Is it Wrong for Women to Preach in Church?

[Dave-W]

My point is that "preaching" is nothing more than "expounding the gospel" and is not the authoritative relationship that Paul understood taking a disciple to be--and "teaching" in his understanding meant "taking a disciple," which was a strongly authoritative relationship.

True - discipleship is a VERY intense authoritarian relationship - as understood in the first century Jewish community. We have little to compare to it today except in Orthodox Jewish Yeshivas and some cult groups. It revolts the western sensibilities.

So your take is Paul is saying a woman should not take on a man as a disciple.

I will have to think on that one.

 

[woobadooba]

Where is the cultural tie link in the Bible? Is that something we add to justify women preaching...or should we look more toward the reason why Paul wrote it? Why did Paul include Eve?

The point of my post was to show how we who post here...not everyone..post opinion as if it were the gospel....leaving out a discussion as to why Paul wrote Timothy about it. In other words, they "argue" over 1/2 a thought.

I am a strong advocate of using proper exegesis when interpreting Scripture, so I get your point.

What Paul said regarding women being forbidden to teach needs further investigation. He also said they should be silent. That makes things even more complicated.

 

[Halbhh]

I read a comment given in response to a video of a woman who gave a sermon in a church.

The commenter asked: "Why is a woman preaching?"

The response he got was: "Today was women's Emphasis Sabbath."

He then responded: "Not being hateful. Just wondering. It just didn't seem to be right."

What are your thoughts about women preaching in church? I know Paul had something to say about women not teaching in the church but remaining silent (1 Tim. 2:12).

Was that Paul's personal belief? Was it a command of God? Did it have anything to do with culture?

Share your thoughts...

Paul's meaning and aim is--> that we not do things that would cause others of "weak conscience" (or weak faith) to be lost, to fall away.

So, slaves were to remain slaves, and women to remain in the traditional roles.

Because more than that, at that time, would cause some men of weak faith to be lost forever!

Because those men could not imagine such a huge change, since they knew women to worship separately from men by tradition....

Read and see -- 1 Corinthians chapter 8.

 

[Aseyesee]

I read a comment given in response to a video of a woman who gave a sermon in a church.

The commenter asked: "Why is a woman preaching?"

The response he got was: "Today was women's Emphasis Sabbath."

He then responded: "Not being hateful. Just wondering. It just didn't seem to be right."

What are your thoughts about women preaching in church? I know Paul had something to say about women not teaching in the church but remaining silent (1 Tim. 2:12).

Was that Paul's personal belief? Was it a command of God? Did it have anything to do with culture?

Share your thoughts...

The church is a woman in relationship to God ...

 

[Vicomte13]

This thread is clearly not about secular world relationships and not even OT relationships, but relationships within the Body of Christ.

God made Deborah a prophet, and he made Joan of Arc a messenger. Jesus made Mary Magdelene and the women the messengers bearing the good news of the resurrection to the men, and he used St. Photini, the Samaritan woman at the well, as the apostle to the Samaritans - he taught her, she went to her people and told them, and she brought them to him.

So, Jesus, and God Almighty, clearly use women to teach men "within the Body of Christ".

Paul wrote a letter in which he gave his opinion otherwise. Paul is not God and his words are to be ignored in this case. If pressed, his words are to be actively REJECTED because they directly contradict Jesus' own direct examples.

Paul's opinion on the matter was just that - his opinion, circa 50 AD. It made sense, no doubt, in his society and time. It makes no sense today in ours, and it has no authority whatever, and is to be totally disregarded on this matter, just as his comments about men's hairstyles are utter piffle.

Jesus is God, and he used women to teach men. That is the Biblical rule that governs.

 

[Albion]

God made Deborah a prophet, and he made Joan of Arc a messenger.

Neither of which is a deacon, priest, or bishop--last time I checked, anyway.

 

[-57]

God made Deborah a prophet, and he made Joan of Arc a messenger. Jesus made Mary Magdelene and the women the messengers bearing the good news of the resurrection to the men, and he used St. Photini, the Samaritan woman at the well, as the apostle to the Samaritans - he taught her, she went to her people and told them, and she brought them to him.

So, Jesus, and God Almighty, clearly use women to teach men "within the Body of Christ".

Paul wrote a letter in which he gave his opinion otherwise. Paul is not God and his words are to be ignored in this case. If pressed, his words are to be actively REJECTED because they directly contradict Jesus' own direct examples.

Paul's opinion on the matter was just that - his opinion, circa 50 AD. It made sense, no doubt, in his society and time. It makes no sense today in ours, and it has no authority whatever, and is to be totally disregarded on this matter, just as his comments about men's hairstyles are utter piffle.

Jesus is God, and he used women to teach men. That is the Biblical rule that governs.

Is what you are saying is that all of what Paul writes...should be rejected.

 

[woobadooba]

Paul wrote a letter in which he gave his opinion otherwise. Paul is not God and his words are to be ignored in this case. If pressed, his words are to be actively REJECTED because they directly contradict Jesus' own direct examples.

Paul's opinion on the matter was just that - his opinion, circa 50 AD. It made sense, no doubt, in his society and time. It makes no sense today in ours, and it has no authority whatever, and is to be totally disregarded on this matter, just as his comments about men's hairstyles are utter piffle.

Be careful. Although it may be true that some of what Paul wrote had cultural ties, it's important to get at the root of why he said what he said before concluding it ought to be rejected because it doesn't sound right today. Even during his time people were taking his writings out of context (see 2 Peter 3:16). People do the same today.

 

[Halbhh]

God made Deborah a prophet, and he made Joan of Arc a messenger. Jesus made Mary Magdelene and the women the messengers bearing the good news of the resurrection to the men, and he used St. Photini, the Samaritan woman at the well, as the apostle to the Samaritans - he taught her, she went to her people and told them, and she brought them to him.

So, Jesus, and God Almighty, clearly use women to teach men "within the Body of Christ".

Paul wrote a letter in which he gave his opinion otherwise. Paul is not God and his words are to be ignored in this case. If pressed, his words are to be actively REJECTED because they directly contradict Jesus' own direct examples.

Paul's opinion on the matter was just that - his opinion, circa 50 AD. It made sense, no doubt, in his society and time. It makes no sense today in ours, and it has no authority whatever, and is to be totally disregarded on this matter, just as his comments about men's hairstyles are utter piffle.

Jesus is God, and he used women to teach men. That is the Biblical rule that governs.

Please also see the real intention of Paul as quickly explained just above in post #123. People simply need context, and the context in the case of Paul is from another epistle in the essential key of 1 Cor 8 -- that we all should avoid tripping those of weak conscience, for now, in this time and place and culture we are in.

 

[Halbhh]

Be careful. Although it may be true that some of what Paul wrote had cultural ties, it's important to get at the root of why he said what he said before concluding it ought to be rejected because it doesn't sound right today. Even during his time people were taking his writings out of context (see 2 Peter 3:16). People do the same today.

Please see #123 just above to get that context!

 

[-57]

Be careful. Although it may be true that some of what Paul wrote had cultural ties, it's important to get at the root of why he said what he said before concluding it ought to be rejected because it doesn't sound right today. Even during his time people were taking his writings out of context (see 2 Peter 3:16). People do the same today.

I'll have to look for it..but I believe Paul made a reference to women with short hair. If I remember correctly there was a culure tie between short hair and prostitutes of that period....

I don't think there was a culture tie between women speaking in Church due to why Paul backed it up with Eve in the following verses..

 

[RDKirk]

True - discipleship is a VERY intense authoritarian relationship - as understood in the first century Jewish community. We have little to compare to it today except in Orthodox Jewish Yeshivas and some cult groups. It revolts the western sensibilities.

So your take is Paul is saying a woman should not take on a man as a disciple.

I will have to think on that one.

Or vice versa.

 

[Halbhh]

I read a comment given in response to a video of a woman who gave a sermon in a church.

The commenter asked: "Why is a woman preaching?"

The response he got was: "Today was women's Emphasis Sabbath."

He then responded: "Not being hateful. Just wondering. It just didn't seem to be right."

What are your thoughts about women preaching in church? I know Paul had something to say about women not teaching in the church but remaining silent (1 Tim. 2:12).

Was that Paul's personal belief? Was it a command of God? Did it have anything to do with culture?

Share your thoughts...

Interesting. Made me read the full passage. And that opened a whole new question. Paul wrote there "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Which is quite surprising. It seems to outright say or suggest that Eve sinned and that Adam was comparatively innocent.

We know of course that's a radical view not like the one we all learn.

Instead, we normally learn that Eve sinned, and Adam followed her, not an excuse, and equally sin. (If another person steals or lies and asks me to steal or lie also, I can't do so with innocence.)

Now, even if you take it otherwise, that Eve is more guilty than Adam, just that -- even that is a radical and not really correct interpretation it seems. Adam was standing right there with the Lord earlier and heard His Words not to eat of the tree, directly!

Adam isn't innocent in that. Paul seems to have written something we would not write now, not even a conservative person, and so therefore we need to presume we still don't have enough context! It doesn't make sense. So we don't have all the context. In other words....get more context.

I suggest the context of 1 Cor 8, for the reason in post #123 above.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

For people who view church ministry through the lens of power politics, to deny people power is by definition to oppress them...

 

[Strong in Him]

We call that an obsession.

Well - and no disrespect - maybe you haven't had God speaking to you in that way.

 

[Strong in Him]

This isn't about oppressing woman. It's about obeying God.

Which I, for one, am doing.
It would be disobedient for me to say "no, I'm not going to preach and lead worship," when I know that this is what he has called me to do.

 

[Strong in Him]

But God does not want a woman to preach or take a leading authority in the church.

He wants all his children to use the gifts that he has given them to his glory and ofr the building up of the church, Ephesians 4:12. So show me where he says that women will never be given certain gifts by the Spirit.

Nor to be a pastor, nor a minister, nor a priest, nor a vicar, etc. etc.

Strange if he doesn't, because he is calling women to do just that - thousands of them.
Just as he called Miriam, Deborah, Huldah and others to be prophets; the women at the well to go and tell others that Jesus was the Messiah, and deliberately chose a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection.

God does not contradict his word - he upholds it through the Spirit of truth.

Yes, exactly.
And as he is clearly calling women today to preach and be ordained, that would suggest that actually he hasn't forbidden it in Scripture.
The problems arise when people (usually men) can't accept that, and write all female preachers and clergy off as being disobedient feminists who are on some kind of women's rights drive.

And yet in the beginning: one gospel; one faith; one church.

In which women played a large part. Even the apostle Apollos was taught by a woman.

Get back to the word of God and submit.

Go and read the verse which says "treat others as you wish to be treated", and don't be rude.

 

[Vicomte13]

Is what you are saying is that all of what Paul writes...should be rejected.

Nope. I am saying that Paul is not God, and Paul must not be treated as though he is God. God makes law. Paul does not make law. Paul was a bishop, just like the Pope is. We don't reject what the Pope says out of hand, or Paul. We respect it, we think about it - but in the end, we don't let it govern us contrary to God.

Paul wrote about women and hairstyles in 50 AD. We do not pretend that Paul's opinions about these things somewhere in Greece in 50 AD is the Word of God, or the will of God, or the law of God, for us today. It is not.

We think about it, and about how that shows that spiritual leaders of a time, walking in Christ, have to make local and temporal judgments on time, place and manner issues.

We do not start taking those time, place and manner opinions of men and turning them into God's Law forever. That is a gross error, that ends up driving people apart and away from God when it is done.

Indeed, that is precisely what the Pope and clergy are accused of having done that brought about the Reformation: taken a bunch of their rules and insisted they were God's rules. Well, they weren't. The Pope is not God. The clergy are not God. And Paul is not God.

I recognize that for some, the Bible is a God-maker: it's in the Bible, so therefore it's all God's law. That is an error also.

God always identifies himself in Scripture. And when he makes law, he is clear about it. The Nazirite vow did not permit the cutting of hair at all. Was it a disgrace for a man to keep his vow? Samson's hair was uncut and that was the visible sign of his power (God was the source of it). Was Samson shameful, Paul?

No. Paul is not God. Paul's opinions about women teaching and hair length of men are not the law of God, the will of God, anything of God. They are Paul's opinions and they are properly disregarded completely, because God himself gave examples of his own direct action that are diametrically opposed to what Paul said in those matters.

Paul was a spirit-filled man. That did not convert every idle word he ever wrote in a letter into being God's Law. To do so anyway is to lapse into idolatry - ignoring the direct words and deeds of God on a matter in favor of a letter by a man whose opinions are elevated to the same status of the words of God, by men, on the basis of a single line written by that same man.

It's a mistake. I've heard the sermons from the 60's that long hair on the peaceniks was a sign of Satan. How stupid! It was not. Jesus had long hair.

 

[Vicomte13]

Which is quite surprising. It seems to outright say or suggest that Eve sinned and that Adam was comparatively innocent.

We know of course that's a radical view not like the one we all learn.

Of course Eve sinned! She knew the law, and broke it because she wanted to. Adam stumbled along stupidly afterwards because she asked him to (by giving him the fruit). Eve was the first sinner, not Adam.

 

[Vicomte13]

People simply need context, and the context in the case of Paul is from another epistle in the essential key of 1 Cor 8 -- that we all should avoid tripping those of weak conscience, for now, in this time and place and culture we are in.

Yes - so let's stop pretending that long hair or women teaching is sinful. That's tripping a lot of people up and causing them to walk away from God to follow a tradition.