Women who lead or teach

[Lik3]

Why are so many church goers, especially Baptists (I am one.) in objection to a woman leading? Can a woman who leads or preaches be any worse than some men who deceive, brainwash, and sleep with some of their flock? I believe in a God who cannot therefore does not lie and will never change who He is for anyone. He is not that way. My other question is, if a woman was ordained to be a minister of a Catholic, or even Baptist Church, will that be against what some believe the Bible says about women who teach or lead?

God will not change His mind or change the rules for anyone who has been ordained, man or woman. Having said that, who is to say that God did not ordain a woman? I never really understood that. Paul must have meant something else when he mentioned about women not be permitted to teach or be in authority over men. To those who have no discernment, it would mean that the Bible prescribes to sexism, and thus, God Himself must be sexist, which He is not. It also sounds to me like there are some "in the church" who will use any scripture to prove their own points and not what He really is saying. (Hence, that is why Bible reading and studying are so important.) Women have always led, whether or not they are queens, emperors, and even judges, like Deborah. Why would that be any different?

 

[Albion]

Why are so many church goers, especially Baptists (I am one.) in objection to a woman leading? Can a woman who leads or preaches be any worse than some men who deceive, brainwash, and sleep with some of their flock?

Because both the Bible and almost 2000 years of a consensus among Christians say "no" to the idea. You can't very well say that you stand on the Bible...and then depart from it when a good argument, based entirely upon practical results, comes along. Almost any defender of the all-male position will admit that there are plenty of women who would do a better job as pastors than a lot of men do, but that's not what governs this decision.

Women have always led, whether or not they are queens, emperors, and even judges, like Deborah. Why would that be any different?

It's not "leading" that is the issue. It's being a clergyman/pastor/ordained minister. It's that particular kind of leadership.

There are a number of women, as shown in the New Testament, who did lead (and continue to lead in churches today which don't ordain women) in some capacity or other, but just not this one.
.

 

[tstor]

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Tim. 2:11-12; ESV)​

 

[SnowyMacie]

Why are so many church goers, especially Baptists (I am one.) in objection to a woman leading? Can a woman who leads or preaches be any worse than some men who deceive, brainwash, and sleep with some of their flock? I believe in a God who cannot therefore does not lie and will never change who He is for anyone. He is not that way. My other question is, if a woman was ordained to be a minister of a Catholic, or even Baptist Church, will that be against what some believe the Bible says about women who teach or lead?

God will not change His mind or change the rules for anyone who has been ordained, man or woman. Having said that, who is to say that God did not ordain a woman? I never really understood that. Paul must have meant something else when he mentioned about women not be permitted to teach or be in authority over men. To those who have no discernment, it would mean that the Bible prescribes to sexism, and thus, God Himself must be sexist, which He is not. It also sounds to me like there are some "in the church" who will use any scripture to prove their own points and not what He really is saying. (Hence, that is why Bible reading and studying are so important.) Women have always led, whether or not they are queens, emperors, and even judges, like Deborah. Why would that be any different?

You'll find different answers, but my personal view is Paul meant what he meant and the rules about women in church served a particular purpose that is not longer relevant and needed today. For example, compare Duet. 23:1-3 to Isaiah 56:3-8, Eunichs are excluded to demonstrate God's holiness, but later that command is no longer necessary to accomplish that purpose and becomes obsolete. The early Christian church, it was circumcision. The only scriptures the church had were the Jewish scriptures which commanded circumcision as a sign of allegiance to God, and there was probably less wriggle room in scripture than this. The issue was over whether or not gentiles could become Christians without first being circumcised. The Gentiles in question knew two things: they trusted Jesus and didn't want to take a knife to their manhood. Even Peter and Paul had a public confrontation about this (Gal 2:11-14). The church decided was that it was best for them to not burden them with the requirement because the purpose was no longer needed, and it was following the rules for the sake of the rules.

That is something that Christ consistently challenges in His teachings: following the rules for the sake of the rules. Jesus repeatedly teaches and says that the purpose and principal (love) is more important than the letter of the law. That's the entire purpose of the Sermon on the Mount, and over and over again in the rest of the gospels Jesus reiterates that God is more interesting the the underlying principles than rules themselves. He even takes it a bit further and says the principle of the law actually holds us to a higher standard and requires a larger commitment. That is why all of the things you have brought up have happened or are happening in the Church. God's standards have never changed, though what they have looked like have changed.

 

[PollyJetix]

Why are so many church goers, especially Baptists (I am one.) in objection to a woman leading? Can a woman who leads or preaches be any worse than some men who deceive, brainwash, and sleep with some of their flock? I believe in a God who cannot therefore does not lie and will never change who He is for anyone. He is not that way. My other question is, if a woman was ordained to be a minister of a Catholic, or even Baptist Church, will that be against what some believe the Bible says about women who teach or lead?

God will not change His mind or change the rules for anyone who has been ordained, man or woman. Having said that, who is to say that God did not ordain a woman? I never really understood that. Paul must have meant something else when he mentioned about women not be permitted to teach or be in authority over men. To those who have no discernment, it would mean that the Bible prescribes to sexism, and thus, God Himself must be sexist, which He is not. It also sounds to me like there are some "in the church" who will use any scripture to prove their own points and not what He really is saying. (Hence, that is why Bible reading and studying are so important.) Women have always led, whether or not they are queens, emperors, and even judges, like Deborah. Why would that be any different?

I was raised to believe like you were, about women being forbidden to lead.
I have come to a very different conclusion via studying the Word.
God chose to use women in the Old Testament... even in Temple worship!

There was no such thing as a command in the Law of Moses that women should not speak in the assembly... or that it was a shameful thing. That was not the law of Moses that Paul was referring to, in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Instead, it was the then-oral form of the Mishnah--the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day. Now we have it in written form. I have read it. And yes, these teachings about women are there, almost word for word.

In fact, if you think about it... where did God ever tell Moses to separate the women from the men, by making a "women's court" in the tabernacle... or later, in the Temple?
He didn't.
The "women's court" of the Temple of Jesus' day (and the lattice-shielded women's balconies of the synagogues) were invented by the Pharisees.

This was the Pharisees' attitude toward women: They were morally, mentally, and spiritually inferior. That it was the voice of Eve in the garden, that tempted Adam to sin. Therefore, the voices of women must be silenced. Any Pharisee's wife who dared to raise her voice within her house, to a level loud enough to be heard outside of the walls, was in great danger of being summarily divorced. If she was found to have spent even one minute alone in the company of one other man, she was to be assumed guilty of adultery.

This is what Paul was commenting on, in 1 Corinthians 14:34.
You see, everywhere Paul went, Judaizers came behind, and tried to bring Gentile converts, under the Law.
The church in Corinth wrote a letter to Paul, asking him many questions. We do not have that letter.
But we do have the letter Paul wrote in response, answering those questions.
That is the book of 1 Corinthians.

There are clues throughout the book, telling us which phrases and statements are quotes from that lost letter, and which are Paul's answers.
1 Corinthians 14:34-36 is no exception. There are 3 very clear clues.

First, the law Paul referred to. If it was the Law of Moses, we would be able to find the Old Testament passage. But it's not there. Nowhere!
Instead, it's a quote from the Mishnah, which was also called "the law" by the Pharisees.
And Paul knew this extra-biblical law inside out, having been taught at the feet of Gamaliel.

Second, look at verse 36. The first word is "What?"
In the Greek, that little word always is a disjunctive conjunction.
It always is a protest or disagreement with what preceded the word "what?".

Thirdly, if we look at the entire passage, Paul is talking about the exercise of the gifts within the church. And he just got finished saying "You ALL may prophesy one by one."
And then, Paul answers what was obviously a question: "Should women prophesy in church? Shouldn't they keep silence, as the law says: it is a shame for a woman's voice to be heard in public."

And Paul's answer is "NO!"
And then, Paul gives his reason:
Did the word of God come out from you?
Or did it come to you only?

And the answer is obvious.
No. The word of God did not come out from men.
The Word of God (Jesus) was born of a woman.
And the Word of God has not only come to men.

There are portions of Scripture that were inspired through women, both in the Old and New Testaments.
God used Deborah as a prophetess and judge of the people, long before she ever led them in war. God listed Miriam right alongside Aaron and Moses, as leaders sent before the children of Israel. (Micah 6:4) Huldah the prophetess was operating in her gift of prophecy to such an extent that the High Priest and the King asked her to get direction from God for them.
In the New Testament, there are portions of Scripture inspired through Elizabeth and Mary. Anna was a prophetess. And then there were the 4 daughters of Phillip, which prophesied to Paul on his way to Jerusalem.

Women can prophesy too. All means all. "You may ALL prophesy, one by one."

The disorderly conduct Paul was warning against in 1 Corinthians 14:33 was not women calling out across a barrier to their husband on the other side of the church. Such a barrier was not to exist under the New Covenant.

Instead, the "confusion" that Paul was warning against, was the confusion of false doctrine, brought in by Judaizers, trying to bring the church under Pharisaic legalism.
That's the context.

Now, as for 1 Timothy 2:12-15... that's a very misunderstood passage, too...

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I've found that some christian men don't think women should teach or lead because the man is taught a woman is essentially a slave whos only job is to bare kids, clean the house, make the food and be told what to do. In other words they are taught a twisted version of the bible.

Thankfully I see less and less of it as time has gone on. The one church near us, whos denomination I will not mention, basically is very strict. Women must wear long dresses that are plain looking. They must not have jewelry. They cannot speak up in church. They cannot speak back to their husband. If so they are to be brought before the elders/pastor for correction.

One example is when I was homeschooled a "friend" I knew went to the church. His mother wouldn't ever say much. But when with my mother (wshe would lie to meet with us) she said she was abused by her husband. If she didn't make him what he wanted to eat, if she didn't take care of the kids in time...etc her husband would not only scream at her but punch her. My mother asked if she ever thought of telling the pastor. She said after one bad night of abuse her husband took her before the pastor and the pastor favored the husband saying he had done nothing wrong and she was to blame and he did the right thing to hit her since she was not obeying Gods law of her being submissive.

Now, I imagine churchs of this kind are rare where this kind of abuse is allowed. But none the less it shows men are to often told they have all the power when it comes to women. So to them a woman leading, especially a church might as well be up there with taking Gods name vain.

My wifes mother is a pastor at a church overseas. I see nothing wrong with it. Shes a powerful speaker and does really well at it. Her own husband who used to be a pastor cheated on her, left the church, became muslim and died from drinking or something along those lines.

 

[W2L]

I dont believe in following any teacher. Look at all the many denominations, and you will see that theological tradition is taught to these teachers and those things also divide us. I see faith far more simple than most denominations. I trust in the word and follow it.

 

[anna ~ grace]

There is a line of authority. Just as the Father is over the Son, so man is meant to head and lead the woman, in the home, and in the Church.

It doesn't mean that women are stupid, faithless, dull, or unable to learn or explain theology. It just means that as the man's role is meant to glorify the Father, the woman's role is meant to glorify the Son. It's a different, not an identical role, just as the role of the Son is not equal to the Father. Though fully God, the Son humbled Himself for the salvation of the world, and obeyed the Father. So there's a demonstration of the Holy Trinity being lived out, and honored.

It goes back to Creation, too, and to how man and woman were created. None of this means that women are less saved or capable of salvation than men. Or that women can not be holy, saintly, learned, or respected. But that the role of teaching and leading a flock of Christians should be a male role, not a female one.

 

[W2L]

I dont believe in following any teacher. Look at all the many denominations, and you will see that theological tradition is taught to these teachers and those things also divide us. I see faith far more simple than most denominations. I trust in the word and follow it.

This pretty much finishes the debate as far as im concerned. No teacher no contention.

Free yourselves from teachers and allow Gods holy spirit to teach.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

,,,,Can a woman who leads or preaches be any worse than some men who deceive, brainwash, and sleep with some of their flock?

Yes,
it happens a lot.

Like groups that say "we're not so bad - look over there how bad they are"
or
"the woman gave me to eat"

or
"the devil made me do it"

YHWH doesn't accept any of the excuses.

 

[RaymondG]

I feel this view stems from a misinterpretation of the word. If you take everything literally you have to agree, women should be silent. But is you are open to spiritual interpretation, it would have little to do with the sex of a person and applies to both male and female (being silent in the church, that is).

But which to interpret literal and which spiritually? If any man lack wisdoms, let him act of God (this too apply to both male and female.....not just man). One must be careful not to interpret base on what benefits themselves or sounds easier/better to the mind.

 

[PollyJetix]

It goes back to Creation, too, and to how man and woman were created. None of this means that women are less saved or capable of salvation than men. Or that women can not be holy, saintly, learned, or respected. But that the role of teaching and leading a flock of Christians should be a male role, not a female one.

Please show me the Scripture in Genesis that tells Eve to be subservient to Adam... or that tells Adam to rule over Eve.
You mention it was at Creation. Show me.

 

[bekkilyn]

If God did not intend women to teach and to lead, then he would not have given women the spiritual gifts (Romans 12:6-7) to do so. Since there are many women who have been graced with such gifts, are we to then claim that God is is in the wrong, that he accidentally gave people gifts that were meant for someone else? Oops! Paul once told some specific women in a specific church somewhere not to speak up and be disruptive in church so, sorry God, you're in the wrong on this one! You should have bestowed these gifts on men only!

Also there's "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." from Romans 16:7. (Emphasis mine). One has to wonder why Paul wasn't trying to put Junia back into her proper place as a lowly woman rather than instead recognizing her as an outstanding apostle. (I have read that some earlier translations added an 's" at the end of her name to try to turn her into a male.)

Not to mention that there is no male or female in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:28)

Perhaps our favorite NT apostles weren't as gender-biased as we've been led to believe. If we add some reason into our thinking, would a perfect God really have created something so harmful as sexism, or is it entirely a human failing within a fallen world? If we are to be made perfect in Christ, then it seems we would need to put such things behind us in our journeys to become more Christ-like.

"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. " (1 Cor 13:11)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Please show me the Scripture in Genesis that tells Eve to be subservient to Adam... or that tells Adam to rule over Eve.....

Isn't it both in Genesis and in Corinth ? < shrugs > so long ago....

 

[1213]

Why are so many church goers, especially Baptists (I am one.) in objection to a woman leading? Can a woman who leads or preaches be any worse than some men who deceive, brainwash, and sleep with some of their flock? I believe in a God who cannot therefore does not lie and will never change who He is for anyone. He is not that way. My other question is, if a woman was ordained to be a minister of a Catholic, or even Baptist Church, will that be against what some believe the Bible says about women who teach or lead?...

Jesus said:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

That is why, if you are disciple of Jesus, you should have just one leader, Jesus. Disciples should not follow any other human than Jesus. If man or woman wants to become master for you, I think you should stick to what Jesus said and keep him only as your master.

Any woman who seeks high position, is in my opinion in wrong path, same is with men who do that. Interesting thing is that it seems that women are more power hungry than men. If we for example look what happened in the Garden of Eden, it was woman who wanted to become like God. Maybe that is why man got the leading role.

Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
1 Tim. 2:14

Obviously, many would say that sexist, and that is why it may be good to only focus on that Jesus is the leader, for disciples of Jesus.

But interesting question is, is “sexism” really bad or wrong, or is there truth in it. Are women really good for leading positions? By what I see, women are more easily rejecting God’s words, and give up teachings that don’t feel nice. If that is really true, it could be good reason why women should not be leaders in church, because they lead Church away from the original teachings. And actually, there is a study that shows that women change more easily church, which could be bad thing, if the purpose is to preserve something.

http://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/2/3/358

Unfortunately, men have not also been very good at preserving the Bible teachings, but have gone astray in many ways.

But in any case, even if women would not be good in some job, it doesn’t mean they are then less valuable. People are valuable, even if they are not best in everything.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Sure. Please see Genesis 2:20-24, Genesis 3:16, I Corinthians 11:1-16, and I Timothy, 2.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Please show me the Scripture in Genesis that tells Eve to be subservient to Adam... or that tells Adam to rule over Eve.
You mention it was at Creation. Show me.

Sure. Please see Genesis 2:20-24, Genesis 3:16, I Corinthians 11:1-16, and I Timothy, 2.

 

[Traveling teacher]

Just because the American church over the last 50 years has allowed women to teach and have authority over men doesnt make it justified against Gods word.......

In genesis 3:16 your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you....
its because of eves sin in the garden
also men have to work in the sweat of their brow with an opressive boss
thats our curse from the bible.........

women who exercise authority over men in the church are in rebellion...
men who refuse to work and support their family are in rebellion......
worse than an infidel....I Timothy 5:8

 

[PollyJetix]

Sure. Please see Genesis 2:20-24, Genesis 3:16, I Corinthians 11:1-16, and I Timothy, 2.

First of all, you said it was a Creation principle, that Eve was to be dominated by Adam. (Or something to that effect.)
Genesis 2:20-24 is the only scripture reference from the time of Creation that you offered as proof. And it does not qualify.
Look at what it says:

Genesis 2:20-24
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Now, where in that passage does it say the Man is supposed to dominate his wife? Nowhere.
It only describes how Eve was formed from Adam's side. Not from his feet, nor from his head. His side.

More to the point, there are two Creation verses that give equally shared dominion to both Adam and Eve.
Dominion was never given to the Man, over Woman. It was given to Humankind, over Creation.

Genesis 1:27-28
27 So God created man (Hebrew means "a human being") in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Now, as to Genesis 3:16.
Wow.
Just look at it!

In fact, look at the entire section:
Genesis 3:16-19
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Is anything spoken to Adam viewed as a command?
"In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life."
"Thou shalt eat the herb of the field"
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, til thou return unto the ground"

Now THOSE sound like commands!
The language used, the way Adam was addressed.. those could easily be taken as ironclad commands from God. Only eating with sadness. Only eating with sweat on your face. (Never sit down to eat, until you work up a sweat!) Vegetarianism required of all godly males. (Females may eat meat if they wish.)

Yet this is more logical than the way the last clause of Genesis 3:16 is interpreted and applied.
Look closely at the language of what God said to Eve:
She is told her conception would multiply... and in sorrow "thou shalt" bring forth children. (That sounds like a command to every woman. No pain medication for childbirth, and no birth control.)

"Thy desire shall be to thy husband"... Is this command language? No. It's simply a prophecy of how she would feel.

"And he shall rule over thee."
This is spoken to Eve, not to Adam.
If it were a command, it would have been said completely backward from this.
It would have said, "And thou shalt submit to him."
But God did not say that.
God knows how to say what He means.

If it were a command for Adam to rule over his wife, then it would have been addressed to Adam, not to Eve!

Therefore, "he shall rule over thee" is not a command at all!
Instead, it is flowing in precisely the same pattern as the rest of the "curse".

And this is the pattern:
Since sin has entered the world, sin will make bad things happen.
You will struggle with pain and sorrow in childbirth. (It wasn't supposed to be like that.)
You will struggle with having to work harder than you were created to work, just to have the basic necessities of food and clothes. (It wasn't supposed to be that way!)
In struggling to get food, you will fight nature, as your gardens bring forth thorns and thistles. (It wasn't supposed to be that way!)

And in your relationships, sin will cause difficulties that never were supposed to happen.
Adam and Eve, you were both created with an instinct to dominate nature.
But since you have chosen to operate under Lucifer's leading, you have become like him, in wanting to exalt your own throne over other humans, to dominate them, even to their hurt.

Since sin has entered the world, sinful strong humans will hurtfully dominate the weaker humans.
This means women will suffer in their marriages.

Even though women understand how love works, and they will yearn over their husbands, wanting a deeper, more respectful, gentler, kinder relationship... yet those husbands will, because of their sin nature, put them down, belittle them, and even abuse them. (God did not design marriage to be that way!)

This is the only way the entire passage can be interpreted, without doing violence to all the rules of Scripture interpretation.

The entire passage is a prediction, not a prescription.

If the woman's portion is a prescription, then let the men also equally apply their entire portion as a prescription. (Else I smell a rat!)

All this passage is talking about, is bad consequences humans will face, because of sin. Stuff God never intended to happen. Stuff we all try to escape, with all kinds of ingenuity... men spray weed killer on those thistles, we all take pain medication, men love white-collar desk jobs, men wash the sweat off before dinner.

And it is equally okay for woman to try to escape hurtful male domination and abuse.

 

[PollyJetix]

Isn't it both in Genesis and in Corinth ? < shrugs > so long ago....

I have just explained Genesis 3:16.
The Corinthian passages are equally explainable.
Sigh.
How many times do I have to do this?