rather than what is fair and just.

Isn't that the point of modern objections today that the church is dominated by males. Why would we not then say the same thing about the early church. How was the early church different than today and therefore guilty of oppressing women in the church. Or did they have some good reason or maybe we just overlook this.