Julie,

If you want some harsh statements about women, look up 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. These are Bible verses that no one ever talks about and leave me scratching my head!

Men have sins that are masculine, providing for the family and having a job, that women do not deal with Biblically.

Single moms.

If they don’t do take care of their families, it isn’t a sin? No, it would be. They are to do that. Whatever the reason for them being a single mom is not the issue — they are to take care of their families as the parent. So, in that case, I would say “an exception to be made!”

Exceptions.

There are exceptions to the “woman as pastor” concept. I can think of several instances in Nicaragua where this was the case. Several to be found in the history of missions work around the world. If there can be an exception in some cases…

Of course, the “woman as pastor” issue is the big one, which is why I went for that as my first post here at CRN.info, rather than cozy up with something like “why women should be able to teach men in Sunday school and not just bake cookies for potluck dinners.”

Why do we treat some of Paul’s writing (the holy kiss, the head covering, wearing of gold adornments and what that does to the wedding ring industry, etc. etc.) as no longer necessary but really, really, really keep it literal in this area?

Welcome Julie! I see you jumped in with both feet

I see where you are going, and see that there is a difference between obedience and second-class citizenship due to some “extra” burden of sin.

Well done!

You seem to have an emotional edge to this subject which many times results in a subjective element in our views.

Um, Rick, that comment right there is what men often do when women try to discuss an issue, such as this, that matters to them. I’m not “emotional” but merely discussing. Why would you assume I’m emotional? Do you make comments such as that just a few comments into a post’s discussion with others (guys)?

Good grief.

There is such an interesting connection between the men who hold dearly to this belief of the proper place for women, the way they react/treat women, and the continual way that they swear up and down that they just absolutely “cherish their women.”

It is very interesting indeed.

I did try to add some further discussion on this over on the post I linked to, including a comment responding to anonymous in which he made a bizarre leap as to “female nature” which, I think, ties into the idea that you think I am “emotional.”

Really weird conclusion, Rick.

(Thanks, Chris L. Took me a while to post, but I just think you should choose the high diving board, you know?)

Julie,that you bring in this idea of women being second class citizens if they can’t be pastors is an emotional response. There are many other topics that you could bring that one up on, like the old Baptist mentality of the 60’s and 70’s that NOW used against men to make their point. Whatever happened to NOW? With Hilary Clinton running for President I figured they’d show up in the news again!

There are many other topics that you could bring that one up on, like the old Baptist mentality of the 60’s and 70’s that NOW used against men to make their point. Whatever happened to NOW? With Hilary Clinton running for President I figured they’d show up in the news again!

Um.

I can’t really respond here. I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying. At all…

As a died-in-the-wool-liberal-surely-going-to-hell United Methodist, all I can say on this topic is that two of the most godly pastors I have ever known were women. Nancy Pierson, an associate pastor at St. Marks UMC in Hamilton Square, NJ was a mentor to me for a little over a year. Her kindness, humility and love was evident for all to see, and her support of my ministry there during a difficult year of transition helped me to stay in seminary and continue my journey into ordained ministry.

Sister Ruby Richardson was the pastor of my hometown church in Bloomfield, Kentucky for my entire time there, and served in that capacity for over 35 years. I grew up in the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee – the original holy rollers), and though by no means a paragon of liberalism, the Church of God recognized that women might also expereince the call of God to teach and preach and even (oh my God!!!) pastor a Church. Everything I know of the Bible, I learned from her teaching and preaching. She was the very definition of a Godly woman.

Of course, seeing as I was actually (and no doubt heretically)ordained a Deacon and then an Elder by a WOMAN Bishop, anything I say is surely suspect.

Julie,

I would have to agree that your comments seem very emotional and stem from some sort of feminist agenda.

Sherry specifically asked you for Scriptures which support your view and you retorted that you wouldn’t provide them because you felt she wasn’t open minded anyway. First off, this is reading into Sherry’s heart, motives, and intentions, which you really have no way of knowing. After reading her posts, I do not sense any sarcasm or close-mindedness…I cannot say the same about you, however. Also, this “reason” you gave for not providing Scriptures is a cop out because you know that none exist to support your view.
This is very poor discussion etiquette and even poorer Biblical interpretation. I suggest that you rid yourself of your preconceived, feminist notions and take a look at what the Bible has to say. Apparently, as previously stated, your problem is not with Sherry, but with God and His revealed Word.

Also, I would like for you to provide me with Scripture that supports the idea of women teaching men in spiritual matters. From my reading of Scripture, I have never found a verse in support of this from New or Old Testament.

I would appreciate a response, unless you’re going to write me off as being “not interested” as well.

A woman’s hair is her ‘covering’, if you keep reading further. Just though I’d add that. Solves that problem. Unless you shave your head.

I grew up in Liberal Boston MA, so did my wife. I say that so you understand where I’m coming from, if you know anything about New England that is. At our Bible Study that I do here in OK, we have another woman there, a close sister of ours, who used to be a hardcore feminist/atheist. Keep these things in mind. Why can’t anyone actually take the T/F quiz? It’ll be fun.

They (and I) would answer to your quiz like this….(I’m going to be silly here Iggy, I suppose)

True, True, False, False, False, False.

You know, I like to justify playing bloody video games to myself with my other brothers in Christ, occasionally. Now whether or not that is a sin, I do not know, as it’s not laid out with absolute clarity (”it’s not what a man puts in to his body that makes him unclean…”), and we don’t feel convicted about it, because there are much more important things to do, that we do do, that God has given us to do and allows us to do. Like making disciples.. However, even though I justify this to myself, some day, whether on earth, at the Throne, God will either sit down and tell me I’m wrong, or that it was ok.

Does that make me not Christian? Some would say no, some would say yes. Some would insinuate that unless I followed everything correctly, or saw things a ‘clearly’ as they did, and accepted it, I can’t possibly be Christian. Some would say…”Hey, what’s you Xbox Live name???”

How are we saved?

The thing about the woman teacher thing, pastor, speaking in church or what have you is this: It’s a much clearer teaching in Scripture, as it has specific verses addressing the topic, otherwise why do so many believe it, including many godly women, such as my wife, and my friend. I didn’t have to teach them this, they figured it out by reasoning of the Holy Spirit and studying Scripture, my wife told ME (lol think about that). But other godly men and women, study and have the Holy Spirit, and reach the opposite conclusion, and justify that conclusion, like I would mine. Christian? You betcha, I think at least.

Also, it’s been the view held by the majority of Churches for the majority of the past 2000 years. It’s become a recent, last 200-300 years issue. I’m not saying that has much bearing, because it is clear in Scripture, but surely that says something?

If you agree, great, you’re a Christian.

However, if you want to justify yourself, then fine, you’re still a Christian. But I believe God, as in many things with us, will correct us at one time or another. And a lot of our long held beliefs will be shown silly or incomplete.

So there’s my 2 cents. Can I have change?

Love

Joe

Depends on context, Will. Too bad it’s no where else in reference to a woman. I’ve seen this argument, but I don’t find it convincing. And this would make the Bible pathetically contradictory, I feel, considering the verses on women teaching. Thanks for that though Will.

Love,
Joe

Joe,

What I find interesting is that every time Paul uses the word diakonos, it is translated as either minister, ministers, or deacon, except for this one time. That says something to me about the possible bias of biblical translators.

diakonos
Total KJV Occurrences: 30
minister, 14
Mat_20:26, Mar_10:43, Rom_13:4 (2), Rom_15:8, Gal_2:17, Eph_3:7, Eph_6:21, Col_1:7, Col_1:23, Col_1:25, Col_4:7, 1Th_3:2, 1Ti_4:6
ministers, 6
1Co_3:5, 2Co_3:6, 2Co_6:4, 2Co_11:15 (2), 2Co_11:23
servant, 4
Mat_23:11, Mar_9:35, Joh_12:26, Rom_16:1
deacons, 3
Phi_1:1 (2), 1Ti_3:8, 1Ti_3:12
servants, 3
Mat_22:12-13 (2), Joh_2:5, Joh_2:9

Hello Julie,

1 Timothy 2:14 is quite explicit actually. If you read ahead, it mentions quite clearly that the reason for only allowing men to be leaders of the flock (pastors, elders etc etc) has nothing to do with [male] superiority.

It has to do with what God defines, what God decides. Even if women are a billion times more superior (ok some men are really lousy) , the answer is still no.

Since the verses straight after 1Tim2:14 quote the story of eve being deceived first, its straightaway telling us that the social context i.e. (’women are less socially accepted at that tim’) or education (”women are not as well educated’) has absolutely nothing to do with why women cannot take up pastorial roles, even if such a social situation exists.

Rather, its a universal concept that God has decided this arrangement and we should not question it. Men was created first so the first created shall lead. Thats all.

Women were created (i quote genesis) as helpers. Not that women are inferior in anyway, but the term itself means helpers don’t lead.

Same thing. Men can’t give birth. [biblically, god has instituited child bearing as a form of sanctification - which we men can't do] Men can’t carry babies in womb. Most men are insensitive vs women in some way. Men can’t nurse from the bosom. I don’t see men complaning.

As for the headgear, Joe C was correct. Covering is the hair. I’m sure no society actually allows the shaving of the hair of a woman and finds it appealing. No woman would find it appealing anyway. So theres not much problem there.

Not to mention that women were cursed in Genesis 3 to follow after their husbands. NIV: “rule over you”. I don’t think God changes or speaks a double talk.

If women were created first, and men first decieved, then all men would be helpers and women leaders. I would not question that.

Thank you for listening. Its appreciated.

Sherry,

If we took Genesis 2 literally, we are left with a picture of God that is not very divine. In fact a literal reading of this passage makes God look like an idiot in that God tries to make a helpmate for Adam by first creating all of the animals for him. Read this:

Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God 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.
Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Is God so stupid as to think for a moment that an animal might be a sutiable helpmate to Adam?

And then there are the contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as concerns the order of creation. In Genesis 1 human beings are created last. In Genesis 2, it is the animals. What we have in these two chapters are two different stories of creation that do, in fact contradict themselves.

Rachel:

Paul doesn’t say anything about a woman being the wife of one husband because women in that culture could not have more than one husband. Men on the other hand could have many wives and Paul is restricting men in leadership in the church to one wife.

The reason that the issue of having women in leadership has only been an issue for the last 100-200 years or so is that there really weren’t any opportunities to speak of for the vast majority of women up until recent times. I have known a lot of women pastors, and I would be be more willing to serve under many of them compared to a lot of men I know. That may be an emotion-based argument, but so be it.

I believe that the Bible is clear that in Christ there is no distinction based on race, gender, or social status. Christ broke the chains that the demonic powers placed on different people groups, and because of that we are all free to follow Him in whatever calling He places on our lives. I see no directive in Scripture that forbids women from serving in any ministry in the Church.

I heartily disagree Phil. Please address some of the Scriptures brought up here about women teaching/leading then and correct those of us under ‘demonic powers’ (lol come on Phil…come on….really???) who obviously do not know how to interpret these verses. Because so far I’ve seen nothing convincing to debug those verses to mean anything other than what they mean.

Let it be known, I am fully open to correction, by God’s grace. Thanks guys.

Joe

I forgot to include the reference for that passage. It is Ephesians 5:22-27.

Rachel,

They got an explanation for that one too. I’ve seen it. I’ll let them say it though. It almost had me…but I’ll post the rebuttle (maybe…it is almost 2 am….lol) when they post theirs.

And you know, we’ll all sing kumbaya and eat smores.

I love you guys, lol

Joe

Will and Phil,

Total Biblical Context is the key with that one. That’s talking about SALVATION. Isn’t that obvious from context, even just in the book of Galatians?

I want to go back to talking about the ‘devil bear’ from The Golden Compass…that was easier….

Joe

Joe,

Somehow I highly doubt this group will be holding hands singing kumbaya, lol. A little too much negative energy for that.

I don’t know where you live, but where I live it’s almost 3 a.m. This eighteen year old college student is telling herself she needs to go to bed….as much fun as blogging is, she’s got a term paper to write tomorrow!

But what the heck….I’ll stay up just a wee bit longer for the sake of the argument. I have to admit I’m curious to see how Ephesians 5 will be “interpreted”.

Good grief.

As Joe stated: context is key!

The first 21 verses of chapter five are referring to how Christians (brothers and sisters in Christ) should relate to each other. (Walk in love, giving thanks, etc.) Later in the chapters we are more specifically instructed how we should relate to authority figures in our lives, i.e. husbands, parents, masters, etc. If we followed your thought process, you would soon be saying that because of verses 20-21 parents are required to submit to their children. Come on now.

After reading comments here and on the blog Old Truth, I have gotten a little fiesty I guess. Joe said, “A woman’s hair is her ‘covering’, if you keep reading further. Just though I’d add that. Solves that problem. Unless you shave your head.”

That seems to me to completely ignore what Paul says in first verse of the passage in question. If he had meant that the cover he was talking about in verse 6 was merely a woman’s hair, then why doesn’t he just say that.

I believe Joe’s interpretation is an attempt to justify the modern idea that women should not wear head coverings.
This is clearly anti-biblical : )

1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

So Rachel,

Then you bow to all of your husbands demands and his authority?

I bet you have some say on that… and that is called a relationship… where there is give and take.

If you hold to your view then whatever your husband or pastor states is authoritative as if from God as “God set all authority over us” as Romans states.

So context is important… but we cannot make it fit just our own view of what we think the context is… it is relational… not to mention that supposed that brother and sister in Christ might be you husband.

Out of respect i sometimes submit to my wife’s wishes… and sometimes it benefits me more… so to stay with your stick interpretation I just bet in reality you do not hold that stick of view when you disagree with your husband.

iggy

Julie,

I sincerely apologize if I have misrepresented any of your words. Such was not my intention. Neither was attack or malice. I, however, believe you are in serious error in your interpretation of Scripture regarding the spiritual authority of males over females.

Honestly, I’m not sure how to address the issue of you being unmarried. My first inclination is to say that you should approach and elder of your church for spiritual guidance if it is needed.

As to you being Pentacostal, I have no problem with the Biblical use of tongues and other typically Pentacostal activities, but do have many doctrinal issues with the majority of Pentacostals and charismatics in general. I understand this is a generalization, being I do not know where you stand theologically.

Paul was just illustrating a point.

1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Sums it up. It’s really that simple. The hair is the covering. 1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?

…For her hair is given to her FOR A COVERING”

Clear enough?

Besides….

You heard the man….it’s ‘because of the ANGELS’.

Obviously, that means…well…I have no idea. But angels are pretty important ‘peoples’. So it’s not a human thing then, that women have to have a symbol of authority on them. It’s because of them angels. So they do some weird stuff. Apparently they argue over dead bodies too…(Jude 9)

Angels, not devil bears.

Joe (it’s 2 am)

Amen Rachel, boyee my wife would like you lol.

And hey, Julie, thanks for explaining. I mean, I’m symphathetic to what you’re saying, I really am. I can understand where you’re coming from with that situation you’re in. However…

Is it not a sin to steal bread for your starving and dying family if you cannot afford to buy it?

Just playing devils advocate here…

Joe

Will,

I understand that chapter breaks were not inserted by the author. By reading the chapter Paul’s train of thought is clear. Earlier in chapter four he is addressing how Christians should walk since we have truth in Christ. He begins how we should relate as brothers and sisters in Christ, as husbands and wives, as children and parents, and as slaves and masters.

Julie,

Yes I am young and have many things to learn. But I think age is irrelevant when it comes to the truth of Scripture.

“Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.”
-1 Timothy 4:12

While I am sure you are “one up” on me in many life truths and experiences, age doesn’t always mean superiority when it comes to knowledge of Scriptures. I am not insinuating that I have greater knowledge than you, but I think truth is truth no matter who it comes from. My age is irrelevant if I am rightly dividing Scripture. No, I am not married. No, I have not had to deal with the many frustrations of submitting to a husband. But whether or not I have experienced it yet has nothing to do with the godly and Biblical standard that is set for wives. It has nothing to do with experience, but with the Bible.

Dude…you mormon you.

Read it carefully. He’s not condoning it, he’s saying since there are these people who do this dead baptism thing…why would they do it unless they believed in a ressurection?

It’s like me arguing that stop lights exist, and then using an example like: “Hey, if there are no stoplights, then why do people run the red lights all the time and get busted?”

I’m not condoning the blowing of the red light.

Rough metaphor, you get what I’m saying. Man the mormons drive me crazy with their proof texting eisogesis from 1 verse that they mistranslate to fit their crazy doctrines. lol, I’m kidding about calling you a mormon.

I have a feeling you weren’t being serious though. But still, if it’s to draw contrast….the women teacher/leader issue has WAY more verses.

Next you’ll be saying, lets debate purgatory based on 1 Cor. 3 and Maccabees. LOL!!!

Love,

Joe

Julie, I just now saw your previous post directed towards me and my comment to Joe. I sincerely apologize for any sarcasm and if I was holding up a double-standard.

Rachel,

Actually iggy, I would not know being that I am newly eighteen and not yet married, although I will hopefully be engaged soon.

I was engaged (and I am not telling you what in) when I was 18 and married by nineteen… and have been with my wife for the last… 23 years… (24 total).

So many fail in seeing that it is not about authority, but mutual respect out of love for one another… we are to be “rooted and established in love, ” which is in chapter 3 of Ephesians as Paul is building toward something… and that we are New Creations. And even chapter 5 we are to “love” our wife”… not wield authority over her… so the context and at least one of the major themes is love in Ephesians… not authority.

be blessed,
iggy

I am 55 years old so what does that say? God uses women in a male role when the circumstances dictate (i.e. Deborah) so I do not discount women starting and even pastoring churches when there are no godly men available. Hence Phoebe was either a servant in general or a deacon in the absence of godly men.

But this is a matter of literally translating the qualifications for elders. It also seems that men and women are constructed differently, and although equal, men are to be both leaders in their home and leaders in the church. Single women should submit to either their fathers, or a brother, or an elder in the church. It is not an issue of superiority but of God’s design (will).

Well, I’ll take another shot. It was about 2AM when I posted last night, and I had just gotten back from one of our ministry events.

When looking at this issue, I tend to start with how Jesus treated women. He broke all kinds of social and religious norms concerning women when He was on earth. There was a group of women that traveled with Him who were rather close, He talked to women directly (including a Samaritan woman), and it was women who first saw Him after the resurrection. There are other things I could add to the list. The point is that Jesus did many things that went against the core of the patriarchal structure He was born into.

As far as Paul goes, I would say that the directives in Corinth have to be looked at from a cultural perspective. We are willing to ignore the command for women needing to wear head coverings and Paul’s injuction to greet one another with a holy kiss, but somehow we don’t use the same standard for the issue dealing with women speaking.

I also think a good case can be made that in 1 Timothy, Paul was dealing with an isolated issue with the women Ephesus. The reason is that there are other case where Paul mention women in ministry positions. I don’t think Paul was contradicting himself.

I would agree with Chris L.’s assertion that some women have been wrong in demanding their rights. I think Scripture is very clear in the fact that we need to consider ourselves lower than others. This goes for men also. I think a big part of the problem comes from the fact that we consider this issue from the top-down, as in who has authority over whom. It seems much more helpful to think of it as an issue of serving. To be a minister is to serve others. If a women is called by God to serve others, I don’t see a convincing argument that we should prevent her.

BTW, here is the position paper from the A/G on this issue. This is one issue where I actually think they have it right.

For the record I said “emotional edge” and Tim has been accused of that many times. I meant no offense.

Julie, there you go, again, making a presumption that the scriptures didn’t take with me. I went to bed at midnight or thereabouts. I had no opportunity to rebut those scriptures. And since many have rebutted the scriptures given in the same way I would, I need not repeat them now. There has yet been any scriptures showing women as pastors that would negate the qualifications given in 1 Timothy. Personally, I think that women could outshine men as pastors. Guess what? That means nothing to God what my opinions are. His Word is the authority. And, there you go again, being emotional. You say that everyone at Old Truth was calling you a “fool,blind,dog,pig,unredeemed,an adversary,…” Really? Come on! I hope this remark of yours will incite your readers to click to the link you provided so they can see it for themselves! One thing I know, no one has who is on your side-lol! Go ahead and try the link yourself, Julie. BTW, I haven’t yet read what they wrote, so don’t accuse me of being on their side. I can be a thorn in their side at times, too. But I would be careful not to accuse them of such things as you did! Stick to scriptures and drop the emotionalism so that you will be more credible, please. And knock it off with the presumptions!

Just a note on the questions posed by Chad at the start of your post, I thought them a bit inane. Then again, I haven’t read the post at Old Truth.

[Lance, the women didn’t necessarily happily let the men take over once the church was established. The men took over, period. The women, in some cases, were forced out and into more “appropriate” jobs like secretary or Sunday school teacher, even though they had done the hard work previously.]

Goodness. Its pity that the men had to force and the women were unwilling to give up. In view this such disobedience, i’m sorry to say that N. dakota ministry was not as successful as i thought it was. Once should give cheerfully, whether to God or otherwise, especially when it is scripural to do so, for when one gives, its not only to man, but to God. God loves a cheerful giver. Yet the men should not have lorded over the flock and forced them. Sighz.

I hope you are not belittling the work of a sunday school teacher or a secretary, because i am sensing that you esteem a pastor more highly than you would a sunday school teacher.

As long as a person does his allocated job/ministry (assuming its scriptural) properly, it is the equivalent of a high profile job e.g. elder or pastor. I’m sure you know the verses on how some people need to be the eyes and others ears and other hands. All are important.

Julie, kudos to an excellent handling of this highly sensitive subject.

Julie,

The only reason I included that bit of seeking an elder was because of this statement made by you:

“I am not married. Shall I live as a mute and without learning until, or if ever, that should occur? There would be a case where an “exception” or a strict adherence to your interpretation is actually impossible for me.”

I was only trying to answer your question, but I’m guessing now that you meant it to be rhetorical. I was not trying to give you advice because I know you or your life story. I was trying to give my honest opinion of a question I thought you had asked.

“The paragraph on your age had nothing to do with your smarts or ability to use scripture, but was only a direct response to that statement which, at age 18 and likely engaged, you really do not understand the place in life I’m at and what it feels like. That’s OK. We’re just at different places and points in life in that regard.”

I’m not quite sure what this phrase is directed at. If it’s in regard to my “advice” I gave you, I think I covered that above. If it’s in regards to our disagreement on Scripture, what place you’re at in life has nothing to do with what the Bible says. Again, I’m not sure of your intended meaning, so I don’t want to read too far into it.

With regards to what Joe said (“Is it not a sin to steal bread for your starving and dying family if you cannot afford to buy it?”), I’m assuming that he’s building upon the “obedience is better than sacrifice” deal. You seem to deem a female pastorate acceptable if there are not men to do the job, even though the Bible strictly forbids it. You think God’ is okay with “exceptions” when the situation demands it. I think Joe’s point is to say is stealing an exception if you have a starving family to provide for? Although the Scripture explicitly teaches against stealing, wouldn’t God be okay with it because of my circumstances? God would understand that my family is most important, therefore, stealing must be okay in this situation. Joe, if I’m wrong in that hypothetical scenario, correct me, but I’m pretty sure this was the intent of that statement. Julie, it is never okay to sin, no matter what “exceptions” we think we’re owed. The Bible forbids woman to pastor…period. The Bible forbids stealing…period.

here’s an answer born out by the scholarship of the last 150 years, sadly rejected for ideological reasons…

Paul didn’t write I Timothy.

At least that’s what some think…

Again, godly people far wiser than any of us disagree on this issue. And they all use scriptures…

anyway

Julie,

I thought the bread question was very applicable to this conversation.

You said in a bad situation, where no men could lead, can a woman lead without it being a sin?

I said, in a bad situation, is it a sin for a man to steal bread for his starving and dying family, since they can’t afford bread. Is it still stealing? Is it then still a sin?

Like I said, it was more to make us think, about what sin is, and what is black and white, or not. I didn’t mean it as a hard cutting point. Devil’s advocate. That’s all

Love,

Joe

I hear you, Rick.
But what about the regular practice in the Near East of writing “in the name of” a teacher with authority?

Even non-canonical books in the Christian tradition bear some of these traits.

What about redaction criticism, or the possibility that things could be added, etc. as things are translated and copied–for a variety of reasons?

Obviously this gets to people’s understanding of the construction of Scripture, etc.

Probably something to talk about via email…
but a fascinating conversation nonetheless…

Best to you today, Rick

Phil,

My feelings aren’t hurt at all. I have to admit after this discussion I have been more apt to righteous indignation than hurt feelings. Sometimes I wonder why God allows people to twist and contort His holy words into something that is culturally relevent and unbiblical. But I do not know his purposes and why he delays judgment on the church, but I do know that one day all will give an account and every careless word spoken will be brought to light.
Honestly, I don’t give a rip about being culturally relevent. There is nothing we can do to the gospel to make it “more relevent” or more attractive. Unregenerate men hate Christ and His word and the gospel is an aroma of death to those who are perishing. I’m not going to try and rearrange the Bible, explain away Scripture, and contort God’s word to make it culturally relevent.

“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being decieved. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
-2 Timothy 3:12-17

Also, women in the workplace was completely irrelevant to this discussion. Proverbs 31 completely wipes out your argument anyway. A woman who works and manages her affairs and household well honors her husband. Paul is strictly addressing spiritual authority, and that is the subject at hand, not women in the secular workplace.

Woa Julie…

I understand you’re upset…but the attack wasn’t necessary. I think you’ll go back and look at your post in an hour and maybe go “oops, I over did it”.

I brought up the stealing thing NOT as a trap! I just brought it up, no strings attatched. I wanted to use it to make us think. To think about sin, maybe a woman teaching men ISN’T a sin.

I am not “people like you” (how rude??) and I DON’T ‘react that way’ when a woman wants to teach. We let women teach in our Bible study, which by all intents and purposes is “church”, but you wouldn’t know that, you just seemed to see the worst in me. You don’t know me and that’s presumptuous of you. But it’s okay, really, you’ve taken A LOT of flak in this thread and I can understand you’re upset and trying to settle accounts. I gave you the benefit of the doubt the whole time, and believe it or not…I am inclined to agree with you on some things here. For example, I LIKE your OT examples, and I find them valid. When there’s no one to do the job, there’re exceptions. If God told you to kill, is it murder t God? Of course not, because God told you to do it. This happens all the time in Scripture, but we ignore that. If God has called you to teach, then TEACH. “We must obey God rather than obey men”.

As for the true or false quiz…

It is not a sin if God, and ONLY GOD, has put a woman in a position of leadership. It is a sin if she has presumed that she should lead and be in that position, as that would, as some comments have said, miss the point of ’servant leadership’.

And I think to relegate the verses brought up in this forum to TOTALLY being culturally derived is also wrong. But I’m not sure anyone did that.

Anyways, I hope that clears the air between us Julie. Thanks for the talk.

Love,

Joe

Rachel…

The Levitical Law is for Jews who seek to be saved by that very law and their own ability to obey that. The one of the purposes of The Gospel, is to show us we can’t keep that law, and that law is inferior to the new covenant. I don’t think an argument from Numbers holds water in this discussion, I’m sorry.

If you’re gonna bring it up, lets break out the clothing requirements, sacrificial requirements, slavery requirements…etc etc etc. Or rather, let’s not.

I don’t think it’s a good argument, because it holds no bearing on our lives as Christians saved by Grace and not works. Not the Law. Those rules were for a specific time and specific place, and were a shadow of what was to come. Don’t take more out of it than we need to.

Or, you can go around wearing clothes of same matching fabric all day if you want to. LOL!!!

Joe

I was not saying that I adhere to the Levitical law. I was responding to Julie’s plea for OT Scriptures from the law.

“My examples from the OT have not been good enough for you, leading me to believe that you somehow think the New Covenant makes the OT a little less of an authority except, perhaps, when you want to use the law against someone.”

I was saying to Julie if she thinks that the OT law is more favorable to Paul’s NT instructions, she might want to think again.

Lol! Calm down, Rachel! I wasn’t trying to attack you! It’s just that some of your comment to Julie regarding marriage (or her not being married) have been interesting, to say the least, that’s all. I’m glad your excited to get married! I was just saying you don’t have to rush into anything, is all. If you were offended, I am sincerely sorry.

Phil,

This is a discussion. Once again, no one will stick to the subject at hand, which is women PASTORING CHURCHES. Paul’s instructions concern women being overseers, deacons, or elders in church.

I never said that women are not permitted to say a word to a man. However if we were in a church setting and you were teaching something false, Biblically I would not be able to stand up and rebuke you. That would be my husband’s job.

Rachel,

You are cool with me.

We all need to live by our convictions. I may not agree with some of yours or you some of mine, but I cannot fault someone for trying to live as they see God He desires them to live is a good thing.

Now, these convictions can change over the years and things that were so important at one time will diminish.

For example,

I was one that believed and taught one could lose their salvation. Then I began to understand grace, and taught that one could never…

Now I say that if one is even asking that question they have an issue somewhere in their faith that is error.

About women I was pretty strict as it was in the AoG of old.

Yet, I have seen women can “pastor” such as with children and other women. I ahve seen powerful female ministers that have taught me many things… with out lording over me or usurping power from anyone.

The issue is not can they teach? but it is about power… I see the issue is if a woman lords or tries to take the power from the leadership for her own desires.

The creation gender issue to me is not an issue as both Genesis and Jesus states “God created them male and female”… mankind is both… and though man was created first, woman was created out of man…

If you took time to think about this, Adam died (put in a deep sleep) so that Eve could live. And just as Jesus came out of the tomb, woman come out of Adam’s side, is this new creation (woman) represent the church… for out of the tomb Jesus came and from that the New Creation came… and the Kingdom was ushered in.

Be blessed,
iggy

Rachel,
So you are really condemning all women pastors to Hell? I think you are entitled to your opinion, but I think to make it an issue of salvation is going to an extreme. It is certainly not something I think we can turn into a primary issue.

I think it easy to take a stand on these issues when it doesn’t affect you. I will admit I am biased in this issue. My wife and I both serve as campus pastors right now. She is also finishing up her PhD in microbiology this semester. She could easily go and take a job for 100K a year. Yet, she feels called to the ministry we are at. Next semester she is going on “full time” on staff as the campus pastor at our church. I will still be pastoring with her, but she will be serving in the official sense. So I know this whole issue of obeying God even though it seems like the impractical thing to do is something that we have talked about a lot recently. Yet we feel that for us to leave, and for her not to do this would be going against God’s will for us right now.

So again it is a personal issue. It always is. I find that for men who take the strongest stand on this issue it’s usually because they have some deep-seated resentment. It could be an overly controlling mother or wife.

To make this into a black-and-white issue just doesn’t work.

Please note that I did not pass judgment on anyone’s salvation. I merely brought a passage into light that should refute the “if I feel called” or “If I do good deeds” argument.

Scripture says what it says. Your beef isn’t with me.

Scripture says what it says. Your beef isn’t with me.

If you don’t understand how to read, interpret and apply scripture beyond literalism (which you’ve been making rather evident in this discussion), then actually, his beef is with you, and not scripture.

Is a chainsaw good for cutting trees? Certainly. If you hold it by the wrong end, though, you’re in for a world of hurt…

Julie, those are certainly not my words. I was quoting Chris L. I forgot to put the quotation marks. My apologies.

I find it a little bit tiring when we try to determine “sides” of a discussion and gauge it by “who uses the most scripture” (Chris L wrote this)

That comment is a bit disturbing to me. Isn’t the presence Scripture the determining factor? Or lack thereof? (Rachel wrote this)

Rachel – as noted – chapter and verse are not required to “quote scripture”, and quantity has no necessary correlation with “correct interpretation”. And now, for the second time, you seem to be completely missing this point.

To my question – what heremeneutical principle are you using to determine that Paul’s instructions on women speaking/leading in church that are commandments for the entire church, but that his instructions on other items (drinking wine for your stomach, women not braiding their hair, men not wearing long hair, men greeting each other with a holy kiss) are culturally contextual?

Rachel – what is your primary hermeneutical method of interpreting scripture?

Julie,
One more bible reference– 2 Timothy 2:11-15. Don’t know if it was already mentioned in the incredible tangle of comments above. These verses must be where Chad was coming from. Reading them made me say “ouch.” Very confusing. It’s easy to interpret as saying women aren’t saved unless they have children (???)

Scripture has to back things up.

Sure.

I prefer “rightly understood by proper translation, Scripture, in its context, should inform our understanding”.

The issue in Timothy hinges on translation…

Someone said they believe Paul’s admonition that he does not permit women to pastoring over menwas a cultural issue of that time. Paul mentions the cause and effect of the Fall as his reason. The Fall is not for any particular time or culture. It permeates them all. So Paul’s admonition is for all of the Church Age. Only once did Paul state his own opinion in a matter of which he clarified it was just his opinion. Not permitting a woman to teach with spiritual authority over men is not that instance. Everyone wants to say that we all have different interpretations of scriptures. But what matters is the Author’s intent of meaning.And you keep on making presumptions, Julie. I did not require a bunch of scriptures from you on your position about women pastors being in sin. All I need is one that would utterly wipe out what is taught in 1 Timothy. If only one scripture is needed, here it is:1 Timothy 2:12 “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to keep silence.” Now, find a scripture verse that makes that null and void in the NT.

1 Timothy 2:15

But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

In Ephesus, the patron goddess of the city was Artemis (Diana), and it is estimated the 250,000+ women came each year to the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (one of the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World), to the Tree of Life (two intertwined linden trees) in the Paradise (garden) of Artemis. Their reason for coming to this temple was to be kept safe during childbirth (30-40% of women during the first century died during childbirth or due to complications from childbirth).

Here, Paul is writing to Timothy (in Ephesus) to advise the women in the church that it is Jesus who will keep them safe – in life and death – during childbirth, and not Artemis. How tempting do you think it would have been in that culture where everyone believes that Artemis and her priests could keep you safe during childbirth to NOT go to that temple to protect yourself and your child during birth.

Ephesus had huge issues with power and sexual roles. According to the legends of the city, it was founded by the Amazon warriors – giant women who cut off one of their breasts so that they could best shoot a bow. Women held the positions of power in the Buliteriat (sp?), the council which ran the city. Artemis – a fertility goddess – was the key source of worship there prior to (and during) the reign of the Caesars.

Paul’s comments come against this backdrop, which is why these passages are often seen as contextual rather than literal prohibitions.

Chris L.– thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.

Sola Scriptura does not mean there is one “correct” interpretation of Scripture that is given to us from some authority and we all walk lock-step with it. If that were the case, Luther fought Rome for nothing. Sola Scriptura is the belief that Scripture is self-authenticating and that each believer can read it and be led by the Spirit while reading. To say there is one “correct” interpretation given from the Church or some authority is basically what the RCC believes.

That is why Christians can disagree on these secondary issues. We can all read the Scripture and with the Spirit’s leading, we come to our own conclusions. There is room for these issues for “binding and loosing” within communities. In a sense, just like politics, all theology is local too.

Many scriptures can have two meanings to them (I don’t think I have heard of any more than that per certain scriptures) but there are no scriptures that can have a wrong meaning to them. On eschatology we learn in part. It is revealed more and more. And many passages aren’t as yet that clear cut. But what is unclear with 1 Timothy 2:12? Only that you want to take licence with it and say it was for the culture at that time. Yes, it was for them and the culture had alot to do with Paul saying it. However, when Paul mentions the cause and effect of the Fall with his statement about women pastors, I take it to mean that that is for the whole church age. The Fall’s consequences permeates all cultures of all time. And I have a problem with anyone loosing what the apostles bound, and vice versa. That mandate was given to Peter, an apostle of the new Church. God’s Word is complete and there are no addendums to this verse having been changed. Heresies always gain a foothold when one looses and binds in opposition to the Apostles’ inspired teachings.

Let me clarify something. A church can be solidly evangelical and have a woman pastor. Although I feel strongly about it that does not pronounce Ichabod on that church. Let us not assign heaven and hell to every issue, and let us also realize that in things like this God is not “all or nothing”.

Are we saying that if a woman preaches the core truth in a church that God will not empower her even though it is unscriptural? It is not one of the cardinal doctrines of the faith. I would sit under an orthodox woman preacher rather than a liberal male. It is not a salvation issue, but it still is important.

This may seem burdensome to you guys, but I have been following this thread, and both sides of the issue seem to be muddled under a lot of bickering, insinuations, and unclear logic, with some “gasp”…..emotion in there too……though I do not have much of a problem with emotion because it is just a hyper-extension of the will of a being and all of us engage in it to a point, It would at least benefit me, if you guys are still keeping up with this blog, to lay out the sides of each with scriptures and we could try to work through the meanings together. Our God is not a schizophrenic God who reveals different “truths” to a different child of his. He is consistent and his Word does not hold contradictions, we must find the true Biblical position. Though I am waiting to further engage in discussion of my beliefs on the subject until someone can concisely describe the arguement at hand, I am willing to continue this discussion. Please let me know if you guys are still interested in discussion.

Chris N,

Like you, I read the entire thread and comments at the weekend. I do not think it is so much a matter of God revealing different truths to different children; rather the problem lies with us, His children. I am sure Chris L can very concisely summarize the state of the “argument” in a new post for discussion because he does that kind of thing well (even when he includes pot shots at either of the Clintons but what will that achieve?

The issue of women Pastors or women in “spiritual authority” over men has been debated ad infinitum. I actually find the term “spiritual authority” vague and subjective. Most people come to this particular discussion with already formed opinions, quote their verses and maintain their positions. This is a general statement and I am not accusing anyone of doing that on this thread. I have never actually seen anyone change their point of view in the course of a blog comment thread. For me personally, Priscilla, Phoebe and maybe Junias (whose gender I have seen hotly disputed on a similar discussion at another blog) plus the fact that in the culture I grew up as a Christian, I encountered many women missionaries and Bible teachers almost completely settles the issue for me. I am still willing to learn, though I believe this is a secondary issue.