Women leadership forbidden - Frowned at!!!

[Deborah13]

Wait a minute. How does husband and wife apply in such a scenario...take for instance in a church where the males are not yet married...or maybe let's say in the youth department of a church.

What if she doesn't have a husband maybe he died.

 

[Kathi]

Wouldn't you consider a deacon or prophet a leader? There are female deacons and prophets mentioned in that scripture? How do you reconcile that with saying women shouldn't be leaders according to scripture, unless you don't consider those leadership positions?

This is why I am saying this is a confusing subject that probably won't get solved any time soon. :yes

What do you mean by a prophet?Is that the title of a Church leader?

 

[Edward]

such a thought pops up many possibilities and speculations. When the woman is leading...this is akin to saying the man is already sinning or backsliding or is nonchalant with his Godly responsibility.

Before the fall.... seems to place woman exactly the same position as man...but I don't get it why God had to blame Adam first. was he the boss before the fall?

Sure, Adam was boss before the fall. What we're not doing here in this thread is reconciling this question with the the context of the entire bible. Yes, it's true and scriptural that women should not be leaders, that's the mans role. Still with me? Ok. Why not? Because women, due to their makeup, are easily deceived and could create havoc within the congregation with improper teachings.

But in other places in scripture, it holds women up? Oh my, what to do, what to think?! How about, "With God all things are possible" and His ways are above our ways.

Times and seasons brothers and sisters. Women play a bigger role in these times than of old because of the season, and God.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[Obadiah]

What do you mean by a prophet?Is that the title of a Church leader?

I don't know if it's supposed to be or not, I'm just taking the word right out of scripture. Some churches do use the title of "Prophet" for a leadership office. Among other female prophets, in the NT there is Anna in Luke 2:36a, KJV: "And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel..." The original word translated to "prophetess" is "prophētis" and is defined as "a woman to whom future events or things hidden from others are at times revealed, either by inspiration or by dreams and visions". It's hard to imagine God giving a person this gift, then putting a gag order on them.

There is also Phoebe, who was a deacon, mentioned in Romans 16:1 (NIV) "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae." the word translated to deacon is "diakonos" which is defined as "a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use".

These are both clearly talking about women in scripture and there are others as well. these are just two examples. There is no mention that they shouldn't have been in these positions. It seems to me that they are leadership positions. Every church I've been in that has deacons or prophets considered them to be church leaders. (The Mormon church is not the only one with a leadership position called "Prophet.) It's hard to imagine that a person with the gift of prophecy would be expected to remain silent in the church, and we clearly have a woman in scripture who was a prophet. Likewise with deacons. Since deacons are servants who do much organizing of church functions and even control the finances of the church, it's hard to imagine a deacon being able to function under an order of silence. Yet we have clear scripture indicating the church had female deacons.

It seems we have several scriptures in several places indicating female leaders in the church, and only the one or two passages seemingly condemning this. I've heard a lot of rationalization on both sides of this argument, but I find a lot of it seems to be the result of well meaning people trying to support their own views on this. In my own personal opinion I find I just don't know... Maybe there was some other reason for Paul's order for women to be silent that wasn't meant for all women in all church situations? Maybe there was something more specifically in this situation that we are missing in modern times? Or maybe the female deacons and prophets that are mentioned in scripture are being condemned for taking on these rolls and that has somehow been lost in the translation of all of those passages? I just don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision on this, and can only guess. But if I had to guess, I would have to side with the multiple verses showing females in leadership roles that don't seem to have been condemned for it, and assume there must have been something else going on when Paul said women must remain silent. However, if I were somehow in a position to write the doctrinal statement for a church, I'm afraid I would be unqualified to address this particular subject. I'm only taking a somewhat educated guess.

That's why I find these things confusing as it seems most other people do as well. I don't think we are going to have a clear answer until we meet God face to face and ask Him (IF it even matters at that point!) I don't have an answer but it's hard for me to not think that in light of these two women's positions, and others, being accepted in scripture that there must be something in Paul's order of silence that we in modern times are missing.

 

[Edward]

Obadiah:..These are both clearly talking about women in scripture and there are others as well. these are just two examples. There is no mention that they shouldn't have been in these positions. It seems to me that they are leadership positions. Every church I've been in that has deacons or prophets considered them to be church leaders. (The Mormon church is not the only one with a leadership position called "Prophet.) It's hard to imagine that a person with the gift of prophecy would be expected to remain silent in the church, and we clearly have a woman in scripture who was a prophet. Likewise with deacons. Since deacons are servants who do much organizing of church functions and even control the finances of the church, it's hard to imagine a deacon being able to function under an order of silence. Yet we have clear scripture indicating the church had female deacons..

Hey, I just thought of something. Maybe Paul was talking about female members of the congregation and not about the female church leaders?

 

[Obadiah]

Hey, I just thought of something. Maybe Paul was talking about female members of the congregation and not about the female church leaders?

I've heard this before too. As I said, it's a subject that even knowledgeable theologians can't agree on, so I doubt any of us common folk ever will. When we look at the verse in 1st Timothy there is controversy over the translation. In 1 Tim 2:11 (KJV) "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." and 1 Tim 2:12 (KJV) "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" the word translated to "woman" in both of these verses is the Greek "gynē" which also can mean "wife" depending on the context. Also in Verse 12 the Greek word "anēr" which is translated to "man" can also mean "husband" depending on the context.

This is also the case in 1 Cor 14:34 (KJV) "Let your women (gynē) keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" and in 1 Cor 14:35 (KJV) "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands (anēr) at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I don't really have any answers for this and I can see both sides of it, but the more I read, and the more I look at what other scripture says, the more I tend to think that Paul wasn't really trying to say all women must be silent in the church at all times or that they are prohibited from any type of leadership. We have to look at passages in the context of all scripture, and we see other places where Paul speaks of women in positions of teaching and authority, and he doesn't condemn them or speak negatively of them in any way. If this were a wrong thing for all women in all situations, why would Paul mention it favorably in one place and condemn them in another place? That doesn't make sense to me. Of course, it does make sense if we think of the passages I mentioned above as referring to relationships between husbands and wives instead of the relationship between all women and the rest of the church in general. Since this interpretation lines up with the other times Paul favorably mentions women in positions such as deacons and prophets, I'm tending to lean toward this as a more probable true meaning of these verses.

In the verse pertaining to the women of the Corinthian church in particular, we know that that the first letter of Paul to that church was addressing all manner of ridiculous things that shouldn't have been going on. I've heard it explained that the situation with the women "speaking" was most likely one of groups of women hanging around gossiping and arguing with each other while the worship or other things were going on, therefore being a distraction. I don't know if there is any historical evidence that this was happening or not, but it would make more sense to me in light of other scripture if something like this were what Paul was addressing. There were a number of things in 1 Corinthians that Paul addressed that were aimed at specific problems in that particular church.

In light of this, I tend to lean to the side of seeing no reason a woman can't have a position of leadership or teaching in a church. I think there are many conceivable situations where she can certainly be a church leader and still submit to her husband (if she is married) as a wife should. I suppose it's possible to nit-pick away at every possible situation and find the rare circumstances where this may not be true if someone really wants to not accept it. But it seems to me in general that it shouldn't be a problem.

But as Paul said: "This is me saying this, not the Lord!" The church I work at doesn't allow women to be pastors, deacons, elders, or any other "position of leadership", although they do allow them to be teachers and had a woman youth "director" for a time. This makes no sense to me (that they can be teachers or "directors" in light of the other restrictions), but I don't try to fight them on it or go against what they do. I'm just an employee there and I'm not looking to cause problems or divisions. Likewise here, I don't know that my current view on this is right or not. I'm just putting out some food for thought on this that I have seen and heard over the years as well as seen in my own research. I personally tend to shy away from saying women must be silent in all situations in church and can't be leaders in any situation.

 

[Classik]

Obadiah, thanks for the interesting term paper :wink. I read it all.
However I have a question for you. do you think that Paul's statement applied only for the people of that time? does God have a different view of the situation?

 

[Obadiah]

Obadiah, thanks for the interesting term paper :wink. I read it all.

LOL. I took a typing class in high school. There are a number of people who would like to chew out that teacher for ever teaching me how to type!

However I have a question for you. do you think that Paul's statement applied only for the people of that time? does God have a different view of the situation?

I don't think so. I wouldn't put it that way.

As I said before, I find this a confusing subject that I don't have any real answers for that I am confident enough in to say "This is what scripture says on this subject". But I am leaning more toward the idea Paul's negative comments about women were maybe not meant in the way some people interpret them today, in that women are to be silent or can not be leaders. Especially keeping in mind the repressive attitude of men toward women during the time scriptures were first being translated into English and that all the translators back then were men, it's not inconceivable that a slant against women could have been inadvertently put in. Such as gyne being translated to "woman" instead of "wife" in order to make it seem Paul was saying women could not lead in church, instead of simply saying they (wives who are "in church" as in "Christian wives") should not lead or be in "in charge" or "over" their husbands in their marriages. It could certainly be possible for a married woman to be a deacon, an elder, a teacher, or even a pastor in her church without that position making her an authority over her husband in their marriage. For a single woman, this wouldn't even be an issue. So I wouldn't say God has a different view today. I would more suggest that perhaps we have a different view today that is causing some of us to interpret scriptures such as this in ways that weren't intended.

 

[Edward]

LOL. I took a typing class in high school. There are a number of people who would like to chew out that teacher for ever teaching me how to type!


I don't think so. I wouldn't put it that way.

As I said before, I find this a confusing subject that I don't have any real answers for that I am confident enough in to say "This is what scripture says on this subject". But I am leaning more toward the idea Paul's negative comments about women were maybe not meant in the way some people interpret them today, in that women are to be silent or can not be leaders. Especially keeping in mind the repressive attitude of men toward women during the time scriptures were first being translated into English and that all the translators back then were men, it's not inconceivable that a slant against women could have been inadvertently put in. Such as gyne being translated to "woman" instead of "wife" in order to make it seem Paul was saying women could not lead in church, instead of simply saying they should not lead or be in "in charge" or "over" their husbands in their marriages. It could certainly be possible for a woman to be a deacon, and elder, a teacher, or even a pastor in her church without that position making her an authority over her husband in their marriage. So I wouldn't say God has a different view today. I would more suggest that perhaps we have a different view today that is causing some of us to interpret scriptures such as this in ways that weren't intended.

I like how you think, Obadiah, and feel that you are very probably correct. A couple other things which we should consider in this issue, is ego (of the man and of the woman), and the Holy Spirit.

My (ex) wife was very egotistical, and very vocal about things to do with the church. It's easy for me to realize that she should be silent in church, and that I, as her spiritual leader, should deal with her and her issues at home rather than letting her become vocal and disruptive in church. Which is what I did. Now if the man were egotistical, and tried to suppress the woman from a vain position instead of a scriptural position, that too, is bad and wrong.

Holy Spirit? What if the woman is led of the Spirit? Make her a Pastor and let the Spirit teach through her! I am not so proud that I could not learn from a woman. Indeed, some women here on this board has taught me things and built me up spiritually.

There's more to this than blanket statements like, be quiet in church dear, and you'll never be an elder or teacher. How presumptuous would that be?!

Good post and perspective, Obadiah. Praise the Lord for your presence on this board.

 

[Deborah13]

I've heard this before too. As I said, it's a subject that even knowledgeable theologians can't agree on, so I doubt any of us common folk ever will. When we look at the verse in 1st Timothy there is controversy over the translation. In 1 Tim 2:11 (KJV) "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." and 1 Tim 2:12 (KJV) "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" the word translated to "woman" in both of these verses is the Greek "gynē" which also can mean "wife" depending on the context. Also in Verse 12 the Greek word "anēr" which is translated to "man" can also mean "husband" depending on the context.

This is also the case in 1 Cor 14:34 (KJV) "Let your women (gynē) keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" and in 1 Cor 14:35 (KJV) "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands (anēr) at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I don't really have any answers for this and I can see both sides of it, but the more I read, and the more I look at what other scripture says, the more I tend to think that Paul wasn't really trying to say all women must be silent in the church at all times or that they are prohibited from any type of leadership. We have to look at passages in the context of all scripture, and we see other places where Paul speaks of women in positions of teaching and authority, and he doesn't condemn them or speak negatively of them in any way. If this were a wrong thing for all women in all situations, why would Paul mention it favorably in one place and condemn them in another place? That doesn't make sense to me. Of course, it does make sense if we think of the passages I mentioned above as referring to relationships between husbands and wives instead of the relationship between all women and the rest of the church in general. Since this interpretation lines up with the other times Paul favorably mentions women in positions such as deacons and prophets, I'm tending to lean toward this as a more probable true meaning of these verses.

In the verse pertaining to the women of the Corinthian church in particular, we know that that the first letter of Paul to that church was addressing all manner of ridiculous things that shouldn't have been going on. I've heard it explained that the situation with the women "speaking" was most likely one of groups of women hanging around gossiping and arguing with each other while the worship or other things were going on, therefore being a distraction. I don't know if there is any historical evidence that this was happening or not, but it would make more sense to me in light of other scripture if something like this were what Paul was addressing. There were a number of things in 1 Corinthians that Paul addressed that were aimed at specific problems in that particular church.

In light of this, I tend to lean to the side of seeing no reason a woman can't have a position of leadership or teaching in a church. I think there are many conceivable situations where she can certainly be a church leader and still submit to her husband (if she is married) as a wife should. I suppose it's possible to nit-pick away at every possible situation and find the rare circumstances where this may not be true if someone really wants to not accept it. But it seems to me in general that it shouldn't be a problem.

But as Paul said: "This is me saying this, not the Lord!" The church I work at doesn't allow women to be pastors, deacons, elders, or any other "position of leadership", although they do allow them to be teachers and had a woman youth "director" for a time. This makes no sense to me (that they can be teachers or "directors" in light of the other restrictions), but I don't try to fight them on it or go against what they do. I'm just an employee there and I'm not looking to cause problems or divisions. Likewise here, I don't know that my current view on this is right or not. I'm just putting out some food for thought on this that I have seen and heard over the years as well as seen in my own research. I personally tend to shy away from saying women must be silent in all situations in church and can't be leaders in any situation.

Good post.

If we look back at verse 2:9 we see a description of how Paul was telling them not to dress. I notice he specifically is talking about modesty and not showing off wealth. Surely not all women in the church had gold and pearls and costly clothing. I think Paul may be describing certain women or a certain group of women.
So were there certain women or a certain group of women who were trying to Usurp (snatch away) the authority from men in the church. Were they trying to take over.

The word translated 'silence' cannot possibly mean 'no speaking'. As you have pointed out in other letters Paul has said just the opposite. And that is not even how Strong's defines it as a first definition. G 2271 - in the verse below the same word is translated as 'quietness'.
2 Thess. 3:12
Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness G2271 they work, and eat their own bread.

When we look at this definition it speaks to the issue of Usurping authority that was not theirs to snatch away, indicating taking by force.
Was there a group of women who were trying to take over the authority in the church by means of seduction? Immodest dress and wealth.
Not all women in the church were Jews so there were some who had come into the church after things like 'goddess' worship.

 

[Obadiah]

Good post.

If we look back at verse 2:9 we see a description of how Paul was telling them not to dress. I notice he specifically is talking about modesty and not showing off wealth. Surely not all women in the church had gold and pearls and costly clothing. I think Paul may be describing certain women or a certain group of women.
So were there certain women or a certain group of women who were trying to Usurp (snatch away) the authority from men in the church. Were they trying to take over.

The word translated 'silence' cannot possibly mean 'no speaking'. As you have pointed out in other letters Paul has said just the opposite. And that is not even how Strong's defines it as a first definition. G 2271 - in the verse below the same word is translated as 'quietness'.
2 Thess. 3:12
Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness G2271 they work, and eat their own bread.

When we look at this definition it speaks to the issue of Usurping authority that was not theirs to snatch away, indicating taking by force.
Was there a group of women who were trying to take over the authority in the church by means of seduction? Immodest dress and wealth.
Not all women in the church were Jews so there were some who had come into the church after things like 'goddess' worship.

That's another interesting viewpoint I hadn't thought about, but maybe could be the case. I know it's all speculation but it seems kind of strange that while there were so many other serious things going wrong with that church, that Paul would be worried about making a fashion statement that was meant to apply to everyone at all times! It jsut seems there must have been something more to it than just repressing women.

And besides, how many that today enforce the "letter of the law" regarding women not being allowed to speak, teach, or hold any positions of authority don't have a problem if a woman in church is wearing a nice dress, some jewelry, or has braids in her hair? It seems wrong to put such emphasis on one section like this while ignoring other very similar ones. Based on these scriptures the church I currently work at prohibits women from leadership roles (to be correct, only from some seemingly arbitrary leadership roles), but they say nothing about clothing or hair style. While I agree with them on not being legalistic about clothing styles or hair styles and such things, it makes no sense to me that they then take such a hard line on women in leadership. I've asked about this casually a couple of times and the answers I got were more evasive than anything. I really got the impression they had no good reason for this.

 

[Classik]

What if she doesn't have a husband maybe he died.

Oops! I missed the post. We need replies, don't we?