Is it Wrong for Women to Preach in Church?

Brokenhill said:

If your standard of divine oracle is direct dictation by God, then after removing all the rest, you aren't left with much Bible. God did not usually use that method.

Click to expand...

I didn't say he did. The comment was made that God told women not to preach in church. I asked where he said this and got the vague reply "in the Bible".
I wanted FOJ to be more specific.

Brokenhill said:

But anyway,
Romans 1:1 "Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, a]">[a]called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,"
Paul was chosen to preach the gospel, and the epistles he wrote include topics of extension of the teaching of the gospel. They aid in the fulfillment of the gospel's purpose and the sustaining of it. Therefor, when he teaches on women's roles in the church, he is teaching God's desires for the fulfillment of the gospel.

Click to expand...

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

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

jimmyjimmy said:

Maybe I misunderstood you. If you are encouraging older women to instruct younger women, that one thing, but if you are encouraging women to teach men, that is quite another.

Click to expand...

No I am not encouraging women to teach men: they do that all the time anyway! Just ask my mother or my wife!

I have heard it said that if the women would have fought in the civil war that the Confederates would have won it. Most of the Pentecostal Holiness churches here in Southwest Virginia are the result of women evangelist rounding people up for bible study. I have heard women say that if the men would step up to the plate and do their job the women would not have to step in and take such positions.

rockytopva said:

I have heard it said that if the women would have fought in the civil war that the Confederates would have won it. Most of the Pentecostal Holiness churches here in Southwest Virginia are the result of women evangelist rounding people up for bible study. I have heard women say that if the men would step up to the plate and do their job the women would not have to step in and take such positions.

Click to expand...

Soon after I joined these forums, I joined a thread on this subject.
After commenting on a few posts with, "women are feminists", "you're being disobedient/not honouring God" "try reading the Bible" type of encouragement, I issued the challenge that the authors should pray that the Lord would raise up thousands more men to be ordained, so that he didn't have to "make do with second best." I also asked the writers of those posts to consider if this was something they were being called to do?
No one responded to that challenge, and, if they did pray, their prayers are clearly not being answered.

I believe the call to preach the Gospel, make disciples, baptise and teach is a call to ALL believers, and that God is not just calling women because there is no other option.

dreadnought said:

No, that isn't what he said:
But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. Gal 5:18 RSV

Click to expand...

Correct: "The Law" = Law of Moses.

pescador said:

It is my understanding that certain women were speaking out of turn in church and generally disrupting the service. Paul said that he didn't permit that but I don't see that as a ban on women fulfilling any role in the church, then or now. "There is neither male nor female ... in Christ Jesus".

Click to expand...

He certainly didn't. People tend to overlook the "greetings" in Paul's letters, but when one pays attention to all the mention of women in Luke's Acts and Paul's letters, it's clear women filled a strong role in the congregations Paul organized. He could have said nothing about women--no man in his time would have noticed their absence.

Brokenhill said:

I understand your point, and largely agree.
The NT does however touch on other areas of (what appears to be) authority in the hands of non-elders. For example, in Acts chapter 6 deacons are selected by the rest of the assembly of Christians.
Also, Paul instructs a non-apostle--Titus, who is a preacher/teacher--to "appoint elders in every church" in Titus 1:5. How this may be an exception because it was by Paul's direct commission, idk, but it's at least interesting to contemplate when looking at authority in the church.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

But regardless, in 1 Tim 2:12, women teaching is mentioned separately from exercising authority.
"12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Paidiske said:

I suspect that the accusation of "power politics" is intended as a criticism.

Click to expand...

Well, yes because it is completely at odds with what our Lord taught us about how his Kingdom operates:

Mark 10:42-45 said:

And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles and whoever would be first among you must be of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Click to expand...

Paidiske said:

But power is not irrelevant to the reign of God. Jesus came to proclaim freedom to the captives, and that means a shifting of power.

Click to expand...

The freedom he proclaims is freedom from bondage to sin. Actually, rather than moving to redistribute power, Jesus taught radical submission to those who hold power:

Matthew 5:38-42 said:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Click to expand...

Paidiske said:

I'm not interested in power for its own sake. I'm interested in power shared and distributed so that all may participate in the reign of God to the full. So yes, I'm critical of those who hoard power and seek to control others, not because I want that power for myself, but because I want to see all of the children of God empowered to use their gifts, to live out their vocation, and to make a difference for the kingdom.

Click to expand...

Power, as Jesus told us, is not for the benefit of those who have it, but a means by which to serve others. To assert that to deny anyone power is oppressive betrays a complete lack of understanding of that principle. The Kingdom of God is not a democracy, and God has not seen fit to bestow authority on everybody.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Well, yes because it is completely at odds with what our Lord taught us about how his Kingdom operates:





The freedom he proclaims is freedom from bondage to sin. Actually, rather than moving to redistribute power, Jesus taught radical submission to those who hold power:





Power, as Jesus told us, is not for the benefit of those who have it, but a means by which to serve others. To assert that to deny anyone power is oppressive betrays a complete lack of understanding of that principle. The Kingdom of God is not a democracy, and God has not seen fit to bestow authority on everybody.

Click to expand...

Many have politicized Christ and Christianity. In the 80s it was the right, but since then, it has been the Left.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

The freedom he proclaims is freedom from bondage to sin.

Click to expand...

Does this not also imply repentance from the sinful use of power?

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Actually, rather than moving to redistribute power, Jesus taught radical submission to those who hold power:

Click to expand...

He also taught relinquishment of power over others.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Power, as Jesus told us, is not for the benefit of those who have it, but a means by which to serve others.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

To assert that to deny anyone power is oppressive betrays a complete lack of understanding of that principle. The Kingdom of God is not a democracy, and God has not seen fit to bestow authority on everybody.

Click to expand...

No, I agree, God has not given authority to everyone in equal measure. However, authority is not the same thing as power, and they need to be carefully distinguished.

To deny anyone enough power for them to be able to freely discern and live in accordance with their understanding of God's will for their lives is oppressive. Our task as the church is to encourage, equip and empower people to do that, not to deny it.

Paidiske said:

their understanding of God's will

Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem.

jimmyjimmy said:

Therein lies the problem.

Click to expand...

And how can we not understand His will, when He is within us?

GTW27 said:

And how can we not understand His will, when He is within us?

Click to expand...

Are you serious? Is this your first day on CF?

jimmyjimmy said:

Are you serious? Is this your first day on CF?

Click to expand...

Absolutely serious.

GTW27 said:

And how can we not understand His will, when He is within us?

Click to expand...

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. -- Romans 12

Not everyone has done this. Most of us are still operating with unrenewed minds still conformed to the world.

GTW27 said:

Absolutely serious.

Click to expand...

You don't think that any Christian can be in error about any subject?!

If that's the case, why are you arguing with me?

jimmyjimmy said:

You don't think that any Christian can be in error about any subject?!

If that's the case, why are you arguing with me?

Click to expand...

Actually I agree with you, so why do you think I am arguing with you? What is written is written.

jimmyjimmy said:

Therein lies the problem.

Click to expand...

It's a problem for all of us, jimmy. Each one of us has imperfect understanding, and is in a process of growth and learning. What I'm arguing for is that we respect and work with that process, which is gracious to each of us, wherever we are in that process.

Paidiske said:

It's a problem for all of us, jimmy. Each one of us has imperfect understanding, and is in a process of growth and learning. What I'm arguing for is that we respect and work with that process, which is gracious to each of us, wherever we are in that process.

Click to expand...

How far does that graciousness extend? Does it include sodomy? What would you like for me to ignore of biblical instruction in order to please you?

jimmyjimmy said:

How far does that graciousness extend? Does it include sodomy? What would you like for me to ignore of biblical instruction in order to please you?

Click to expand...

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

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