How can churches balance tradition with the evolving role of women in society and the church?

[Carry_Your_Name]

Here's where I came to rest on this. There is a history of corrupt male pastors in all denominations, so calling a male does not guarantee righteous leadership. I have not known a church that opposes female pastors including Catholic, Lutheran Brethren, Southern Baptist, and Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, that does not allow women to teach Bible studies, Sunday School classes, or fill other leadership roles in the church. I have to say this sure sounds hypocritical.

To be honest, women tend to be less stoic and more capricious, they are under the impact of hormonal ebbs and flows during their menstrual cycle, they are more sensitive to negative emotions; whereas men are generally more interested at things, their compositions and mechanisms, women are generally more interested at people, their feelings and relationships. This is a stereotypical assessment which applies to most women - not all women, but these qualities do put women in a disadvantage in regard of leadership. If your church preaches the true gospel of Christ and dares to expose the darkness, the lying narrative from the news, the evils spirits, to redpill the congregation, instead of generic "self help" motivational speeches with a Christian label, then be prepared for pushbacks from Satan, the trials and tribulations, you know, the immense pressure, the negative feedback, the vicious attacks, even political persecutions. True faith costs dearly, especially for the leader of a flock, not every woman can handle that.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That being said, one of the greatest challenges for today's church is addiction, which comes in many forms, either substance, behavior or both. In older generations, common addictions are alcohol, cigarettes, opioids, gamble; in younger generations, video games, social media, porn and junk food. The root cause is the same - human instinct of avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. When you're hit with negative emotions, hurt feelings or traumatic experiences, this instinct kicks in, the coping mechanism in the brain is activated to ease the pain with pleasure, and the quickest and easiest way is these addictions. This gives women a unique advantage, since women are more sensative to negative emotions, as I pointed out, they are able to identify and articulate these emotions, and they're more likely to find relief by speaking it out with other people; men on the other hand are not as acutely aware of these negative emotions as women, and they're generally reluctant to share or seek help because it'd be perceived as weakness and moral failure, they tend to lick their own wound in solitude, and that makes them more susceptible to addictive substances or behaviors. You may often hear from a woman confessing her struggle with junk food or social media, but very rarely from a man talk about these problems, it's hard for them to look beyond the symptoms and diagnose the root cause. I'm sorry if this is too much of a stretch from the topic, but speaking of women's role in the church, this is where women to stand out and take the mantle.

 

[WIP]

If all Scripture is inspired and given by God, who else could the "I" ultimately refer to? If it isn't God who inspired Paul to write what he did, then we need to throw our Bibles out.

How different it would be had Paul just said, do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet instead of adding "I." Then it would have been a command and not just his desire or preference or practice.

 

[Rodger]

I'm just trying to gain understanding. After all, this is the Theology forum and not apologetics. There are some in my circle of friends that, when discussing this topic, have pointed out that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). So then, since it is not appropriate to use proof texting and we need to take the whole of Scripture into account, how do we reconcile 1 Timothy 2 in light of Acts 18 and what role does the culture and the audience at the time have to play in this?

Dear "WIP". You are not asking me but If I may, I would like to give you some kind of explination on this topic. Please feel free to ignore me.

As with ALL Scriptures, the very most important thing to be aware of is CONTEXT. The background/Context of the people that Paul is writing to, is that the great majority came out of the
the pagan cult that worshiped the goddess Diana/Artemis. When any of those people became Christians, they brought all of that cultural and religious baggage into the church with them. Christianity was "new" and the church was "new" so they did what they always did.

Men were in charge of everything, and the men with the biggest stick (or the most money) were used to getting their way.

Their wives were very affluent and often very bored (because they had little status), so they got their way through manipulation—gossip, slander, opulence.

Different classes of people were highly segregated (the rich were far above the poor), and clothing often revealed one’s place in society.

It is from that perspective that God impressed upon Paul to write to those churches with letters of correction.

As stated, and it is fairly easy to validate this if you do the work....
The wealthy women in the church were wearing gaudy clothing to draw attention to themselves (perhaps sexually) and show off. There’s no place for that in the church. There’s a line between “dressing our best” and “dressing for attention”.

So when it comes to women as Pastors, Paul is talking about a very specific position: that of the senior most pastor. If a woman is not to have “authority” over a man, then a woman cannot be in a position of primary authority. I understand that a lot of people, mostly women do not like this.

However, if we are going to claim Christianity as our choice, then we must follow the directions of the Word of God. That being the case, the Bible tells us that the husband is the leader (the one responsible), and the wife is his helper and companion. Baggage has come in from those who have interpreted this to mean “The husband is in charge and the wife does what he says”.

That is not what the Bible says. And nowhere does the Bible say that all women are to submit to all men. The Bible says that a wife is to respect her own husband.

Now then, in the church women can be and can do everything except be the Pastor of the church according to the Bible.

 

[Rodger]

How different it would be had Paul just said, do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet instead of adding "I." Then it would have been a command and not just his desire or preference or practice.

Dear "WIP", may I answer your post by saying that Paul is authoritative as a holder of the office of apostle (1 Cor 1:1). When he says "I" do “not permit” he is speaking as a prophet who writes Holy Scripture and here is the key to that.........
2 Timothy 3:16-17and 2 Peter 1:21 agree in that.......
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

That means what Paul wrote was given to him by the Lord Jesus Christ.
I

 

[WIP]

I'm being brutally honest here. My next question may seem a bit strange, but should I be searching for a new church and leave this one because we called a woman to serve as our pastor even though so far in the three years that she has served us we have never heard any teaching contrary to Sscripture?

 

[Rodger]

I'm being brutally honest here. My next question may seem a bit strange, but should I be searching for a new church and leave this one because we called a woman to serve as our pastor even though so far in the three years that she has served us we have never heard any teaching contrary to Sscripture?

YES!

And to say that in "the three years that she has served us we have never heard any teaching contrary to Sscripture" is not a true statement unless she never used 1Timothy 3 as a text.

And that is me being brutally honest with you.

You should have left the day she 1st went to the pulpit!

The factual Biblical truth is that scripture establishes that the church leadership must be men, and since teaching is inherently a position of leadership, Paul also prohibited women teaching men in the church.

Anytime a woman is permitted to lead or teach men in violation of clear scriptural requirements, we display an uwillingness to follow Biblical authority. Such a perception is damaging to the church, because it suggests we may set aside the clear instructions of scripture whenever it suits us. Taken to its inevitable end, this attitude will lead to the church walking farther and farther away from the truth of God's word in into an acceptance of the enemy's lies.

YES....I am well aware that some will disagree with this, but in all due respect to those who disagree, I am a lot more concerned with what God has said than I am about what you think.
What God said is all that matters.

 

[Free]

God has quoted many different people into the Holy Scriptures. We must not confuse other people with God.

I really don't know what you're saying and how that relates to what I said.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1 Timothy 2:12 NKJV

You should have also noticed that I started out by saying that "I often wonder about this" and then proceeded to point directly to the first three words.

And, I guess you can claim a win by pointing out those two words I slipped in, "To me" but let's just say we can leave those words out and my point is still the same.

Similarly, here's an example from Scripture of women teaching and even correcting a man. Where in Scripture are they reprimanded for doing this?

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
Act 18:24-26 NKJV

Now, you are opening a huge subject upon which I have pondered within the Bible for decades. I'll try to summarize the biblical teachings. I go back to the beginning. The principle that God is teaching us in Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2 is that God created male and female equal in STATUS before him (Genesis 1:27) but with different ROLES or functions in their relationship with each other (Genesis 2:20).


Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

We can see by comparing Genesis 1:26 and 2:20 that the "dominion" of humans over the animal world fell to Adam as the leader in terms of his relationship with Eve, since she wasn't created yet when he had the responsibility to name them, an action that showed that he had authority over them.

Then, in verse 23, Adam names her "woman" (Ishah) with an ending on his name (Ish) before they fell into sin. After their descent into sinful rebellion, he names her Eve (Genesis 2:20) because of the curse that meant male dominance (Genesis 3:16).

Gen 3:16 To the woman, he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

Gen 3:20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Therefore, male leadership is NOT male dominance but is servant leadership, as Paul also says in Ephesians 5:22-27. In marriage, the husband's responsibilities are to serve all his wife's needs the way Jesus serves the church's needs. She must "submit" him as the "head," as the church also must to Christ. We must use the Bible's meanings, not our own, of its words. "Submit" means to voluntarily give in to someone's servant leadership, whereas "head" is clearly a servant-leader.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Paul also applies the same principle (1 Corinthians 11:3) to the church by referring to his own culture in the rest of that chapter and in 1 Timothy 2.

1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

1Ti 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

You neglected to quote 1 Timothy 2:13-14 as well, since Paul grounds his "opinion" in the order of God's creation of Adam and Eve as the reason he says that women must not "exercise authority" over men, thus taking our post back where we began.

Churches who take this biblical principle seriously, as they all should, have only male pastors and elders as the leaders who set the direction of those groups.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I'm being brutally honest here. My next question may seem a bit strange, but should I be searching for a new church and leave this one because we called a woman to serve as our pastor even though so far in the three years that she has served us we have never heard any teaching contrary to Sscripture?

Substance over form, not form over substance. Leave or not depends on WHAT is being preached, not WHO's preaching.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You neglected to quote 1 Timothy 2:13-14 as well, since Paul grounds his "opinion" in the order of God's creation of Adam and Eve as the reason he says that women must not "exercise authority" over men, thus taking our post back where we began.

Churches who take this biblical principle seriously, as they all should, have only male pastors and elders as the leaders who set the direction of those groups.

This is blatant misogyny, especially in most modern churches where more women regularly attend and participate than men. And if the pastor is morally weak or compromised, one who fails to meet the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3, then this could be a breeding ground for sex abuse, manipulation or harassment, it is highly irresponsible, even dangerous by putting our sisters in Christ at risk under his authority which he doesn't deserve. Think about how many such scandals have been exposed. No amount of damage could Satan cause to the church's credibility and reputation than the sleazeballs themselves among the clergy.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

As with ALL Scriptures, the very most important thing to be aware of is CONTEXT. The background/Context of the people that Paul is writing to, is that the great majority came out of the
the pagan cult that worshiped the goddess Diana/Artemis. When any of those people became Christians, they brought all of that cultural and religious baggage into the church with them. Christianity was "new" and the church was "new" so they did what they always did.

The background/context is proper ORDER in the church. It's about manners and civility. You speak only when you're given the floor and tghe microphone, if not, then be quiet and listen. You've got something to say, save it to the Q&A section or at least raise your hand first for permission. Don't follow congressman Al Green's example of rudely disrupting the president's state of the union speech and being escorted out of the chamber. This applies to both men and women.

 

[Free]

This is blatant misogyny, especially in most modern churches where more women regularly attend and participate than men.

If God has ordained roles for men and women, if he has put men in positions of spiritual authority in churches, and if he has stated that only men can can serve as pastors and teachers of the whole congregation, then your claim of misogyny is against God. For someone who dislikes others using labels, you’re very quick to use them yourself.

This is about what the Bible says, not culture. But you are arguing from culture to the Bible, which is precisely the opposite of what we’re to do. If God ordains something, then that is what we follow regardless of what culture says.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

If God has ordained roles for men and women, if he has put men in positions of spiritual authority in churches, and if he has stated that only men can can serve as pastors and teachers of the whole congregation, then your claim of misogyny is against God. For someone who dislikes others using labels, you’re very quick to use them yourself.

This is about what the Bible says, not culture. But you are arguing from culture to the Bible, which is precisely the opposite of what we’re to do. If God ordains something, then that is what we follow regardless of what culture says.

Those big "ifs" are your own prejudice. God respects and honors women, the first witness of the resurrection was a woman rather than any of the 12 disciples; Paul greeted fellow sisters in Christ in Rom. 16 - Pheobe, Priscilla, Julia, just to name a few. It is both a historical and biblical fact that God did put women in charge, for there's no male or female, all are one in the body of Christ, who are you to discriminate women by quoting scripture out of context? Actually it is you who's arguing from the "purity culture" and "gender roles", those are man made traditions not ordained by God at all.

 

[Free]

Those big "ifs" are your own prejudice.

Those are legitimate "ifs" and have absolutely nothing to do with any prejudice on my part. Stick to addressing the issues and stop violating the ToS by making things personal.

God respects and honors women, the first witness of the resurrection was a woman rather than any of the 12 disciples; Paul greeted fellow sisters in Christ in Rom. 16 - Pheobe, Priscilla, Julia, just to name a few.

Of course, and that has no bearing to anything I've said.

It is both a historical and biblical fact that God did put women in charge,

Where in the Bible, especially the NT, did "God put women in charge"?

for there's no male or female, all are one in the body of Christ,

This is a misuse of Scripture.

Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (ESV)

What is the context?

who are you to discriminate women by quoting scripture out of context?

I am not at all discriminating against women and you haven't shown that I have taken anything out of context. It's just your opinion. And, once again, stick to addressing the issues.

Actually it is you who's arguing from the "purity culture" and "gender roles", those are man made traditions not ordained by God at all.

I'm not arguing from anything but Scripture. What God says it what matters. Do you really think God hasn't ordained certain gender roles or that he hasn't created women and men differently so as to generally be better suited to different roles?

 

[Rodger]

Now, you are opening a huge subject upon which I have pondered within the Bible for decades. I'll try to summarize the biblical teachings. I go back to the beginning. The principle that God is teaching us in Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2 is that God created male and female equal in STATUS before him (Genesis 1:27) but with different ROLES or functions in their relationship with each other (Genesis 2:20).


Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Gen 2:19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

We can see by comparing Genesis 1:26 and 2:20 that the "dominion" of humans over the animal world fell to Adam as the leader in terms of his relationship with Eve, since she wasn't created yet when he had the responsibility to name them, an action that showed that he had authority over them.

Then, in verse 23, Adam names her "woman" (Ishah) with an ending on his name (Ish) before they fell into sin. After their descent into sinful rebellion, he names her Eve (Genesis 2:20) because of the curse that meant male dominance (Genesis 3:16).

Gen 3:16 To the woman, he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

Gen 3:20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Therefore, male leadership is NOT male dominance but is servant leadership, as Paul also says in Ephesians 5:22-27. In marriage, the husband's responsibilities are to serve all his wife's needs the way Jesus serves the church's needs. She must "submit" him as the "head," as the church also must to Christ. We must use the Bible's meanings, not our own, of its words. "Submit" means to voluntarily give in to someone's servant leadership, whereas "head" is clearly a servant-leader.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Paul also applies the same principle (1 Corinthians 11:3) to the church by referring to his own culture in the rest of that chapter and in 1 Timothy 2.

1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

1Ti 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

You neglected to quote 1 Timothy 2:13-14 as well, since Paul grounds his "opinion" in the order of God's creation of Adam and Eve as the reason he says that women must not "exercise authority" over men, thus taking our post back where we began.

Churches who take this biblical principle seriously, as they all should, have only male pastors and elders as the leaders who set the direction of those groups.

Men as pastors was directed by God in churches the very same way He did to families.

It is all about "Accountability".

As you correctly stated, Adam was created 1st and woman out of the man.

 

[jasonc]

a mother any mother isn't a man made idea but something God made

men are commanded to love their spouse ,even to die for them as Christ did for them .

while that doesn't mean women aren't to live their husbands only that God ordained by nature man to defend ,care for their spouse .

that isn't to say women can't defend their family .my wife knows the business end of a gun .but I'm better built by God ,men are in general ,to do so .

by training and nature I would love to go into tactical gun training again and enjoy it .my wife not so much . I would find the drills being enjoying as it filled the hole left when I retired from the military .

my wife is a tomboy but wasn't trained nor honed her sense of danger to where a shoot house would be her liking . that's ok. she excels where I don't .


she finds growing enjoyable ,chicken raising etc enjoyable .she can't fix the AC in her truck .I did .she understands old school wrenching from her dad and brother as they raced and she was around it . but not drawn to it.her brother raced and owns a body shop .

she gets more emotional at war then I do .I have to disconnect myself.i have tasted it . I use dark humour to deal with it . she finds that abhorrent .

I avoid horror movies for that reason .I will be a bit numb after watching one ,she won't but I digress .

my point is that the sexes are very much not the same .

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Those are legitimate "ifs" and have absolutely nothing to do with any prejudice on my part. Stick to addressing the issues and stop violating the ToS by making things personal.

No they're not, they are your own opinions, especially your misogynistic statement "only men can can serve as pastors and teachers of the whole congregation".

Of course, and that has no bearing to anything I've said.

Of course, and that has no bearing to anything the bible has said.

Where in the Bible, especially the NT, did "God put women in charge"?

Rom. 16:1-2. Pheobe was a deacon of Cenchrea, she was entrusted with the book of Romans, and the Roman church was told to assist her.

This is a misuse of Scripture.

Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (ESV)

What is the context?

God is not a racist, classist or sexist, all are heirs of God through faith. As long as Eve was made in God's image as a partner equal and comparable to Adam, God loves His daughters as much as his sons.

I am not at all discriminating against women and you haven't shown that I have taken anything out of context. It's just your opinion. And, once again, stick to addressing the issues.

The issue is women's right to teach God's holy words, your "ifs" are just your opinion with no bearing in the Scripture. The context of 1 Tim. 2:8-15 is about proper behavior and conduct in the church for both men and women, you have repeatedly taken 8:11-12 out of that context in your previous posts.

In fact, Mary Magdalene was instructed by Christ to inform the disciples of His resurrection, sister Pheobe entrusted to bear and teach the Romans letter, and Aquila and Priscilla were allowed to correct Apollo, none of them was silenced.

I'm not arguing from anything but Scripture. What God says it what matters. Do you really think God hasn't ordained certain gender roles or that he hasn't created women and men differently so as to generally be better suited to different roles?

God has ordained the church as the BODY of Christ. Pastor, priest, bishop, worship leader or reverend is not the head, Christ is, He has the highest authority, He is the one and only spiritual head over both men and women in the church, that's what God really said. Your justification of "gender roles" is taking God's name in vain.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ... And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. (Col. 1:15-18)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

my point is that the sexes are very much not the same .

My point is that message is more important than the messenger, substance over form. If the word of God is spiritual food, God is the cook, and the teacher behind the pulpit is the one who serves the meal. In that case, I believe most of the congregation cares more about the quality of the meal than whether it's served by a waiter or a waitress.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

As you correctly stated, Adam was created 1st and woman out of the man.

And yet Adam had abdicated his authority. He had revised God's instruction (compare Gen. 3:2-3 and 2:16-17), caved in to Eve when forbidden fruit was presented to him (Gen. 3:6), blamed Eve for his fault, and subtly blamed God for giving Eve to him (Gen. 3:12). Whenever you pound hard on your talking point "Adam was created first", don't forget these inconvenient facts.