Woman who preaches in Church

[2PhiloVoid]

Two questions for the pro-women pastor crowd here. If the Holy Spirit were to reveal to you that 1 Timothy states women should not be pastors, all women of every culture and time period, would you abandon the faith, ignore it and hold to your opinion, or submit to God's will?

No, I would not "abandon" the faith if the Lord, Himself, were to reveal to me that the traditional view regarding women is absolutely correct.

My faith was never conditioned or arrived at in connection to this issue whatsoever. Not yesterday; and still not today.

Also, and this may be considered off topic a bit but it's really to prove a point, do you believe homosexuals should be permit to become members/clergy in a church?

Yes. And I say yes because you didn't say "practicing homosexuals." If you had said practicing homosexuals, then I would answer "no" just as surely as I would if you had asked, "Do you believe straight and active philanderers should be permitted to become members/clergy in a church?"

Where women are concerned, if they are pastors, I firmly expect to see them exhibit the same sort of qualifications and to hear approximately the same traditional Trinitarian preaching that I would if the pastor was a man (i.e. blameless, has only one spouse of the opposite gender, temperate, sober, exemplary behavior, hospitable, able to teach, etc, etc.) Y'know, all those things that the rest of us, especially men, have always had such a difficult time achieving.

 

[RamiC]

If the Holy Spirit were to reveal to you that 1 Timothy states women should not be pastors, all women of every culture and time period, would you abandon the faith, ignore it and hold to your opinion, or submit to God's will?

I already believe that 1 Timothy applies to every culture, time period, and all human beings including all women. I believe that it is a ban on the promotion of false gods, the assumption of the right to teach based on worldly wealth, and the idea that women have some inherent spiritual superiority over men. Paul's letter to Timothy is only specific to Timothy's position as a young pastor in Ephesus and in the first century because Paul wrote it, to Timothy, who was in Ephesus, and in the first century, that is all incidental to the vitally important principles that are being emphasized within.

Link to article supporting this point here - "The enduring principle is to prevent uneducated folks from teaching some errant insight from God they have devised by distorting Scripture with cultural beliefs or local religious ideas. We have to watch out for both men and women who do that before they have received adequate instruction in the faith."

If I were in a church that did for any reason forbid women to become pastors, would I abandon my faith? No, been there, done that, in the same circumstances, I would gladly do it again. The Gospel is true, the Holy Spirit is proof of it. If the Holy Spirit wants people to think that the Epistle to Timothy is about women becoming pastors, why does the text not use the word "pastors" ?

​

 

[Truth7t7]

Where women are concerned, if they are pastors, I firmly expect to see them exhibit the same sort of qualifications and to hear approximately the same traditional Trinitarian preaching that I would if the pastor was a man (i.e. blameless, has only one spouse of the opposite gender, temperate, sober, exemplary behavior, hospitable, able to teach, etc, etc.) Y'know, all those things that the rest of us, especially men, have always had such a difficult time achieving.

1 Timothy 3:1-7KJV
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.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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 Samuel 15:23KJV
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

1 Timothy 3:1-7KJV
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.

1 Samuel 15:23KJV
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

You're dull biblical exegesis and an ongoing and propagated dismissal of Cultural History, Hermeneutics and solid Biblical Exegesis is noted in your all too easily posted "proof texts."

OBVIOUSLY, if a woman is to be a qualified pastor or leader in the church, she'd have to be the wife of one husband.

Furthermore, depending on how rigidly we interpret 1 Timothy, you're also implying that a bishop would HAVE TO BE MARRIED in order to be a bishop------------that is, we'd apply this qualification too, IF it's ok to simply rip out a proof text from the Bible and string it up on the wall like yesterday's movie poster.

But, no, I don't think any of us is going to require that a Bishop have a wife. We're just going to be looking to see that, if he's married, he's only been through one living wife at a time. (Unless, of course, we want to interpret this to mean, again, hyper-stringently, that each bishop is only permitted on wife per life. I'm not sure we'd think that, but one never knows which of 5 ways someone can read a "proof text" devoid of any and all historical contexts.)

 

[Strong in Him]

You're dull biblical exegesis and an ongoing and propagated dismissal of Cultural History, Hermeneutics and solid Biblical Exegesis is noted in your all too easily posted "proof texts."

OBVIOUSLY, if a woman is to be a qualified pastor or leader in the church, she'd have to be the wife of one husband.

Furthermore, depending on how rigidly we interpret 1 Timothy, you're also implying that a bishop would HAVE TO BE MARRIED in order to be a bishop------------

Precisely.
Also, that he and his wife would HAVE to have children - or how could he manage them? And that he would have to have/adhere to every quality on that list, or he couldn't be a bishop/elder/ordained.

I wonder how many times you have told a man who loves money, is quarrelsome or does not offer hospitality that they are unfit to be ordained, or in leadership?

 

[Rose_bud]

Two questions for the pro-women pastor crowd here. If the Holy Spirit were to reveal to you that 1 Timothy states women should not be pastors, all women of every culture and time period, would you abandon the faith, ignore it and hold to your opinion, or submit to God's will? Also, and this may be considered off topic a bit but it's really to prove a point, do you believe homosexuals should be permit to become members/clergy in a church?

Hi Jermayn

I'm curious, if the Holy Spirit were to reveal to you that the traditional interpretation of this text has indeed been mishandled and misapplied.ie women of every culture and time period should be pastors. Would you abandon the faith, ignore it and hold to your opinion or submit to the will of God?

You are correct. Your second topic is a red herring.

 

[Jermayn]

Hi Jermayn

I'm curious, if the Holy Spirit were to reveal to you that the traditional interpretation of this text has indeed been mishandled and misapplied.ie women of every culture and time period should be pastors. Would you abandon the faith, ignore it and hold to your opinion or submit to the will of God?

You are correct. Your second topic is a red herring.

I would submit to God. Also, the second question is not a red herring. The thread is long and I don't expect anyone to read it all, but it was in reference to a previous point I was making.

 

[Rose_bud]

I would submit to God. Also, the second question is not a red herring. The thread is long and I don't expect anyone to read it all, but it was in reference to a previous point I was making.

It is good to know that you also believe that submission to Gods will takes preference. Discerning God's will means wrestling with texts that have been taken in isolation and out of context. We must submit these texts to the entire corpus of Scripture to determine the overarching plan of redemption God has for humanity. This involves discovering the meaning the author intended for their original audience and discerning the theological principle that should be applied to our context.

The second topic is a false equivalence.

 

[Truth7t7]

Discerning God's will means wrestling with texts that have been taken in isolation and out of context.

The scripture is very clear below regarding women preaching in churches, there are many that disregard biblical truth in rebellion and stubbornness IMHO

1 Timothy 3:1-7KJV
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.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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 Samuel 15:23KJV
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

 

[Strong in Him]

The scripture is very clear below regarding women preaching in churches,

If you read the English text, without taking any note of the language in which it was originally written, the idioms of speech used, the customs and culture of the times, you can make a case for excluding women from serving as overseers.

You have been told that the idiom used here referred to a one-woman man; i.e Paul is advocating monogamy. You have disregarded that - apparently the English is more accurate than the language in which the text was written.
I have also suggested that there was no need to write, "female leaders must be the wife of one husband" because women could not have more than one husband, and the church had not considered the idea of female overseers. You have disregarded that too - instead of answering it, you repeat the text you have previously quoted.

I have also asked if you are consistent in your application of that text and insist that a man must be married, must have children, must be able to control them, must be able to offer hospitality before he could be considered for the role of bishop.
You have not answered that either.

Your OT text, taken completely out of context, has nothing to do with this debate - except that you have decided that women who are ordained are disobedient and have found a text which talks of punishment.

 

[Truth7t7]

You have been told that the idiom used here referred to a one-woman man; i.e Paul is advocating monogamy.

I Strongly Disagree With Your Claims, Paul Is Advocating Below That Bishops/Deacons Must Be Married Men, And Women Are To Be "Silent" In The Church, Clear, Simple, Easy To Understand

1 Timothy 3:1-7KJV
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.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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.

 

[Strong in Him]

I Strongly Disagree With Your Claims,

But you offer no evidence against them - discussion of the language, proof that the suggested idiom of speech was not one. Not even an exegesis of the verses or a discussion of the context.

Nothing, in fact, except repetition of the same verses, together with a few addressed to another church in a different context - which, together, apparently "prove" your point
So you repeat them, ad infinitum.

 

[Jermayn]

It is good to know that you also believe that submission to Gods will takes preference. Discerning God's will means wrestling with texts that have been taken in isolation and out of context. We must submit these texts to the entire corpus of Scripture to determine the overarching plan of redemption God has for humanity. This involves discovering the meaning the author intended for their original audience and discerning the theological principle that should be applied to our context.

The second topic is a false equivalence.

I think that a willingness to submit to God's will is the most important thing for all of us, regardless of our position, in discussions that have a legitimate point to be debated. For me, I believe the text bars women from pastoring churches and teaching men for all of the reasons I've stated previously. That doesn't mean I think a woman who preaches or teaches a man is going to Hell or should be treated like a demon. I understand the touchiness of the topic and even I understand that, if my position is correct, it seems unfair to women but, just like the rich man who was asked to give all his possessions away, it's a tough faith and ego check to see who you really trust. Same for those on my side of the argument. I've had to swallow my pride more than once in regard to Biblical debates. Or, perhaps we're all wrong and this is more of a Romans 14 meat-eater vs. vegetarian issue.

The second statement, however, is in regard to the higher acceptance of homosexuality, and I'm speaking of those who actively practice it, in churches that are lead by women. The relevance to the main topic being that, in my opinion, it is a second compromise made as a result of an initial compromise to allow women to lead the church, hence the slippery slope argument.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that a willingness to submit to God's will is the most important thing for all of us, regardless of our position, in discussions that have a legitimate point to be debated. For me, I believe the text bars women from pastoring churches and teaching men for all of the reasons I've stated previously. That doesn't mean I think a woman who preaches or teaches a man is going to Hell or should be treated like a demon. I understand the touchiness of the topic and even I understand that, if my position is correct, it seems unfair to women but, just like the rich man who was asked to give all his possessions away, it's a tough faith and ego check to see who you really trust. Same for those on my side of the argument. I've had to swallow my pride more than once in regard to Biblical debates. Or, perhaps we're all wrong and this is more of a Romans 14 meat-eater vs. vegetarian issue.

The second statement, however, is in regard to the higher acceptance of homosexuality, and I'm speaking of those who actively practice it, in churches that are lead by women. The relevance to the main topic being that, in my opinion, it is a second compromise made as a result of an initial compromise to allow women to lead the church, hence the slippery slope argument.

I don't see anyone here suggesting that practicing homosexuals also be permitted to be pastors along with women. Do you?

 

[Truth7t7]

But you offer no evidence against them - discussion of the language, proof that the suggested idiom of speech was not one. Not even an exegesis of the verses or a discussion of the context.

Nothing, in fact, except repetition of the same verses, together with a few addressed to another church in a different context - which, together, apparently "prove" your point
So you repeat them, ad infinitum.

My KJV Holy Bible Doesn't Need To Be Re-Translated, It's In Plain English And Very Easy To Understand, No Discussion Needed, Read And Heed

Bishops/Deacons Must Be Married Men, And Women Are To Be "Silent" In The Church, Clear, Simple, Easy To Understand

1 Timothy 3:1-7KJV
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.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
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.

 

[Jermayn]

I don't see anyone here suggesting that practicing homosexuals also be permitted to be pastors along with women. Do you?

Actually, there have been. Also, its very common to find it among women lead churches, which was the whole point of the statement.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, there have been. Also, its very common to find it among women lead churches, which was the whole point of the statement.

Yes, I fully understand your concern.

 

[Truth7t7]

The second statement, however, is in regard to the higher acceptance of homosexuality, and I'm speaking of those who actively practice it, in churches that are lead by women. The relevance to the main topic being that, in my opinion, it is a second compromise made as a result of an initial compromise to allow women to lead the church, hence the slippery slope argument.

Well Said, I Agree 100%, The Slippery Slope Towards Apostasy, And It's Taking Place Before Our Eyes, Not Only Women Taking The Pulpit, But Practicing Lesbian Women To Boot!

Jesus Is The Lord

1 Timothy 2:12-14KJV
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

[Rose_bud]

I think that a willingness to submit to God's will is the most important thing for all of us, regardless of our position, in discussions that have a legitimate point to be debated.

Agree, although those who have been convicted that the text does not prevent women from pastoring and teaching and preaching are fulliy persuaded that they are submitting to the will of God.

For me, I believe the text bars women from pastoring churches and teaching men for all of the reasons I've stated previously.

I believe contrary. Although I haven't gone into detail on the Timothy text on this thread.

I understand the overall meaning of the letter to Timothy is to encourage him to adress false teaching and preach sound doctrine. Men are not immune from being false teachers or from teaching unsound doctrine. We miss the meaning of the epistle when we ignore the context and make it all about prohibitions on women in ministry.

Context is of utmost importance...

That doesn't mean I think a woman who preaches or teaches a man is going to Hell or should be treated like a demon.

Thank you for clarifying and acknowledging that your desire is not to condemn your brothers or sisters. And I appreciate the graciousness of the tone in your post.

I understand the touchiness of the topic and even I understand that, if my position is correct, it seems unfair to women but, just like the rich man who was asked to give all his possessions away, it's a tough faith and ego check to see who you really trust. Same for those on my side of the argument. I've had to swallow my pride more than once in regard to Biblical debates.

I disagree that restricting women's roles in ministry is a legitimate "faith and ego check". Instead, I believe it's a misguided application of biblical teachings that undermines the Gospels message.
I believe it requires even more trust and obedience to the call of God to preach the Gospel, especially when, hindered and opposed. But we know that He empowers us to do so. Which is the point of the rich young ruler, not by human strength, but with God all things are possible.

If we believe the Word of God originates with humans, then we might think we have the power to restrict or limit it. But if we acknowledge that it is God, who calls, God who ordains and God who empowers, then we'll tread lightly and be careful not to impose our own limitations on his vessels.

Or, perhaps we're all wrong and this is more of a Romans 14 meat-eater vs. vegetarian issue.

We will all surely stand before God to give account of the gifts he gives His servants.

I'm not sure what denomination you are associated with. But there was a time when people were convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that women in slacks were an abomination. Until it was realised that Jesus never wore slacks, that the Bible originated in a culture different from our own. The point being that a lot more eisegesis was being performed rather than exegesis.

The second statement, however, is in regard to the higher acceptance of homosexuality, and I'm speaking of those who actively practice it, in churches that are lead by women. The relevance to the main topic being that, in my opinion, it is a second compromise made as a result of an initial compromise to allow women to lead the church, hence the slippery slope argument.

You are conflating two different issues. Women in ministry revolves around gender roles whereas homosexuality focuses on morality. Morality has to be addressed whether you are male or female. In addition the Gospel is the means to address humanities sinfulness, it is never a compromise to have this powerful message (the solution) proclaimed (whether male or female).

 

[Strong in Him]

My KJV Holy Bible Doesn't Need To Be Re-Translated, It's In Plain English And Very Easy To Understand, No Discussion Needed, Read And Heed

Your holy Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek (and possibly some Aramaic), translated into Latin and then into English. It doesn't need to be re-translated, it needs to be understood.
Or don't you care about what the original says, what the authors meant and what those who heard those words understood them to mean?
(And what's with all the capital letters - are these supposed to be a sign of authority, or something?)

I hope you would also say "no discussion needed" over verses like "do not put a widow under 60 on such a list" (for financial assistance) "..... they get into the habit of being idle ...... and not only idlers, but busybodies", 1 Timothy 5:11-13. I hope your church practices this by telling any young widows with children that they do not deserve financial support from the church.
I hope you would say "no discussion needed" over Paul's teaching that it is disgraceful for men to have long hair, 1 Corinthians 11:14. Though as he doesn't say how long "long" is, how can you be sure that you are not already sinning? Or maybe there is "no discussion needed" over his words forbidding women to wear gold. Think how many people have sinned by exchanging gold wedding rings in church.
Maybe there should be "no discussion needed" over Paul's advice to Timothy about drinking wine and not water, or Jesus' instructions to wash each other's feet - in a day where people wear socks/tights and shoes and do not walk dusty roads. How many women arrive at your church to be met by someone telling them to take their tights off?
I hope you would not be angry with any woman who wanted to divorce her husband - after all, Scripture forbids men from divorcing, but not women.
As you're reading from the KJV, I hope you're not one of these people who says that Easter is a pagan festival, as the KJV uses that very word, Acts 12:4.

I've been reading some fabulous books by Messianic Jews who teach us what we can miss by not understanding Jesus' Jewishness, the Jewish customs and feasts, the Hebrew language and the meaning of various words.
You have no idea how much of the Bible you may misunderstand by insisting it is to be read in English and at face value.