Do you think that we should NOT apply all these scriptures for the church ?
1 Corinthians 11
1 Corinthians 14:31-38
1 Timothy 2:11–15
1 Timothy 3:1-5
Titus 1:5-9
Titus 2:2-5
Ephesians 5:22-24
Colossians 3:18-20
1 Peter 3: 1-6
I think we should read them in context, find out what the authors are saying, discover the truth for today and then ask the Holy Spirit how, and whether, the words apply to us. Rather than taking isolated verses out of context and using them to try to prove a point.
For example, 1 Corinthians 14:31-38.
Why start at verse 31, in the middle of the passage?
Paul is talking about order in worship in this chapter. In fact, he has been talking about order and equality for much of his letter, which would have been sent to the Corinthians without chapter and verse divisions.
Back in chapter 3, Paul says that there were factions and arguments among them; one group claiming to follow Paul, another following Apollos. Paul says that they should not be divided like this. In chapter 8 he talks about the different opinions about eating meat offered to idols - those who know that it can do no harm because an idol is nothing, should not flaunt that if they are with people who are less secure about it. In fact, if they are with people whose faith is weaker, they should be gracious and not do anything that would cause offence - in other words, forget your own "rights"; think of others. In chapter 11 Paul says that their inequalities are spilling over into the way they celebrate the Lord's Supper - some are eating lots, and getting drunk, others are going without. He does not commend them for that and says they need to wait for, and respect, one another. This is carried into chapter 12 where Paul gives the illustration of a human body. Not all parts of the body are the same - there are large, visible parts, and small unseen parts. But that doesn't mean that some are more important than others; all parts work together to enable the body to function. The same applies to them, for they are the body of Christ. They all have gifts and a part to play, and it is the same Spirit who gives those gifts to whomever he will. Paul does not say that any of the gifts are better than the others, and he certainly doesn't say they are gender specific. It would seem that some of the Corinthians were claiming that some of the more outward gifts, like tongues, were better than the others and/or meant that they were more spiritual. Paul returns to this matter in chapter 14, having first said that the quality they should be seeking most of all is love, which is not boastful, proud, rude and so on.
In the first part of chapter 14 Paul says that the gift of tongues has its place; it edifies believers. But that the gift or prophecy should be sought after more because it is for non believers.
Whichever gift they have, however, there should be order in worship - which is the subject from verse 26. Prophets, and those speaking in tongues, should not do so randomly, speaking over, and interrupting, each other. They should speak one at a time, with no more than 2 or 3 people speaking/prophesying at all. In fact, if someone is standing and prophesying and someone who is seated receives a word from God, the one who is speaking should sit down and let the other speak - order and respect.
In none of this does Paul say "women will never have, or be given, the gift of prophesy, or teaching, or evangelism". Certain gifts being given to certain genders is not even mentioned, never mind an issue.
In the middle of this teaching about good order in worship, are verses 34-35;
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
When Paul says "silent", does he mean that women can't worship God? Clearly not because he has been teaching that they may pray and prophesy.
When he says the must be in submission "as the law says"; what law is he talking about? Paul has not been talking about the Jewish law, and in any case, he writes in other letters about how the law does not save and how Christ has set us free from the law.
When he says, "if they want to inquire about something they should ask their own husbands at home", what does he mean? Doesn't that suggest that some women were asking questions during the service, and to any man who would answer them, instead of waiting til they got home and then asking their own husbands? Why else would Paul tell them that if it were not happening? Such interruptions would have interrupted the service and flow of worship, and undermined the authority of the speaker. Order in worship is important, as Paul had just been saying. Honouring and respecting one another and treating everyone equally is important too.
This certainly applies to us today; order in worship, respect, letting others speak/testify/pray/praise God and not hogging the limelight are important. If Paul were writing today he would probably say something like "turn your phones off; don't let them ring in the middle of a sermon and interrupt the preacher". Not chatting to your neighbour because you don't understand the preacher, is important too If you don't have a husband you can ask at home, wait until after the service and ask the preacher themselves what they meant.
And yet, these two verses are taken out of that context and randomly thrown around to try to prove that God says that no woman can talk in church.
Do you see what I mean?
Read in context, they make sense, and the truth behind them - treat people with respect and have order in worship - certainly applies today.
Read out of context, they contradict other words of Scripture. Paul taught that everyone has gifts - women included. He told people to speak using "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" - women included. He said that people were given the gifts of prophesy and tongues - women included.
Why would he have suddenly said "women may not speak in church"?
And to respond to some of your points, everyone knows that women can be in ministry. Men and women can do the same thing, with only a few limitations .
God is not limited and doesn't put limits on anybody else.
Prophetesses in the OT gave the word of the Lord to men.
Deborah was a judge over the whole nation, kept them turned towards God and at peace for 40 years.
Esther saved the nation from being destroyed by a foreign king.
The woman at the well went to tell the men of her town that she had found the Messiah.
Mary Magdalene went to tell the male disciples that Jesus had risen.
Mary of Bethany anointed Jesus, and had previously sat at his feet and learned from him.
Also, she should not teach or be in authority over a man.
The word "usurp" is used - which can mean to grab violently by force.
A woman who is called to preach and/or be ordained does not do that - the church tests her call and, if they agree after prayer and discussion, that she has one they give her the authority to lead worship and do the other things that her God-given role involves.
Preaching God's word is not "having authority over a man". If it was, and if that was not allowed, Jesus wouldn't have told/allowed Mary Magdalene to do it.
Also, a married couple can teach together, like Priscilla and Aquila better instructed Apollos.
So a woman CAN speak, teach and lead the church if she is with her husband?
And the next thing you know, they are going to a gay wedding.
What's wrong with going to a gay wedding?
I don't know why those who oppose female clergy also seem to equate this with gay rights. They are completely different.
Women who go forward for ordination, or to train as preachers, do so because they believe God is calling them to that role. That call is tested by other, often male, clergy and the church, and if recognised, they are trained for it and ordained by the church who has recognised God's call upon their life. A woman may later resign, retire, or may be sacked from that role.
If someone is gay, that is who they are. They did not choose their sexuality, any more than any of us did. They are gay whether or not anybody else recognises it, and cannot resign from that.
We can have academic discussions about whether homosexuality is a deliberate choice, or whether sexuality and gender were messed up and affected by the fall just like everything else. But if you told a gay person they "shouldn't" be gay, tried to change them, discriminate against them and so on, you'd be, at best, accused of intolerance and/or hatred.
And I can tell you that there are people who have become very depressed and may have taken their own lives because they were made to feel ashamed of being gay; of being who they are.
