Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic?

[StrivingFollower]

It seems people can only make reaches to say the female leaders in the Bible weren't that leader-like. To me it would go against one of the basic lessons of God for him to restrict women from certain jobs. How many times in the Bible was there an extremely unlikely hero going against all odds for greatness? Everything in this world is a challenge to our perception to be more like God. Giving society an excuse for simple judgement and sexism(when taken to prideful extremes) would go against a great part of the philosophy. You can point at all the corrupt female priests and pastors, but how about the corrupt men? There are plenty of those too.. and maybe they wouldn't have had a job if some gifted women were encouraged to compete against them.

 

[aiki]

This is the genetic logical fallacy. It's not logical to judge the truth of a statement from it's source.

My comment wasn't to the logic of your statement but to the fact that it is one thing to clinically assess a situation one will never experience and quite another to live in it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do people go to a judge they don't respect, for judgement?
Judges 4:4-5
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Being that your response doesn't really seem to follow from my prior post, I'm not quite understanding your question here. Are you implying that Deborah's husband was also a 'judge' or something?

 

[RDKirk]

And what would it be when a woman, in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture, assumes a position of spiritual authority and instruction over men as their pastor?

The OP is about "leadership roles," of which there are numerous positions in a congregation. The only scriptural prohibition is against men being disciples to female masters.

 

[YeshuaFan]

It does not say "one in spiritual blessings." You made that up.

It says there is neither male nor female.

Now, do you think Paul merely meant to say that "neither Greek nor Jew" only meant "in spiritual blessings" and that it meant nothing for the real world? If so, why did Paul upbraid Peter for acting as though "neither Greek nor Jew" only meant "in spiritual blessings?"

Paul did not launch a general rebellion against the Roman institution of slavery, but with regard to slavery within the Body of Christ, Paul did three things:

1. Prohibited its growth by instructing Christians to neither go into slavery (debt slavery is intuited, as that is the only kind of slavery that is volitional) and prohibiting Christians from taking practice in the slave trade.

2. Identified the relationship of "slave" to "master" as one of stewardship rather than ownership.

3. Set freeing a slave as the proper thing to do for a brother in Christ.

Paul eviscerated slavery within the Body to the extent possible without drawing persecution from Rome as enemies of the state.

So when Paul said, "neither male nor female," what evidence do we have that Paul actually meant that?

We have the case of Aquilla and Priscilla, who appear to have operated as a perfectly equal husband and wife team. They both equally "expound" the gospel to Apollos. They both equally work with Paul in Ephesus. They both equally host (and probably lead) the church in Rome. There is no case in which Aquilla is mentioned without Priscilla, and of the six times they are mentioned, Priscilla is mentioned first three times.

There is the case of deacon Phoebe, who was clearly the head of the delegation that carried Paul's letter to Rome. I said "delegation" because a woman would not have been traveling without a male escort in those rough times...and of that delegation, it was the woman, deacon Phoebe, that Paul introduced to the Romans...telling them to help her in any business she had.

There are Euodia and Syntyche in Philippi, who Paul said "strove beside me." "Beside" Paul said. Paul was an apostle who clearly considered himself someone in a leadership and instruction role, yet he said these two women strove beside him. If those women had not been in leadership roles, Paul might have simply said to Clement, "Tell those women to sit down and shut up." But their cooperation was obviously necessary.

There is the case of Lydia, who hosted the congregation of Philippi, that started as a congregation of women, and which appears to have been Paul's favorite.

What we see in Paul's writings (and in Luke's writing about Paul) is the establishment of women as equal participants in the Body of Christ that did not exist for women in Roman society as a whole. Luke is careful several times to state, "...and also women." It appears that Paul did not relegate "neither male nor female" to only "in spiritual blessings."

There is only one role Paul seems to have clearly prohibited from women, and that is in being the Master in a Master-Disciple relationship with men. That's what "teaching" meant in Paul's understanding: Discipleship, where the master has disciplinary authority as well as doctrinal authority over the disciple. Paul did not permit men to be discipled under women. And by his instruction to Titus, he wanted women to be discipled under women.

Paul teaching would be that we now are same as in spiritual position before God, both genders equally saved, have same Holy Spirit, gifted, all access to all spiritual blessings in Christ, but still God ahs defined different roles and positions in the local assemblies based upon gender!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Ive heard all these arguments from men before. Its the same group thinking that hasn't quite understood that their patriarchal 1st-century views have no relevance in society.

Its does not really matter what culture and society holds to this issue, but what God sees it as being!

 

[Halbhh]

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.

Believing scripture means what it says, then with that faith, listen to Christ's words to us about what we today call 'leadership' --

Matthew 23:10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.

It means precisely what it says, don't you agree?

New Living Translation
And don't let anyone call you 'Teacher,' for you have only one teacher, the Messiah.

English Standard Version
Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.

New American Standard Bible
"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.

King James Bible
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

Good News Translation
Nor should you be called 'Leader,' because your one and only leader is the Messiah.

Young's Literal Translation
nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director -- the Christ.


If so, there really is just one.single Instructor/Teacher/Leader/Master, only. Not more than 1. Exactly and only 1.

If one says very reasonably (and encouragingly) that they want the full context, to get the intended meaning in full context, that's a very good practice, and here's the context:

Matthew 23 ESV

There isn't human authority over us that matters, in Christ, but instead we are all under the authority of Christ. All the added human types of authority are invalid.

A pastor is a servant. A shepherd under the Master Shepherd

The servant is the correct human position --

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."


So, back to Matthew chapter 23, we see the very next 2 verses. He says to us --

11 "The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

--------
In his epistles, if you read through fully, you will find that Paul gives both general principles and temporary instructions specific to a situation in a certain place/time. Both. One thing that helps us modern readers when we read such things as instructions to slaves to remain cheerful servants to even to harsh masters (to help convert them), for women to not demand social revolutions during church services (even though they had just gained the amazing new freedom in Christ to worship together with the men instead of separately as always before this time)....

...is to read fully through the chapter 1 Corinthians 8 ESV
and to get the general principle, the general message.

Women were at that time to suffer, self-sacrificially, for the sake of the "weak". Because at that time for women to have more voice would have destroyed some of the "weak".

That's still true today -- we are each, every last one of us, to be willing to suffer self-sacrificially right now today for the sake of the weak among us.

But what that weakness is will change from century to century, even sometimes from decade to decade.

But the principle remains the same.

So, if you really want to apply the instruction from Paul, ask yourself honestly right here and right now -- who are the weak among us today?, in our church, and how do I need to self-sacrifically change what I do for their sakes, for the sakes of their eternal future?

 

[YeshuaFan]

The historic position is men in leadership. Women in this role is a modern phenomenon.

Based upon us taking the modern culture views and reading them back into the scriptures!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Have you thought before asking such a ridiculous question? Seriously?

If you're really interested in learning biblical views on the subject without interpreting scripture through the anti-Christ lens of misogyny and pagan Hellenistic bias, you might start with this book:
"Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters". It was recommended to me some time ago by someone here and is written by a man who takes the stance of biblical inerrancy.

Can you point out to us who deny women can be elders/pastors within local assemblies ANY verse showing that they can be?

 

[YeshuaFan]

One could equally argue the belief that male headship is a false doctrine has done a great deal of harm to a great number of people. This said, it's probably another thread topic, unless you can provide scripture demonstrating your position.

Male headship is the correct doctrine regarding spiritual leadership, but has been greatly abused by those holding to it, so their application was wrong, not the premise!

 

[RDKirk]

Can you point out to us who deny women can be elders/pastors within local assemblies ANY verse showing that they can be?

The OP is about "leadership roles," of which there are numerous positions in a congregation. The only scriptural prohibition is against men being disciples to female masters.

 

[YeshuaFan]

The OP is about "leadership roles," of which there are numerous positions in a congregation. The only scriptural prohibition is against men being disciples to female masters.

There are no passages that support female pastor and elders...

 

[Halbhh]

So, to those trying to limit women's roles, the way to apply this lesson from Paul's epistles right now is to ask right now, to yourself:

How can I self-sacrifically today change what I'm doing for the sake of the weak in my church?

(ref to post #327 just above, which connects in the 2nd half to Paul's instructions, of several kinds, including to women at that time).

 

[bekkilyn]

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.

I've heard this interpretation before and it makes perfect sense since usually when God gets upset about something in scripture, the root of the issue has something to do with idolatry or the mistreatment of the poor.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Scripture states states that it should now be equal!

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Philippians 2:3-4
Luke 6:31
Mark 12:31

Again, show from the Epistles any passage stating that either male or female can be pastors and elders...

 

[bekkilyn]

Can you point out to us who deny women can be elders/pastors within local assemblies ANY verse showing that they can be?

Galatians 3:28 is a start.

 

[RDKirk]

There are no passages that support female pastor and elders...

There are no passages supporting church buildings, either.

Or Christmas.

Or choir directors.

Or "youth ministries."

Or more than one congregation in a city.

But again, you're just moving the goalpost. The OP is not specifically about elders and pastors, it's about leadership positions in general.

The only position which is stated "there cannot be women" is with regard to discipleship of men.

 

[YeshuaFan]

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.

When Paul wrote anything down to us, was the same as if Jesus spoke it to us!

 

[Zoii]

Its does not really matter what culture and society holds to this issue, but what God sees it as being!

Nonsense - Good christian men used to burn women as witches in the name of God as well. Your word on the matter is not socially relevant. We've moved on long ago and not interested in patriarchy

 

[YeshuaFan]

There were 3 female prophets.

Women did prophesy in Acts, but none were listed as being pastors/Elders though!