Women Preachers...The truth!

[TechyinAZ]

I have been married for over 27 years. Both people in the marriage should inquire of the Lord for wisdom in all things. I am not sure why a woman would WANT marry a man that she did not trust enough to submit to. Submit is not a bad word and I doubt many of us are good at doing it 100% of the time. At a job, you submit to your manager. If he or she is a good manager, they will listen to your suggestions and will often agree with you. In a marriage, It is a huge responsibility to be the man and have that God given responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the family. When I see families where the woman is obviously the leader in all ways, they are not functioning well at all. And it is honestly sad for everyone. Submitting does not at all mean that you are a doormat. It means that you are given him the respect as having the final say to situations that really could go either way when there is no right or wrong way. I have been blessed by those times that I thought I knew what was best, but allowed my husband to take the lead. And God blessed me for it. Jesus came, not to BE served, but to serve. And so should we. When you have a servant's heart...you WILL be blessed. I know it doesn't make any sense to us because man's ways are not God's ways. If the husband is being the loving and wise leader that he is meant to be, he will love and cherish his wife and be willing to die for her. She will know that in her heart and respect and love him tremendously. ( it is important in a marriage to make sure you are not speaking out of pride and self righteousness, but out of true love)

Exactly, this is the exact point of marriage. When you have a Godly man who leads but also serves and sacrifices just as much as he leads, it is an absolutely beautiful thing, and you truly see God's design and how absolutely amazing it is.

 

[carp614]

No. Boiling Paul's teaching down to first century patriarchy is unwise. His teaching on the woman's place in the church is completely consistent with the rest of the scripture both old and new testament. .

Woman can do powerful work for the kingdom. I'm sure there are many people who have come to faith through female pastors. But God's covenantal ordainment of the man as head of the woman is a mirror of Christ's headship of the church. To say that woman should lead instead of men (I don't think you are saying this, I'm only making the point that your argument heads in a very dangerous direction) would then be equivalent to saying that the church should lead Christ.

 

[Romans 8]

Many women arguing against men's leadership roles are broken, coming from relationships where men may have abused their power, or where they mistakenly feel this is the case due to their own desire for control. The result is a bitterness and resentment for God's natural order and no matter what they read or hear on the issue they will refer to their own personal experience literally, or internally as they argue the contrary. Many of the boys raised by these women carry the torch for the same "equality" which their mothers instilled into them. This is one example of how people can be deluded through deep emotional strongholds.

Many of these people will tell you that society is progressive, and that we're making headway through western culture. Well, revelation tells us that things will get worse, not better. As we descend further into moral decay, many more will be deceived. Many in the church today that proclaim woman leadership is God's will, will likely be proclaiming tomorrow that gay marriage is also.

Over the past few decades in Hollywood movies, TV shows, News, music, politics, etc there is an agenda of role reversal. It's a satanic plot that the majority of women (non-believers and carnal Christians) are all to willing to go along with because it suits their desire for power and control. If individuals will not submit to God, why would we expect them to submit to man in any way?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

We have women leaders, disciples, and preachers in the Bible. Financially succesful and independent ones too! Add Proverbs 31 to that - an example of a person with great leadership qualities!

So why did Apostle Paul said otherwise, is he contradicting scriptures?? Of course NOT! Misinterpreted? YES!

REmember that Paul also taught to take heed of the laws of the ruling authorities which at that time were the Romans, the Saducees, and the Pharisees - All extremely Patriarchal.......

Sooooo...... When Paul taught that women should not preach, should not lead, submit to husbands, on whose authority he's referring to????

It really is not that complicated. Women can preach, lead and teach just not as the head of the congregation. And yes both men and women should submit to each other in marriage. There is not a think wrong about that!

Hint:
The Romans, The Sadducees, and the Pharisees.....Are they your authority??? They still are if you follow their patriarchal ways!

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Sooooo...... When Paul taught that women should not preach, should not lead, submit to husbands, on whose authority he's referring to????

It really is not that complicated. Women can preach, lead and teach just not as the head of the congregation. And yes both men and women should submit to each other in marriage. There is not a thing wrong with that!

Ephesians 5 : 21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

 

[Albion]

So why did Apostle Paul said otherwise, is he contradicting scriptures?? Of course NOT! Misinterpreted? YES!

REmember that Paul also taught to take heed of the laws of the ruling authorities which at that time were the Romans, the Saducees, and the Pharisees - All extremely Patriarchal.......

Sooooo...... When Paul taught that women should not preach, should not lead, submit to husbands, on whose authority he's referring to????

The question then becomes this--if Paul's writings are not to be believed, what other books of the Bible are up for expulsion? Can we, in other words, pick and choose which parts of God's word to adhere to and which other parts we may discard?

 

[Ronald]

Taking Paul's teachings at face value - this is the biggest mistake of many Christians since the the beginning of the religion.

Literal interpretation of Paul's teachings will lead to contradictions with other teachings/examples in the Bible. This cannot be. It's definitely a wrong way to understand Paul's teachings.

Therefore, Paul's teachings cannot be interpreted literally/plainly. All his teachings must be taken into context, not just a few of his teachings at a time.

Paul's disclaimer:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Pop quiz:

To those living under Patriarchy, Paul would?

[another mind is blown!]


..

Your implications and understanding of scripture is skewed, slanted towards liberalism, resulting from the effects on society that the 70's Women's Lib Movement had to this day.
First off, you read what Paul wrote AS IF HIS OR ANY OTHER OUTSIDE HUMAN INFLUENCE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH GOD'S WORD. GOD TOLD HIM TO WRITE EXACTLY, WORD FOR WORD GODS WORD. ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED (GOD BREATHED).
Secondly, even if you can't interpret scripture ( which requires having been born again by the Holy Spirit), you can't deny history, that has shown us men as kings, leaders, priests, as the authorities and women as their helpers. In the Garden of Eden, Eve was deceived, not Adam, and for this all women would suffer pain in child birth and be under submission to men. Women are wired differently, wonderfully and beautifully, but for the purpose of nurturing children, with love and tenderness ( being more deeply emotional than man), but to a point when the man needs to step in. A woman cannot teach a boy how to be a man. A woman should not have authority over men, because they are more easily deceived.
Men are wired with mental and physical strength, able to make decisions without emotions getting the way.
Well, I can go on and on with examples, but it is not just my personal opinion - its how God ordered things, how He made us. Now in certain circumstances, we've seen women take over and be strong and I am sure God empowered them to do so. Women like Margaret Thatcher or certain queens in history. They are fine teachers in schools. Even as teachers of the Bible up to a certain age, then a male pastor/priest should be the spiritual authorities in Church, especially over men. This is what the Bible instructs. You can wrestle with it all you want, argue with all the women's lib garb, but this what God has ordained for humanity.
Gen. 3:6, 13 &16;
1 Cor. 14:34;
1 Tim. 2:12

 

[topher694]

New personal guideline: don't follow threads on this topic anymore.

 

[timewerx]

So God blesses countries that disregard his word. God inspires teachings that are meant to be ignored. God says one thing but means the opposite. Nations that do not consider God's plan or his will are actually the better nations. The nations that we need to be more like. God is evil, nuts, or a bad practical joker. So that is what we are dealing with when we open the bible. Makes you wonder why open it at all.

You are actually following God's original design by giving both men and women equal opportunities for leadership.

Understand the Logic of Genesis 3:16.

If the consequence of Eve's sin is by submitting to Adam, what was it like before she sinned?

Would it be a punishment if Eve originally submitted to Adam?

 

[kdm1984]

Your implications and understanding of scripture is skewed, slanted towards liberalism, resulting from the effects on society that the 70's Women's Lib Movement had to this day.
First off, you read what Paul wrote AS IF HIS OR ANY OTHER OUTSIDE HUMAN INFLUENCE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH GOD'S WORD. GOD TOLD HIM TO WRITE EXACTLY, WORD FOR WORD GODS WORD. ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED (GOD BREATHED).
Secondly, even if you can't interpret scripture ( which requires having been born again by the Holy Spirit), you can't deny history, that has shown us men as kings, leaders, priests, as the authorities and women as their helpers. In the Garden of Eden, Eve was deceived, not Adam, and for this all women would suffer pain in child birth and be under submission to men. Women are wired differently, wonderfully and beautifully, but for the purpose of nurturing children, with love and tenderness ( being more deeply emotional than man), but to a point when the man needs to step in. A woman cannot teach a boy how to be a man. A woman should not have authority over men, because they are more easily deceived.
Men are wired with mental and physical strength, able to make decisions without emotions getting the way.
Well, I can go on and on with examples, but it is not just my personal opinion - its how God ordered things, how He made us. Now in certain circumstances, we've seen women take over and be strong and I am sure God empowered them to do so. Women like Margaret Thatcher or certain queens in history. They are fine teachers in schools. Even as teachers of the Bible up to a certain age, then a male pastor/priest should be the spiritual authorities in Church, especially over men. This is what the Bible instructs. You can wrestle with it all you want, argue with all the women's lib garb, but this what God has ordained for humanity.
Gen. 3:6, 13 &16;
1 Cor. 14:34;
1 Tim. 2:12

Most of this is correct, but it's not true that women are more loving than men. God is love, and God is male, therefore the woman cannot be more loving than the man.

 

[Albion]

You are actually following God's original design by giving both men and women equal opportunities for leadership.

Understand the Logic of Genesis 3:16.

With this matter, I go with the explicit instructions about clergy as given in the New Testament rather than some version of *original design logic* as applied to the relationship between Adam and Eve.

 

[TechyinAZ]

So then how do you explain the likes of Titus 2?

If it is true that Christ 1st coming gets rid of the consequence of Eve's sin, then Titus 2 is in error.

 

[His student]

Sooooo...... When Paul taught that women should not preach, should not lead, submit to husbands, on whose authority he's referring to????

The scriptures are clear on the matter and no argument can change what God says about it - no matter whether we like it or not.

We have women leaders, disciples, and preachers in the Bible....... Misinterpreted? YES!...REmember that Paul also taught to take heed of the laws of the ruling authorities which at that time were the Romans, the Saducees, and the Pharisees - All extremely Patriarchal.......

I have heard this common argument and others like it a hundred times over the years. It still doesn't hold water IMO.

I have sat before women preachers many times and received valuable and accurate truth from them. In addition, I know of many secular leaders who are great leaders as well as being women.

I respect and receive their imparted wisdom and leadership whether they are Biblical examples or secular examples.

I would probably not draw a hard line and leave a church simply because they allowed a woman in leadership and or the pulpit. It depends on the situation I suppose.

But, human reasoning and feelings aside, and relying on God's Word for truth on the subject - we arrive at what must be our official related doctrine as I read it.

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." 1 Timothy 2:12-14

In handing down the directive he did not appeal to reason or to customs, be they Jewish or Gentile. Instead He and the Holy Spirit appealed to the order of creation and to the deception of Eve for the reasons God makes this statement for the the Church to prayerfully consider.

That being the case - no amount of appeal to feelings or to customs will change what the Lord clearly says and why He says it.

My wife and sisters and I might wish God had not said it. But that really has nothing to do with it.

Painful (and humiliating) as it may be to intelligent and strong women - the absolutely proper thing for the Church to do is not allow women to teach or exercise authority over men.

Whether the woman has the skill and leadership qualities of a Deborah or a Margaret Thatcher and the men in the church are as slow witted as some men obviously are - really has nothing to do with it.

There is also the issue of the angels. But that's a more difficult subject as I see it.

God can certainly use a church where this directive is ignored or misunderstood just as He can use an individual woman who participates there by teaching or leading.

But we are talking about the ideal according to the directive of the Holy Spirit and of what that is there should really be no doubt for a fully yielded student of scripture.

 

[kdm1984]

@His student -- very nicely defended position, and great job avoiding the use of polemics. Winner post, even though I do have a disagreement with one aspect -- I have indeed eschewed churches who give women leadership. The current one I attend (LCMS), as well as past ones I've attended (Calvary Chapel and IFB Baptist), all forbid women pastorship, as a proper reading of that passage indicates. I would never set foot in, say, an Assemblies of God church even though I think there are far worse denominations out there, and that's because of their endorsement of female pastors. I say this as someone living in Springfield, MO, the AG capital, where the AG megachurch James River is present. Never would I go there.

 

[timewerx]

So then how do you explain the likes of Titus 2?

If it is true that Christ 1st coming gets rid of the consequence of Eve's sin, then Titus 2 is in error.

The teachings in Titus about wives serve their time well.

They are also trying their best to "fit in" to society that is so patriarchal. If they tried to "rebel" against the traditions of that time, it could only harm their testimonies.

Fits their time perfectly but not in our time.

 

[Albion]

But the topic of this thread is women preachers, not women who are wives.

 

[His student]

@His student -- very nicely defended position, and great job avoiding the use of polemics. Winner post, even though I do have a disagreement with one aspect -- I have indeed eschewed churches who give women leadership. The current one I attend (LCMS), as well as past ones I've attended (Calvary Chapel and IFB Baptist), all forbid women pastorship, as a proper reading of that passage indicates. I would never set foot in, say, an Assemblies of God church even though I think there are far worse denominations out there, and that's because of their endorsement of female pastors. I say this as someone living in Springfield, MO, the AG capital, where the AG megachurch James River is present. Never would I go there.

Good point. Thanks for the input.

I have taken the liberty to edit that portion of my post to the following.

I would probably not draw a hard line and leave a church simply because they allowed a woman in leadership and or the pulpit. It depends on the situation I suppose.

Your position still seems to be a bit more strict than mine. But I think this makes things a bit more clear for me than the way I originally wrote it.

I suppose - for me - it might come down to what choices were available. All things being equal (which they seldom are) I would choose the church that followed the directive than the one that rationalized it away.

For instance - I recently moved to a small city in Arizona. My choice came down to a Baptist church where healing for today, the private practice of tongues and the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit were spoken against in sermons by the male pastor - and a church which honored those things or at least did not speak against them from the pulpit and grieve the Spirit in doing so. The worship and music in this church is outstanding and I have seldom experienced better in a small church.

In this later church the pastor's wife sometimes preaches. Usually it's on special occasions (like this Mother's Day) - but not always.

She's a fine teacher and a strong leader who has created wonderful women's and children's ministries.

She has become a close friend to my wife and I as has her husband.

To me the choice was obvious. I'm not going to skip church attendance in my life and I'm in no condition to travel 75 miles and attend a church which is not as otherwise spot on as my current one. I'm a happy camper planted right where I am.

I have always been very strong on proper doctrine and I am, in fact, a bit of a theologian and a teacher. But I think the Lord understands this particular "compromise" and is please by it.

By the way - I have been a born again Christian for over 60 years now. My theology is generally "Reformed" although I definitely don't tow the 5-point Calvinist line. I am also what you would call a "charismatic" and (with some strong caveats as well) somewhat of a "word of faith" type. I have also generally served as an elder/teacher for 40 years or so.

All that to say that I have not encountered a church where I was completely comfortable with all of their teaching or lack of teaching. Like it or not, strongly opinionated as I am or not, church life is often a bit of a compromise - unless, of course, you think that being an "I am of Paul, I am of Appolos" type of Christian in pleasing to the Lord.

I think, by the way, that (for better or for worse) my collections of warnings here in the forum stand as testimony of just how much I dislike compromise and how outspoken I am about it.

None of this is meant in any way to ague about your strong feelings concerning women preachers. I'm just saying how church life it is for me.

 

[timewerx]

But the topic of this thread is women preachers, not women who are wives.

When men dominate the power structure, they are more likely to abuse their authority.

Explains clergy abuse very well. And countries where men dominating the power structure tends to be corrupt.

Also explains why COED power structures have less morality and less corruption issues.

 

[timewerx]

So God blesses countries that disregard his word. God inspires teachings that are meant to be ignored. God says one thing but means the opposite. Nations that do not consider God's plan or his will are actually the better nations. The nations that we need to be more like. God is evil, nuts, or a bad practical joker. So that is what we are dealing with when we open the bible. Makes you wonder why open it at all.

Can't always blame God or even the devil.

There's a logical reason why it happens. Humanity has an evil side of marginalizing the minority or even abusing the minority at its worst.

Thus, if there's a major imbalance of numbers, there tends to be a huge problem.

A problem that Patriarchy brings - Men in majority of the power structure marginalizes any remaining women in the power structure, women's unique perspective on things becomes ignored. As mothers with their instincts, they bring reasoning that is vital to the healthy functioning of a society.

This is why countries that rank highest in Gender Equality have the least amount of poverty, some have even eliminated poverty already!

Is that evil? Or a strong message we have misunderstood the scriptures?

Jesus came to bring life and have it abundantly....... Not to promote poverty and corruption and tyranny.....

 

[Albion]

When men dominate the power structure, they are more likely to abuse their authority.

Where does that leave ANY part of the Bible then?

The writers were men, the leading personalities described in the Bible were men, most of the activities were conducted by men. What should we do with all of that, in your view? Toss it?