Women in the Pulpit

[Mike S]

I've come to this discussion late, but I'm going to add my view now.

I see no reason women should not be pastors. I see no reason women should be different from men, or subservient to men, in leadership in the church at all levels of authority. Most of the reasoning against women in authority seems to me to come from a literal interpretation of scripture, such as in Timothy, that condemn it. In order to support this position one needs not only literal interpretation but selective literal interpretation of scripture, ignoring scriptures such as Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus" and 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 concerning dress and head-coverings.

Speaking from my Wesleyan heritage, scripture is of primary importance for understanding God's will and how we're called to live in the world, but not the only importance. It is necessary to acknowledge that the Bible has been interpreted in many different ways. In truth, it's impossible to not interpret. Scriptures are often taken out of context as proof texts at the expense of understanding a larger narrative. For this reason, we don't read the Bible in isolation, but seek to understand through the lens of reason, tradition and experience. We don't think we can be people who have mastered God's word, but, rather, we understand ourselves as imperfect creatures relying on the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth John 14:26.

When we look to the Pauline scriptures that speak against women have authority in the church it's necessary to acknowledge what the rest of scripture has to say about the nature of women and the roles in God's kingdom, a nature and role of equality.

 

[Deborah13]

So, while it looks as though the instruction about women in 1 Timothy 2 is regarding the home, I think that it needs to be placed in the greater context of the letter Paul was writing to Timothy, which was specifically about how to administer a church in a godly way.

This is the scripture I had in mind when I interpret 1 Timothy 2:11-15. They say the same thing to me.

I Corinthians 14:34-35 YLT
<sup class="versenum">34 </sup>Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith;
<sup class="versenum">35 </sup>and if they wish to learn anything, at home their own husbands let them question, for it is a shame to women to speak in an assembly.

 

[farouk]

I'm not now referring to anyone's posts now.

But on a subject such as this, sometimes the hermeneutic rule seems to be:

"Wonderful things in the Bible I see,
Especially what's put there by you and by me."

 

[turnorburn]

That's what its coming to isn't it "usurp authority over" is translated from the single Greek word "authenteo" sorry if i make a reference here that offends anyone but this isn't a popularity contest. This is beginning to look like those days when the priests from Rome were the only ones that understood the "Mysteries" and had the keys of understanding, well, isn't it? Next thing you know a bull will be written making Latin the official language of the church.

tob

 

[Free Christian]

I read in 1 Timothy 3 v 1 to 16 examples of how a pastor, bishop, must be as well as elders, deacons, speaking clearly of men. No mention of women but men. The same in Titus 1 v 6. The Bible teaches us clearly on this, its people wanting what they want who construct it to suit themselves. The Bible does clearly teach us though to greatly respect and love those women who labour for the Lord but never refers to them as Pastors or teachers.

 

[Maedchen]

Hello all.

Just adding to Deborah's quote of 1. Cor. 14:34,35.
I think that Paul clearly meant what he said, namely that women "are not permitted to speak", "for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

The original Greek word for "speak" is:
λαλέω
laleō
lal-eh'-o

A prolonged form of an otherwise obsolete verb; to talk, that is, utter words: - preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter.
(from "e-sword")

Paul emphasized this rule in verses 37,38:
"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

May God bless you.
Maedchen

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Most of the reasoning against women in authority seems to me to come from a literal interpretation of scripture, such as in Timothy, that condemn it. In order to support this position one needs not only literal interpretation but selective literal interpretation of scripture, ignoring scriptures such as Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus" and 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 concerning dress and head-coverings.

But look what he starts the chapter out with:

"<sup class="versenum">3 </sup>But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:3 NASB)

<sup class="versenum">13 </sup>For it was Adam who was first created, andthen Eve." (1 Timothy 2:13 NASB)

This is why I have no problem taking Paul's teaching quite literally, and also feel that the literal understanding is not UNrightly divided unto itself (it speaks so forthrightly all by itself).

Does man have authority over Christ? Does Christ have authority over God the Father? No, of course not. Clearly woman does not have authority over man. I know that's not PC these days, but what can I say?

 

[Mike S]

Most of the reasoning against women in authority seems to me to come from a literal interpretation of scripture, such as in Timothy, that condemn it. In order to support this position one needs not only literal interpretation but selective literal interpretation of scripture, ignoring scriptures such as Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus" and 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 concerning dress and head-coverings.

But look what he starts the chapter out with:

"<sup class="versenum">3 </sup>But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:3 NASB)

<sup class="versenum">13 </sup>For it was Adam who was first created, andthen Eve." (1 Timothy 2:13 NASB)

This is why I have no problem taking Paul's teaching quite literally, and also feel that the literal understanding is not UNrightly divided unto itself (it speaks so forthrightly all by itself).

Does man have authority over Christ? Does Christ have authority over God the Father? No, of course not. Clearly woman does not have authority over man. I know that's not PC these days, but what can I say?

It has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with understanding that not everything Paul said is consistent with everything else he says. You choose to pick the scriptures that support your position and ignore those that contradict. You use selective literal interpretation. And if one believes that the Bible is absolutely literally correct in every detail in every scripture, he's left chasing his tail trying to resolve the contradictions. God's word is perfect in every detail, but man's ability to understand it is not.

I look behind the individual contradictory scriptures to see the larger narrative behind the interpretations. The larger narrative in my view is one of total equality in Christ; no Jew, no Gentile, no slave, no master, no man, no woman. All equal in all respects, in God's eyes, and in Christ's church.

 

[Asyncritus]

Aren't you saying that you don't care what Paul says: this is your view and you're sticking to it?

It would be a pity if that is your intention.

I've debated this particular topic extensively, and every argument in favour of women leading the church, and not wearing headcoverings in the church, seems to fail on 1 Cor 11.2-4.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

No one is able to controvert these statements.

If we argue that women should NOT wear headcoverings, as many do - on cultural grounds as a rule - then we need to be consistent and say men OUGHT to have their heard covered - on cultural grounds as well.

Sikhs wear turbans (as do many other groups), and if a Sikh was to become Christian, then within the church it would be fine for him to retain the symbol of being a sikh. Would it? What do you think?

That's a cultural argument, but it must fail on the apostle's pronouncement.

 

[Mike S]

Aren't you saying that you don't care what Paul says: this is your view and you're sticking to it?

No, but it may be what you're doing when you ignore Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I do care what Paul said, but, he said many things and some of them are contradictory. Paul was an apostle, but still a man and still imperfect. I'm not willing to ignore that or flop around trying to made excuses for it. I try to understand the Bible in it's entirely, not pick and choose proof texts.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Aren't you saying that you don't care what Paul says: this is your view and you're sticking to it?

No, but it may be what you're doing when you ignore Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I do care what Paul said, but, he said many things and some of them are contradictory. Paul was an apostle, but still a man and still imperfect. I'm not willing to ignore that or flop around trying to made excuses for it. I try to understand the Bible in it's entirely, not pick and choose proof texts.

Then, from the very same sentence of Paul's instruction I cited, you also have no problem with man having authority over Christ, and Christ having authority over the Father, right?

Part of the problem with the Galatians 3:28 verse you use to defend your argument is the church is so terribly ignorant of the law. The law discriminated by race and gender and birthright in regard to the covenant itself. IOW, a person's place, not just their duties, in the kingdom was determined by race, gender, and birthright. But in Christ those natural restrictions are removed and all have equal unhindered access to the Father through the One New Man Jesus Christ.

This does not mean there is no more distinction between men and women in the kingdom, and in regard to the various duties within the kingdom. There is no male/female, Jew/gentile distinction in regard to the new spiritual Man and His access to the Father. But we continue in those distinctions in the flesh, and the roles each are expected to fulfill in the kingdom, to one extent or another.

These are two very distinct teachings in the Bible. Equal access to the Father through Christ is one. And the God ordained order and structure of service within the kingdom is another.

I'd say if it's true what you say about their being no more male/ female distinction in the people of God then we can throw the prohibition against same sex marriage out the window, too.

 

[Asyncritus]

Correctly said, Jethro.

The abolition (if that's the word) of male and female sexuality will only take place in the kingdom of God, when the redeemed will be 'like the angels, neither giving or being given in marriage'.

Mt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mr 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

Therefore the gender distinction still stands, Jesus Himself using the same Greek word, and implying that the gender distinction still stands. Paul stands with Him on the issue:

Jesus (about marriage)

Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female <2338>,
Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female <2338>.

Paul (about homosexuality):

Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women <2338> did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Ro 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman <2338>, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I have to admit, this subject is a super confusing one to me. I don't get why God would say men and women are equal in one verse, and then in others imply the opposite by saying men should always be in authority. It makes no sense. None. And yet it's in the Bible.
Good point, too, that we don't follow the verse about women wearing headcoverings in church...although I remember reading somewhere that that was more of a practice at the time and in that place to which Paul originally wrote the letter. We do have to keep in mind that the letters written to different churches often addressed specific circumstances in that church.

That's what its coming to isn't it "usurp authority over" is translated from the single Greek word "authenteo" sorry if i make a reference here that offends anyone but this isn't a popularity contest. This is beginning to look like those days when the priests from Rome were the only ones that understood the "Mysteries" and had the keys of understanding, well, isn't it? Next thing you know a bull will be written making Latin the official language of the church.

tob

I don't get it? The NT was originally written in Greek, so naturally looking back to the Greek manuscript can be helpful as a study-aid and gaining a better understanding of scripture. (But obviously, to do that you either have to refer to people who do know Greek, or learn it yourself.) It's not necessary in order to read and learn from the Bible, especially since the Holy Spirit is there to help us understand, but it's still helpful.
My aunt (a KJVonlyist, BTW) also has a Bible which has side-by-side comparisons with the original Hebrew of the OT. She said that she had studied Hebrew a little.

That said, while I found what was said regarding the verse in Timothy's original Greek wording interesting and feel it makes sense, I'm not sure if I believe it or not. I'd have to some of my own research.

 

[Tony Hyman]

John 15 :8 "This is to my Fathers glory,that you bear much fruit,showing yourselves to be my disciples"
There is nothing in this chapter which stipulates the differance or pecking order between "disciples" ie all who follow him.I would construe this to include females as well.Are they also not part of the vine as contemplated in the general spirit of the chapter as a whole.

How is she "to show herself to be my desciple" if she has to keep her mouth shut in Church as the Hebrew Laws would have it.
The term "If a man remains in me and I in him" cannot possibly be strickly interpreted to mean men to the exclusion of females.
This would mean that Females would not be intitled to be Christians under the Covernant (NT).

Christ dose not speak of pulpits or church buildings here, regardless of mankinds perseption of how Gods house should look and who must or may not speak according to worldly standards.Churches who wish to maintain the structures of the Levite Order of the O .T. for what ever reasons already refered to in a post above ,do so by choice and that is their given right ,to be respected.

Peter who walked with Christ says in I Peter 2:9 "But you are chosen people, a royal priesthood ,a holy nation a people belonging to God"
No mention of "men only" as I interpret Peter.Paul has his own opinions in his use of the term "I forbid" in his letters to Timothy also aready refered to,but this is not what Christ says .
Therefore if a female wishes to preach from a pulpit or even a soap box in the middle of Time Square or the Top of Table Mountain in order to gather fruits ,who are we to say she may not.
Quotes N.I.V.

 

[Deborah13]

Good point, too, that we don't follow the verse about women wearing headcoverings in church

Just as historical interest within our times. When I was a girl, not one woman entered the Catholic church without a head covering, in CT, that I know of, it was required. My catholic friends as young girls all wore them.

When I was 14, we went on a freshman class trip to New York City, to Rockefeller Center. Directly across from the center is St Patrick's Cathedral. We all had little lace coverings, either a scarf or round doily lace to wear. Without them women were not allowed to enter.

Protestant women wore hats to church. The Sunday go to meeting hat was a big deal.

 

[evenifigoalone]

It has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with understanding that not everything Paul said is consistent with everything else he says. You choose to pick the scriptures that support your position and ignore those that contradict. You use selective literal interpretation. And if one believes that the Bible is absolutely literally correct in every detail in every scripture, he's left chasing his tail trying to resolve the contradictions. God's word is perfect in every detail, but man's ability to understand it is not.

I look behind the individual contradictory scriptures to see the larger narrative behind the interpretations. The larger narrative in my view is one of total equality in Christ; no Jew, no Gentile, no slave, no master, no man, no woman. All equal in all respects, in God's eyes, and in Christ's church.

I'm curious as to whether you have any more specific explanation about why the verses regarding women not speaking in church and such? I do get what you are saying, as there does seem to be a contradiction. But there has to be more to it than that, or there has to be some explanation.
God's ways are mysterious and not our ways, yeah, but I've never known God to command anything outside of the bounds of reason. So there must be a good reason, or some explanation. And while I could definitely be wrong, "He made men to always rule over women" makes no reasonable or logical sense.

Or maybe I should just defer to this:
"But I'll just have to accept
That my mind is so inept
And the only thing that's left to do is to trust You"
~The Truth, by Relient K
(Don't mind me, I just really like that song and so many times I feel like I'm in the position that it describes.)

 

[reba]

When God sees us he does not see gender ,etc. He sees the blood of Christ.

How we inter act with each other includes gender ... That is how I do not see a conflict

 

[Mike S]

Aren't you saying that you don't care what Paul says: this is your view and you're sticking to it?

No, but it may be what you're doing when you ignore Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I do care what Paul said, but, he said many things and some of them are contradictory. Paul was an apostle, but still a man and still imperfect. I'm not willing to ignore that or flop around trying to made excuses for it. I try to understand the Bible in it's entirely, not pick and choose proof texts.

Then, from the very same sentence of Paul's instruction I cited, you also have no problem with man having authority over Christ, and Christ having authority over the Father, right?

Wrong. But, I see you're doing exactly as I expected. You're flopping all over the place, desperately trying to twist contradictory scriptures into somehow excusing Paul's inconsistency...and failing, BTW.[/QUOTE]

 

[evenifigoalone]

Being raised the way I was: I also get that the whole "wives submit to your husbands" thing is a picture of Christ and the church...but still. I also get that men and women are emotionally different and have different roles, but still. Aren't they both to be equal?
And look, I've done my homework regarding this. I've argued with atheists about it and pointed out that it's not all as one-sided as it seems as husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loves the church and all that. But still, that doesn't mean I understand it or why women have to be under authority in the first place.

 

[Mike S]

When God sees us he does not see gender ,etc. He sees the blood of Christ.

How we inter act with each other includes gender ... That is how I do not see a conflict

Then it's a cultural thing that can change, isn't it reba, not a core element of Christian theology. Whether or not women can have authority over men, and have leadership roles in the church, can change over time and with evolving cultures without effecting Christ's message at all. That message is one of complete and total equality, in all respects.

See what happens when we try to make everything Paul says something completely consistent with Christ's message? Paul was an imperfect man living in an imperfect world entirely within a culture of his time. A disciple, yes, but none the less, an imperfect man shaped by his culture.