Women in Pulpit- Any Denomination

[Jesusfreak93]

I'm Southern Baptist, and I don't agree with the policy of women in the pulpit, but I am interested in what arguements other denominations have.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The arguments in favor tend to run along these lines:

1. No where in the Bible is it stated that men only should be pastors.
2. God has given spiritual gifts to every Christian, including the gift of pastor.
3. If God has called a woman to preach then one is in sin to quench the Spirit.
4. There are many examples of woman preachers in the Bible (Deborah in Judges being most commonly cited.
5. Biblical prohibitions were merely based upon ignorance, Women were not educated at the time. Now that they are as educated as men, they are equally qualified.
6. Some men are clearly inferior to women as preachers and it is pigheaded and wrong to exalt these men over these women.

Arguments against run along these lines:

1. God clearly states that elders (which are assumed to be pastors and/or teachers (preachers)) are to be the husbands of one wife (thus excluding women) (I Timothy 3).
2. God has forbidden women to exercise authority over men (I Timothy 2).
3. God has forbidden women from speaking in the meeting of the church (I Cor. 14).
4. None of the apostles were women; all were men.
5. Until the twentieth century the Church (all denominations) forbade women pastors and preachers.

Underlying this argument is the cultural assumption, not based upon scripture, that pastors are the most significant Christians in the Church in God's sight and laymen are definitely inferior, if not worthless. There is also the unbiblical assumption that the Church is a hierarchy with the Pastor as its head. Elders, if there are any, are just a business board under the authority of the Pastor.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Aside from the fact that "pulpit" is probably an anachronistic concept in the first place...

1) The Pentecost account in Acts 2 represents the initial fulfillment of the promises and prophecies of the Great Commission accounts, especially those in Luke 24 and Acts 1. During his sermon, Peter *twice* places the genders on equal footing in being spokespersons for God by the power of the Spirit.

2) In a context that deals with the Law, particularly its ritual and ceremonial aspects, no longer being relevant, and that mentions the Spirit and works of power, Gal. 3:28 explicitly destroys accepted social hierarchies for those "in Christ" (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13, "in the Spirit").

3) Nothing in 1 Cor. 12-14 suggests any of the gifts should be off-limits to women -- including apostle, prophet, and teacher. (Several scholars have made strong cases that 14:34-35 are early scribal margin glosses, not original and inspired.)

4) Nothing in the contexts of the parallel gift lists in Rom. 12 and Eph. 4 suggest that any of the gifts are off-limits to women, including apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor-teacher, or ruler.

5) Though it is a bit unclear in English -- and particularly so in some translations more than others -- Rom. 16:7 in the Greek shows that a woman named Junia was an apostle.

6) Though most English translations tend to pretty much butcher it, Rom. 16:1-2 show Phoebe was a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, as well as a patroness/provider/protector/president (*maybe* the "pastor"); the verses constitute a "letter of recommendation" for her, meaning she was the courier of the Epistle to the Romans, and would have been responsible for teaching it to the recipients and answering any questions about it.

7) Apart from a few translations misrendering the name as the masculine "Nymphas," Col. 4:15 most naturally reads as showing a woman named, "Nympha" running a house church.

8a) Deborah sat as judge for all of Israel, and prophetically delivered counsel and judgments directly from God; she functioned more like Moses himself than like the subordinate judges he appointed in Ex. 18.

8b) Huldah authoritatively delivered the prophetic word of the Lord, even to emissaries from the king and priests.

8c) If those women held such high roles under the Old Covenant, women under the New Covenant, which includes the aforementioned "equalizer" in Gal. 3:28, should certainly have similar access, or greater.

 

[Jesusfreak93]

However, as bbbbbbb put out, in the Bible women are forbidden to excercise power over men, or speak in the church meeting, and to be the husband of one woman. Now if you go and asume that since others have done it, isn't that dissobeying what God has commanded?

 

[AngelusSax]

However, as bbbbbbb put out, in the Bible women are forbidden to excercise power over men, or speak in the church meeting, and to be the husband of one woman. Now if you go and asume that since others have done it, isn't that dissobeying what God has commanded

?

Except that Paul was addressing temporal concerns within specific congregations. For a more complete understanding, I suggest reading "Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology on Women in Ministry" by Stanley Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo. It does a good job of protraying both sides of the argument rather fairly (though they admit their agenda is showing that the side which allows women to serve in all aspects of church life has more merit, or at least that they agree with it, I forget how they put it exactly).

 

[Jesusfreak93]

Okay. (I'm no scholar, I'm justing coming from my perspective.)

 

[bbbbbbb]

?

Except that Paul was addressing temporal concerns within specific congregations. For a more complete understanding, I suggest reading "Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology on Women in Ministry" by Stanley Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo. It does a good job of protraying both sides of the argument rather fairly (though they admit their agenda is showing that the side which allows women to serve in all aspects of church life has more merit, or at least that they agree with it, I forget how they put it exactly).

I forgot to include this argument in my earlier post as one used to support women pastors.

This argument is particularly weak and can be used in an enormous number of applications. For example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the essence of the gospel as expressed in I Corinthians 15 can be dismissed for the same reason that Paul was addressing only the particular circumstances of the church in Corinth. The argument becomes weaker with I Timothy and Titus where Paul instructs them in their ministry of establishing multiple churches. One can just as simply particularize those passages used to promote women in pastoral leadership. For example, one can say that it is evident that the apostles mentioned in Romans 16 were not the twelve apostles appointed by the Lord Jesus. Who and what these apostles did and were is open to wide speculation.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I forgot to include this argument in my earlier post as one used to support women pastors.

This argument is particularly weak and can be used in an enormous number of applications. For example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the essence of the gospel as expressed in I Corinthians 15 can be dismissed for the same reason that Paul was addressing only the particular circumstances of the church in Corinth. The argument becomes weaker with I Timothy and Titus where Paul instructs them in their ministry of establishing multiple churches. One can just as simply particularize those passages used to promote women in pastoral leadership. For example, one can say that it is evident that the apostles mentioned in Romans 16 were not the twelve apostles appointed by the Lord Jesus. Who and what these apostles did and were is open to wide speculation.

Interesting. So ultimately your point is that the Bible is unreliable as a source of guidance, and each group of Xians should make up whatever standards suit them, without any pretense of an authority higher than their own inclinations.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Interesting. So ultimately your point is that the Bible is unreliable as a source of guidance, and each group of Xians should make up whatever standards suit them, without any pretense of an authority higher than their own inclinations.

Quite the opposite, actually. My ultimate point is that the Bible is thoroughly reliable when understood correctly. Like any other body of literature it can be twisted and spun to support an enormous range of "interpretations" but in and of itself it is quite consistent and reliable.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I forgot to include this argument in my earlier post as one used to support women pastors.

This argument is particularly weak and can be used in an enormous number of applications. For example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the essence of the gospel as expressed in I Corinthians 15 can be dismissed for the same reason that Paul was addressing only the particular circumstances of the church in Corinth. The argument becomes weaker with I Timothy and Titus where Paul instructs them in their ministry of establishing multiple churches. One can just as simply particularize those passages used to promote women in pastoral leadership. For example, one can say that it is evident that the apostles mentioned in Romans 16 were not the twelve apostles appointed by the Lord Jesus. Who and what these apostles did and were is open to wide speculation.

Interesting. So ultimately your point is that the Bible is unreliable as a source of guidance, and each group of Xians should make up whatever standards suit them, without any pretense of an authority higher than their own inclinations.

Quite the opposite, actually. My ultimate point is that the Bible is thoroughly reliable when understood correctly. Like any other body of literature it can be twisted and spun to support an enormous range of "interpretations" but in and of itself it is quite consistent and reliable.

Ok then, let me ask a few specifics:

-- Do you believe those of us who take 1 Tim. 2:11-12 as being situational rather than universal do so arbitrarily, rather than based on issues of translation and context?

-- Do you really see any of those same issues applying in the case of the resurrection teachings in 1 Cor. 15?

-- On what basis would you argue that Andronicus and Junia were in some drastically different category of apostle, given that Barnabas was in the same class as Paul (Acts 14:14) and Paul was in the same class as the Twelve (Gal. 1:17), as was James (Gal. 1:19)?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ok then, let me ask a few specifics:

-- Do you believe those of us who take 1 Tim. 2:11-12 as being situational rather than universal do so arbitrarily, rather than based on issues of translation and context?

Yes.

-- Do you really see any of those same issues applying in the case of the resurrection teachings in 1 Cor. 15?

Some have used the same argumentation, so I would have to say yes to your question.

-- On what basis would you argue that Andronicus and Junia were in some drastically different category of apostle, given that Barnabas was in the same class as Paul (Acts 14:14) and Paul was in the same class as the Twelve (Gal. 1:17), as was James (Gal. 1:19)?

By the same reason that Jesus Christ is called the Apostle (Hebrews 8:1). As you probably know an apostle is simply a person sent forth to accomplish some purpose. The apostleship of Jesus Christ was vastly different than the apostleship of the Twelve. Likewise, all other Christians who are sent forth as missionaries can appropriately be termed to be apostles, although not sharing the characteristics of the apostleship of Jesus Christ nor of the Twelve. Thus, the apostles mentioned in Romans 16 are best considered to be missionaries in the contemporary sense of the word.

The same can be said concerning diakonos which simply means a servant. The word, in English Bibles, is typically translated servant or minister and transliterated as deacon, but it is one and the same word in Greek. One can justly call Rhoda (Acts 12:13) a deacon, even though there is no strong evidence that she was even a believer. There is every evidence that she was merely a servant in the household. In a similar way, there is strong evidence that within the early Church there was an office of servant (deacon) for which specific qualifications were given. These set the office apart from the general use of the word.

 

[NorrinRadd]

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
Ok then, let me ask a few specifics:

-- Do you believe those of us who take 1 Tim. 2:11-12 as being situational rather than universal do so arbitrarily, rather than based on issues of translation and context?

Yes.

I see. For the sake of clarity:

Context issues --

-- The immediate context, v. 9, says that women should dress "not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." Most people regard this as situational, not universal. Why would vv. 11-12 be in a different class?

-- Next in the chapter context, v. 8 says that men are to pray with raised hands, and Paul expressly says that this instruction is for men "in every place." Even so, today relatively few Xians outside of Pentecostal and Charismatic circles hold to this practice. If this "in every place" instruction is widely taken as situational, why should not the instructions in 11-12 be regarded as all the more so?

-- In that same verse, men are instructed to avoid "wrath and quarreling" in the practice of their prayers. We would not likely assume that means it is acceptable for women TO engage in "wrath and quarreling," so this suggests Paul is responding to a specific problem at Ephesus. In v. 9, women are instructed to dress "modestly"; we would not likely assume it is acceptable for MEN to dress IMMODESTLY, so this suggests Paul is responding to another specific problem at Ephesus. Doesn't that suggest vv. 11-12 may also relate to specific problems at Ephesus? (See also the next topic, and the later "translation" issues.)

-- The whole-epistle context: The problem of false teachers and teachings totally dominates the epistle. Why doesn't this suggest that the prohibitions of 2:11-12 are intended as situational, relating to analogous cases where women are promulgating false doctrines?


Translation issues --

-- "I do not permit" in v. 12 is more literally, and probably more correctly, "I am not permitting." That suggests a temporary condition.

-- "To teach OR to exercise authority" is better translated, "to teach WITH self-appointed authority" or "to teach AND domineer." These are things that would also be inappropriate for men to do, and suggest Paul was addressing specific practices in Ephesus.


In light of the above, do you still maintain that viewing 1 Tim. 2:11-12 as situational is arbitrary? If so, can you explain why?



Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
-- Do you really see any of those same issues applying in the case of the resurrection teachings in 1 Cor. 15?

Some have used the same argumentation, so I would have to say yes to your question.

Could you give a brief outline of the reasoning used, to show how it parallels the reasoning I presented above?



Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
-- On what basis would you argue that Andronicus and Junia were in some drastically different category of apostle, given that Barnabas was in the same class as Paul (Acts 14:14) and Paul was in the same class as the Twelve (Gal. 1:17), as was James (Gal. 1:19)?

By the same reason that Jesus Christ is called the Apostle (Hebrews 8:1).

I think you mean 3:1.

As you probably know an apostle is simply a person sent forth to accomplish some purpose. The apostleship of Jesus Christ was vastly different than the apostleship of the Twelve.

Yes, to the extent that I don't find it applicable, since the same verse specifies the context that He is also our "High Priest" (archiereus), a term not applicable to anyone else under the New Covenant.

Likewise, all other Christians who are sent forth as missionaries can appropriately be termed to be apostles, although not sharing the characteristics of the apostleship of Jesus Christ nor of the Twelve. Thus, the apostles mentioned in Romans 16 are best considered to be missionaries in the contemporary sense of the word.

I think a better example would have been Epaphroditus in Php. 2:25, where the word is often not even translated, "apostle," but rather "messenger." Even there, the context suggests the "generic" sense of the word, in that he was the "apostolos" FROM the Phillipians TO Paul, to minister to his needs.

I can find no other example of the word being applied to a specific person.

So, we have The Twelve, including Matthias. We have Paul and James explicitly apostles, and explicitly in a similar class to the Twelve. We have Barnabas explicitly an apostle, and explicitly in the same class as Paul, and therefore similar to The Twelve. We have Epaphroditus as the lone specific example of a "generic" apostolos, and the context makes fairly clear it means something different from the class of The Twelve.

Since the term is applied to Andronicus and Junia without qualification or explanation, and since by far the most common use of the term when used of specific persons is to indicate one in the general class of The Twelve, the burden of proof is on the one who claims such a meaning is unlikely in Rom. 16:7.

The same can be said concerning diakonos which simply means a servant. The word, in English Bibles, is typically translated servant or minister and transliterated as deacon, but it is one and the same word in Greek. One can justly call Rhoda (Acts 12:13) a deacon, even though there is no strong evidence that she was even a believer. There is every evidence that she was merely a servant in the household. In a similar way, there is strong evidence that within the early Church there was an office of servant (deacon) for which specific qualifications were given. These set the office apart from the general use of the word.

I agree diakonos was probably used with different senses. But on what Scriptural basis do you say that it was the "qualifications" that set the "office" apart from the more general usage?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
Ok then, let me ask a few specifics:

-- Do you believe those of us who take 1 Tim. 2:11-12 as being situational rather than universal do so arbitrarily, rather than based on issues of translation and context?



I see. For the sake of clarity:

Context issues --

-- The immediate context, v. 9, says that women should dress "not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." Most people regard this as situational, not universal. Why would vv. 11-12 be in a different class?

I am not certain who "most people" are or what you mean by "situational". Am I correct in thinking that you believe that "most people" are the majority of professing Christians and that "situational" means limited strictly to Timothy and his situation? If so, then my view is different in that I have no statistical data proving or disproving your statement that "most people" regard this as situational. Many (I hesitate to say most) Christians derive universal principals of attire from this passage and, thus, do not limit it to Timothy's "situation".

-- Next in the chapter context, v. 8 says that men are to pray with raised hands, and Paul expressly says that this instruction is for men "in every place." Even so, today relatively few Xians outside of Pentecostal and Charismatic circles hold to this practice. If this "in every place" instruction is widely taken as situational, why should not the instructions in 11-12 be regarded as all the more so?

This would, indeed, be so "if" your statement that "in every place" does not, indeed, mean in every place but only means the place where Timothy was at the time. However, it is absurd to think that every does not mean every, but means quite the opposite. Thus, your logic is flawed. The fact that Christians fail to understand, much less practice, biblical teaching does not mean that the teaching is therefore irrelevant or meaningless.

-- In that same verse, men are instructed to avoid "wrath and quarreling" in the practice of their prayers. We would not likely assume that means it is acceptable for women TO engage in "wrath and quarreling," so this suggests Paul is responding to a specific problem at Ephesus. In v. 9, women are instructed to dress "modestly"; we would not likely assume it is acceptable for MEN to dress IMMODESTLY, so this suggests Paul is responding to another specific problem at Ephesus. Doesn't that suggest vv. 11-12 may also relate to specific problems at Ephesus? (See also the next topic, and the later "translation" issues.)

Why do you think this is a problem in Ephesus? Where does it state that Timothy was in Ephesus when the letter was sent?

Your logic reminds me of my own twisted thinking. I frequently jibe that if there is a Church of the Good Shepherd, surely there has to be a Church of the Bad Shepherd. Obviously, there can exist a Good Shepherd without a Bad Shepherd. There can be mediocre shepherds or good shepherds or even bad shepherds, but there is really only one who is the Good Shepherd.

Men can be exhorted to do these things without implying anything about women, or children, or slaves, or cabdrivers. Likewise women can be exhorted to dress modestly without implying anything about men or children or slaves or chefs. Your assumptions are just that - you assumptions.

-- The whole-epistle context: The problem of false teachers and teachings totally dominates the epistle. Why doesn't this suggest that the prohibitions of 2:11-12 are intended as situational, relating to analogous cases where women are promulgating false doctrines?

Why, indeed, bother to include either epistle (or any epistle for that matter) in the canon of the Bible if one determines that there is no value of it to anyone other than its original recipient(s)? The assumption is made in some circles that the pastoral epistles (so-called) were addressed to "Pastor" Timothy and "Pastor" Titus who held a clerical office analogous to that of a modern Protestant minister in a particular church in a particular location. There is absolutely no textual support for such assumptions.

If TImothy was "pastoring" the First Baptist Church of Ephesus where Paul had originally appointed elders, why in the world would Timothy be told to appoint elders there as well as deacons when such individuals had already been appointed by Paul?

It is far more reasonable to understand Timothy and Titus as being engaged in apostolic (missionary) ministries. In fact Paul instructs Title on elders to be appointed in the churches of Crete which is not an individual city, but a rather large island which had many towns and cities at the time. Paul, as well as Timothy and Titus, were quite itinerant in their ministries as evidenced by the record of them in the Book of Acts.

Translation issues --

-- "I do not permit" in v. 12 is more literally, and probably more correctly, "I am not permitting." That suggests a temporary condition.

-- "To teach OR to exercise authority" is better translated, "to teach WITH self-appointed authority" or "to teach AND domineer." These are things that would also be inappropriate for men to do, and suggest Paul was addressing specific practices in Ephesus.


In light of the above, do you still maintain that viewing 1 Tim. 2:11-12 as situational is arbitrary? If so, can you explain why?

What is this Ephesus stuff? We are not on the same page at all here. If, in fact, we have Pastor Timothy as the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ephesus, I might be able to understand your point. However, until you can show me in scripture where that was the case, I will remain quite baffled.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
-- Do you really see any of those same issues applying in the case of the resurrection teachings in 1 Cor. 15?



Could you give a brief outline of the reasoning used, to show how it parallels the reasoning I presented above?

Certainly. If Paul's letter to the Corinthians was intended to address the Corinthian assembly only and not apply at all to any other Christians or churches at any other place or time in history, then one can use your reasoning that these things are merely situational. That would include, of course, the resurrection of Jesus Christ as expounded in I Cor. 15. One can believe that there was a serious misunderstanding in Corinth about the resurrection and Paul cleared that up for them, and them alone. What other churches or believers thought about that issue was irrelevant.

The opposing view, which has been that of orthodox Christianity, is that this epistle expresses teaching which applies far beyond the context of that one small body of believers. Thus, for example, when Paul states in 11:16 that "we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." it is evident that he was stating a universal practice for all churches, not just Corinth.

A middle view has developed within contemporary Protestantism which picks and chooses which portions of the epistle are relevant and which were merely "situatonal". Thus, for example, many Baptist churches have determined that men must have short hair based upon I Cor. 11:1-16, but that women's head coverings, which is the primary topic of that passage are merely situational.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
-- On what basis would you argue that Andronicus and Junia were in some drastically different category of apostle, given that Barnabas was in the same class as Paul (Acts 14:14) and Paul was in the same class as the Twelve (Gal. 1:17), as was James (Gal. 1:19)?



I think you mean 3:1.

Yes, I did.

Yes, to the extent that I don't find it applicable, since the same verse specifies the context that He is also our "High Priest" (archiereus), a term not applicable to anyone else under the New Covenant.

The question you asked was whether I could show any differentiation among apostles in the New Testament and I did.

I think a better example would have been Epaphroditus in Php. 2:25, where the word is often not even translated, "apostle," but rather "messenger." Even there, the context suggests the "generic" sense of the word, in that he was the "apostolos" FROM the Phillipians TO Paul, to minister to his needs.

Yes, that is an excellent example of an apostle as opposed to the Twelve.

I can find no other example of the word being applied to a specific person.

I agree.

So, we have The Twelve, including Matthias. We have Paul and James explicitly apostles, and explicitly in a similar class to the Twelve. We have Barnabas explicitly an apostle, and explicitly in the same class as Paul, and therefore similar to The Twelve. We have Epaphroditus as the lone specific example of a "generic" apostolos, and the context makes fairly clear it means something different from the class of The Twelve.

There have been many explanations regarding Matthias versus Paul as being one of the Twelve. Scripture does not ever indicate that Matthias every replaced Paul or that the Twelve became Thirteen or more. It is quite evident that there were more as time went on. I am willing to accept that the Twelve remained the Twelve and that the others were of a different class which is open to question regarding their relative role.

Since the term is applied to Andronicus and Junia without qualification or explanation, and since by far the most common use of the term when used of specific persons is to indicate one in the general class of The Twelve, the burden of proof is on the one who claims such a meaning is unlikely in Rom. 16:7.

Unless Twelve ceased to mean Twelve, we either have the Twelve plus another order based upon the generic meaning of "apostle" or we have the Twelve plus a bunch of imposters. I take the former view.

I agree diakonos was probably used with different senses. But on what Scriptural basis do you say that it was the "qualifications" that set the "office" apart from the more general usage?

I Timothy 3:8-13 lists the qualifications for deacons. It is absurd to think that servitude in the Roman world was limited to only the qualifications set forth in this passage.

 

[Macrina]

I'm Southern Baptist, and I don't agree with the policy of women in the pulpit, but I am interested in what arguements other denominations have.

Hi Jesusfreak,

I was a member of a Southern Baptist church when I experienced the call to ministry. Although I now serve through different denomination (one which will recognize my call), I very much value my time with the SBC.

I've got a lot of thoughts on this subject, but I'll try to keep this first post brief. Please ask me about specifics, though, if there are particular aspects of the issue you would like to address.

Scripture shows that God uses a variety of people whom the world would not expect to be messengers of God: Tax collectors, soldiers, slaves, women, etc. The Lord's actions relating to such people were pretty revolutionary for the time -- and in some ways, for ours as well.

There are women mentioned in the Bible who, were they men, would be assumed to have a similar role to what we would ascribe to a modern pastor. We can go into more detail on this if you want, but essentially, the best argument against them holding such ministry positions is the assumption that since they were women, that couldn't have been so; if they were men, the opposite assumption would be made.

When someone claims to be called by God to ministry, and the individual's community of faith (church, pastor, Christian mentors) recognize her call and giftedness, then the burden of proof lies on those who would prohibit her service solely on the basis of gender. If they wish to tell an individual and her entire community of faith that they are mistaken in what they believe the Holy Spirit is saying to them, then they ought to have very good evidence of it. Often, I am asked to produce proof that women may be ministers; however, I have not seen reasonable evidence that we should not.

There are a couple of verses which are taken out of context and misunderstood to prohibit women from ministry. It's important to read these thoughtfully and try to discern their meaning. I'll give a brief example in my next post, to keep this one from getting too long. But in general, I encourage you to remember that brothers and sisters of good faith and deep respect for the Bible do not believe that these passages are meant to be interpreted as a prohibition of women in ministry; we take these passages very seriously indeed, and because of our serious study of them (and other parts of scripture, too), we have come to the conclusion that they do not contradict God's call of women to pastoral service.

Thanks for "listening,"
~Mac

 

[Macrina]

Hello again Jesusfreak,

I said in my first post to you that there are certain "gotcha" passages that people like to quote, thinking that they have ended discussion on this issue. I told you that by reading them carefully and seeking to understand their purpose, many Christians with a very high view of scripture have come to the conclusion that they do not, in fact, prohibit women ministers in general. Here's a brief example of what I'm talking about:

More often than not, people quote 1 Timothy 2 to "prove" that women may not be preachers/pastors/etc. and believe that concludes the discussion. But there are things that are important to understand: Paul has shown that he is concerned with disorder and false teaching in the church. Properly understood, you can see the same thing going on in this passage. In verse 12, he writes "I am not permitting a woman to teach or to domineer over a man." The Greek (remember, it wasn't written in English, and every translation interprets a little bit) indicates that women aren't to be bossy and lord it over the men.

Now why would Paul (inspired by God, of course) bring up that women weren't to be domineering? Well, it had to do with what was going on in Ephesus, the city where Timothy was serving at the time (see 1:3). Ephesus was famous for its temple to Artemis, whom they worshiped with some strange woman-power/fertility stuff that was deeply offensive to Christianity (not G-rated!). They had a belief that woman was created first, and then man, and that meant that the woman got to be in charge (or at least hold a unique power that men did not) because she was the source of man. Eventually, this false teaching crept into the church, and a group of pseudo-Christians called "gnostics" started teaching that Eve was created before Adam, and using that claim to justify some teachings that looked a lot like the Artemis-worship from which it came.

Clearly, this kind of pagan stuff was a problem when it got into the church. So Paul wanted Timothy to nip it in the bud and prevent pagan teachings from corrupting Christian truth. The fact that he had the Ephesian context in mind shows through when he reminds the reader in verse 13 that "Adam was formed first, then Eve." This false teaching had to be stopped, and that meant prohibiting women who were recent converts from the cult of Artemis from teaching in the church, for they were likely to bring in old pagan teaching and corrupt the truth. This is not true of the modern church, however, so prohibiting women on the basis of this command doesn't make sense.

That's just one example, briefly summed up -- but hopefully that's enough to give you an idea of why your fellow Christians who believe in scripture as the infallible guide to faith and life would interpret these "prohibition" passages different from the SBC.

Let me know if you want me to elaborate... there's too much to include in a single post (or even two). Again, thanks for considering these points. I appreciate it when someone your age is so eager to learn and discuss Christian faith and practice.

~Mac

 

[bliz]

However, as bbbbbbb put out, in the Bible women are forbidden to excercise power over men, or speak in the church meeting, and to be the husband of one woman. Now if you go and asume that since others have done it, isn't that dissobeying what God has commanded?

Scripture says that women are not to usurp power, which means not to take power that does not belong to them, not that they are to have no power.

There are places in the Bible where the language is about males, but it is intended to apply to both genders. Look at the 10 Commandments. Clearly men are not to covet their neighbors wives, but nothing is said about women coveting their neighbor's husbands. Although the verse only mentions men, I don't believe women are permitted to covet. Do you?

Not to speak in church meetings? Then why is Paul detailing how women are to have their heads covered when the prophecy in church In
I Corinthians 11?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Scripture says that women are not to usurp power, which means not to take power that does not belong to them, not that they are to have no power.

There are places in the Bible where the language is about males, but it is intended to apply to both genders. Look at the 10 Commandments. Clearly men are not to covet their neighbors wives, but nothing is said about women coveting their neighbor's husbands. Although the verse only mentions men, I don't believe women are permitted to covet. Do you?

Not to speak in church meetings? Then why is Paul detailing how women are to have their heads covered when the prophecy in church In
I Corinthians 11?

And when, may I ask, was the last time you attended a church service with a woman preacher wearing anything on her head?

 

[NorrinRadd]

Originally Posted by bliz
Scripture says that women are not to usurp power, which means not to take power that does not belong to them, not that they are to have no power.

There are places in the Bible where the language is about males, but it is intended to apply to both genders. Look at the 10 Commandments. Clearly men are not to covet their neighbors wives, but nothing is said about women coveting their neighbor's husbands. Although the verse only mentions men, I don't believe women are permitted to covet. Do you?

Not to speak in church meetings? Then why is Paul detailing how women are to have their heads covered when the prophecy in church In
I Corinthians 11?

And when, may I ask, was the last time you attended a church service with a woman preacher wearing anything on her head?

In my case, the answer is that back around the late '60s or so, I visited the nearby Free Methodist church that some of my friends attended. The women in general, regardless of the "preacher" part, wore bonnets.

Why do you ask?

 

[NorrinRadd]

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
-- The immediate context, v. 9, says that women should dress "not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." Most people regard this as situational, not universal. Why would vv. 11-12 be in a different class?

I am not certain who "most people" are or what you mean by "situational". Am I correct in thinking that you believe that "most people" are the majority of professing Christians and that "situational" means limited strictly to Timothy and his situation? If so, then my view is different in that I have no statistical data proving or disproving your statement that "most people" regard this as situational. Many (I hesitate to say most) Christians derive universal principals of attire from this passage and, thus, do not limit it to Timothy's "situation".

I agree that most Xians derive from this passage, among others, the principle of "modesty." But if you mean that more than a very small percentage of Xians hold to the practice that women should not braid their hair or wear any sort of gold decorations therein, I can hardly conclude anything other than we are not living on the same planet. My experience is that the vast majority -- whether from "mainline" denominations, Fundamentalist groups of various sorts, Pentecostals, Charismatics, whatever -- view the details of 2:9 as relating to specific issues in that locale. And to the extent that is the case, there is no clear reason to take 2:11-12 as being different.

Now, if you happen to be part of the small minority that takes the details of 2:9 as being universal, we can discuss the problems involved with harmonizing it with some of Paul's instructions elsewhere.


Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
-- Next in the chapter context, v. 8 says that men are to pray with raised hands, and Paul expressly says that this instruction is for men "in every place." Even so, today relatively few Xians outside of Pentecostal and Charismatic circles hold to this practice. If this "in every place" instruction is widely taken as situational, why should not the instructions in 11-12 be regarded as all the more so?

This would, indeed, be so "if" your statement that "in every place" does not, indeed, mean in every place but only means the place where Timothy was at the time. However, it is absurd to think that every does not mean every, but means quite the opposite. Thus, your logic is flawed. The fact that Christians fail to understand, much less practice, biblical teaching does not mean that the teaching is therefore irrelevant or meaningless.

Cool. I'm pleased to see you practice 2:8 the way I do.

However, you will not be surprised to hear that I do not concede my logic is "flawed." Even if we do take 2:8 to be universal, we at the very least have reason to wonder why he did not make similar explicit statements in regard to the commands to women.


Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
-- In that same verse, men are instructed to avoid "wrath and quarreling" in the practice of their prayers. We would not likely assume that means it is acceptable for women TO engage in "wrath and quarreling," so this suggests Paul is responding to a specific problem at Ephesus. In v. 9, women are instructed to dress "modestly"; we would not likely assume it is acceptable for MEN to dress IMMODESTLY, so this suggests Paul is responding to another specific problem at Ephesus. Doesn't that suggest vv. 11-12 may also relate to specific problems at Ephesus? (See also the next topic, and the later "translation" issues.)

Why do you think this is a problem in Ephesus? Where does it state that Timothy was in Ephesus when the letter was sent?

Because that is the clear implication of 1:3. Timothy is there to deal with false teachers.

Your logic reminds me of my own twisted thinking. I frequently jibe that if there is a Church of the Good Shepherd, surely there has to be a Church of the Bad Shepherd. Obviously, there can exist a Good Shepherd without a Bad Shepherd. There can be mediocre shepherds or good shepherds or even bad shepherds, but there is really only one who is the Good Shepherd.

Men can be exhorted to do these things without implying anything about women, or children, or slaves, or cabdrivers. Likewise women can be exhorted to dress modestly without implying anything about men or children or slaves or chefs.

Of course. But the things he's rebuking would be considered bad behavior in general, based on plenty of other Scriptures. The fact that he is addressing certain *particular* problems in regard to each gender indicates that there in Ephesus, the problems roughly broke along gender lines.

Your assumptions are just that - you assumptions.

Certainly when I do make "assumptions," they are by definition MY assumptions. But I believe that in this case, "inference" would be a better term.


Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
-- The whole-epistle context: The problem of false teachers and teachings totally dominates the epistle. Why doesn't this suggest that the prohibitions of 2:11-12 are intended as situational, relating to analogous cases where women are promulgating false doctrines?

Why, indeed, bother to include either epistle (or any epistle for that matter) in the canon of the Bible if one determines that there is no value of it to anyone other than its original recipient(s)?

I'm sure some people make the argument that there is "no value" in 1 Tim., but I don't. My position is that we are to try to determine what situations were being addressed, and see how they were addressed, then adapt the instructions today. So, for instance, if we had a church in a culture where the women were much less educated than the men, and yet some of the women took upon themselves to start boldly and raucously spreading false goddess-oriented syncretistic doctrines, we might apply the instructions fairly directly.

The assumption is made in some circles that the pastoral epistles (so-called) were addressed to "Pastor" Timothy and "Pastor" Titus who held a clerical office analogous to that of a modern Protestant minister in a particular church in a particular location. There is absolutely no textual support for such assumptions.

I concur, especially in regard to Titus.

Given that the introduction to 1 Tim. indicates that Timothy is to be stationed at Ephesus for some time until things are in order, it's not totally unreasonable to view his role as "pastoral" in some sense. But even so, contrary to some, I don't view the PEs individually or collectively as any sort of "manual" of church offices.

If TImothy was "pastoring" the First Baptist Church of Ephesus where Paul had originally appointed elders, why in the world would Timothy be told to appoint elders there as well as deacons when such individuals had already been appointed by Paul?

Because as Paul foresaw and predicted in Acts 20:29-30, "wolves" came in, and even some of the elders-overseers-pastors/shepherds turned traitor. Timothy had to restore the church.

It is far more reasonable to understand Timothy and Titus as being engaged in apostolic (missionary) ministries. In fact Paul instructs Title on elders to be appointed in the churches of Crete which is not an individual city, but a rather large island which had many towns and cities at the time. Paul, as well as Timothy and Titus, were quite itinerant in their ministries as evidenced by the record of them in the Book of Acts.

Generally agreed. I'm not aware of either Timothy or Titus ever being explicitly titled "apostle" in Scripture, but certainly they served as authorized representatives of the Apostle Paul.

--------- end part 1 -------

 

[NorrinRadd]

---------- Part 2 ----------

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
Translation issues --

-- "I do not permit" in v. 12 is more literally, and probably more correctly, "I am not permitting." That suggests a temporary condition.

-- "To teach OR to exercise authority" is better translated, "to teach WITH self-appointed authority" or "to teach AND domineer." These are things that would also be inappropriate for men to do, and suggest Paul was addressing specific practices in Ephesus.


In light of the above, do you still maintain that viewing 1 Tim. 2:11-12 as situational is arbitrary? If so, can you explain why?

What is this Ephesus stuff?

Again, 1:3.

We are not on the same page at all here.

You're kidding!

If, in fact, we have Pastor Timothy as the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ephesus, I might be able to understand your point. However, until you can show me in scripture where that was the case, I will remain quite baffled.

1:3



Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
-- Do you really see any of those same issues applying in the case of the resurrection teachings in 1 Cor. 15?

Could you give a brief outline of the reasoning used, to show how it parallels the reasoning I presented above?

Certainly. If Paul's letter to the Corinthians was intended to address the Corinthian assembly only and not apply at all to any other Christians or churches at any other place or time in history, then one can use your reasoning that these things are merely situational. That would include, of course, the resurrection of Jesus Christ as expounded in I Cor. 15. One can believe that there was a serious misunderstanding in Corinth about the resurrection and Paul cleared that up for them, and them alone. What other churches or believers thought about that issue was irrelevant.

Thanks.

Given that you apparently take all the details of 1 Tim. 2:8-15 as directly applying universally, and you presumably take the "head-issues" of 1 Cor. 11 likewise, then I suppose from your perspective the reasoning is indeed similar.

In that case I'd point out that there are conflicts not just with common modern-day practice, but with the clear implications of other portions of Scripture itself.

The opposing view, which has been that of orthodox Christianity, is that this epistle expresses teaching which applies far beyond the context of that one small body of believers. Thus, for example, when Paul states in 11:16 that "we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." it is evident that he was stating a universal practice for all churches, not just Corinth.

There is of course some disagreement as to exactly what was the "practice" to which he alluded there. But that may be beyond the scope of this thread.

A middle view has developed within contemporary Protestantism which picks and chooses which portions of the epistle are relevant and which were merely "situatonal". Thus, for example, many Baptist churches have determined that men must have short hair based upon I Cor. 11:1-16, but that women's head coverings, which is the primary topic of that passage are merely situational.

Again, it is debatable that "women's head coverings" is the "primary topic" -- especially if one is referring to some sort of garment.


Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
Yes, to the extent that I don't find it (NR: Jesus as Apostle in Heb. 3:1) applicable, since the same verse specifies the context that He is also our "High Priest" (archiereus), a term not applicable to anyone else under the New Covenant.

The question you asked was whether I could show any differentiation among apostles in the New Testament and I did.

If I'm following the back-links correctly, this was what I actually asked:

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
-- On what basis would you argue that Andronicus and Junia were in some drastically different category of apostle, given that Barnabas was in the same class as Paul (Acts 14:14) and Paul was in the same class as the Twelve (Gal. 1:17), as was James (Gal. 1:19)?


It appears to me that all the "named" apostles -- the Twelve, plus Barnabas, Paul, and James certainly, and probably also Andronicus and Junia -- are in approximately the same "class." When something different is intended, the context seems to indicate so, as with Jesus above or Epaphroditus below.


Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
I think a better example would have been Epaphroditus in Php. 2:25, where the word is often not even translated, "apostle," but rather "messenger." Even there, the context suggests the "generic" sense of the word, in that he was the "apostolos" FROM the Phillipians TO Paul, to minister to his needs.

Yes, that is an excellent example of an apostle as opposed to the Twelve.

But in keeping with our not-on-same-pageness, I don't necessarily agree. Or rather, I agree with the vast majority of English translations that don't even render the word AS "apostle," since I think the context indicates Epaphroditus was a generic messenger, in contrast to those like Barnabas, Paul, Peter, James, Andronicus, and Junia.



I agree.

Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
So, we have The Twelve, including Matthias. We have Paul and James explicitly apostles, and explicitly in a similar class to the Twelve. We have Barnabas explicitly an apostle, and explicitly in the same class as Paul, and therefore similar to The Twelve. We have Epaphroditus as the lone specific example of a "generic" apostolos, and the context makes fairly clear it means something different from the class of The Twelve.

There have been many explanations regarding Matthias versus Paul as being one of the Twelve. Scripture does not ever indicate that Matthias every replaced Paul or that the Twelve became Thirteen or more. It is quite evident that there were more as time went on. I am willing to accept that the Twelve remained the Twelve and that the others were of a different class which is open to question regarding their relative role.

The problem is in determining HOW different a class they were. As I noted, Barnabas is placed in the same "class" as Paul in Acts 14. Paul places both himself and James in either the same class as the Twelve or a closely related class in Galatians.


Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
Since the term is applied to Andronicus and Junia without qualification or explanation, and since by far the most common use of the term when used of specific persons is to indicate one in the general class of The Twelve, the burden of proof is on the one who claims such a meaning is unlikely in Rom. 16:7.

Unless Twelve ceased to mean Twelve, we either have the Twelve plus another order based upon the generic meaning of "apostle" or we have the Twelve plus a bunch of imposters. I take the former view.

Well, we have the Twelve. We have Barnabas, Paul, and James in the same class or a closely related one; that suggests your statement above is an example of the "excluded middle." Then we have the sort of generic "messenger" or "delegate" usage that seems to apply to Epaphroditus. The meaning in the case of Andronicus and Junia is not crystal-clear. The wording suggests to me something more akin to the "specific" meaning rather than the "generic," but again -- different pages.


Originally Posted by NorrinRadd
I agree diakonos was probably used with different senses. But on what Scriptural basis do you say that it was the "qualifications" that set the "office" apart from the more general usage?

I Timothy 3:8-13 lists the qualifications for deacons. It is absurd to think that servitude in the Roman world was limited to only the qualifications set forth in this passage.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. And please excuse me if I get a bit wordy here:

I agree that there are different uses of the word, "diakonos," and its forms and cognates. Even within the limitations of "serving" in an explicitly "Christian" context, I agree there are more general and more specific usages. I *had* been of the view that there was a general sense of "service" or "ministry" that applied to all believers; I'd heard "ministers of the New Covenant" and "ministry of reconciliation" applied to believers in general. However, in looking through the NT, I'm getting the impression that most of the time, diakonos, diakonia, diakoneo, etc. apply to those in "full-time ministry/service," such as Paul and his colleagues. But even within that, there is a more specific usage as a sort of "office."

But I'm not clear on what basis one chooses one particular passage to determine the distinction.

Acts 6:1-5 shows the selection of certain men to diakoneo tables while the apostles diakoneo the word. Qualifications are given for the former. 6:8-10 show Stephen preaching and demonstrating miraculous power, apparently in the course of his serving tables. So are being of good repute and full of the Spirit and wisdom the proper qualifications for "deaconing"?

1 Cor. 12 and especially Rom. 12 similarly suggest that by God as the Spirit wills is the foundation for diakoneo.

Most of the uses of diakonos applied to individuals are in the form of "minister/servant of Christ," "minister/servant of God," "minister/servant of the New Covenant," etc. But there seems to be one unique case of a "minister/servant" of a particular church: the one at Cenchrea. Does that suggest a ministry "office" is in view?

Supposing we do settle on 1 Tim. 3 as the decisive passage. What effect does that have?