Women Pastors

[rockswillcryout]

If we took everything Paul wrote literally than little girls with braided hair in church would be sinning, as would I, because I wore tiny little pearl earrings to church last week.

Context is VERY important.

[keslc]

1 Timothy 2:11-15

"A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

I was following this early on and backed off for a while so forgive me if I ask questions on something that has been addressed already. This is an issue that I really ride the fence on. I have been brought up to believe that women should have no leadership roles in the church but I see women in leadership roles whom I believe are anointed godly women who are drawing people to Christ.

The above verses are obviously always used in discussions such as these. Everyone tends to focus on the parts about being submissive and not exercising authority over a man etc. I wonder if we are overlooking the part that says "but to remain quiet". If we are taking these verses literally, which it seems that we are then why don't we take this part literally. If we do take this at face value as it says, then women shouldn't be singing special music, taking other roles in worship services etc. We should be on the pew in silence. Any thoughts on this or should we continue to choose to leave this part out?

I was going to post the exact same thing. When I look at all of the scriptures quoted over and over regarding this issue, I can't ignore the way each of these sections are entitled (at least in NIV) either. They are entitled "order in worship" (or something along those lines) not "requirements for pastors" (or something along those lines). WE MUST remember that in that day, women were not formally educated, they could not read, so when Paul is correcting them for "speaking out" in worship, he is speaking to their disruption of the worship, and because men were (at least more than women) educated (at least jewish men were and educated about scriptures, etc) and the women needed to learn submission to their husbands, they were encouraged to save their questions for their husbands at home. Women were also told to respect the authority in the church and be submissive to it, not because it was MALE but because it was AUTHORITY (also to maintain modesty in appearance as well as actions so as not to be proud or boastful). In that day, of course, all of the authority was male...they were educated.

I agree that sometimes people do twist scripture for their own purposes. However, I am confident I am not guilty of this in this case. I assure you this has zero to do with anything "I want" and 100% to do with what I feel convicted of by the Holy Spirit in my sincere study and prayer over this issue. If I am wrong, I pray I will be convicted and not be able to rest until I am corrected by God, as I have prayed whenever this topic has come up. My stance has not yet once been swayed, but confirmed in my spirit.

[Shelby]

You seem to constantly blame everything I believe on my age, and it really has nothing to do with it.

Deirdre, I do not blame what you "believe" on your age. I point out that your age has a factor in your RESPONSES and how you go about relaying your "opinions".

You're right, I don't know you personally, but I am judging from what you've said.

But who are you to judge me? You don't know me, and God says to do this in love to your Brother or Sister in Christ. But it seems you don't feel I fall into that Category because....

If you disagree with this, then you are question God's Word. You are saying that God didn't really mean what he said when HE put those verses in our Bibles.

I believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God; and that they only constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice. They are breathed from God, and they are perfect as he is. The problem is, you are using your interpretation as "gospel" and taking a select few verses that were to specific people at a specific time regarding social and church issues then to condemn me. I do love those particular scriptures and God has definitely used them in my life. Particularily in my marriage.

However, instead of answering my questions on this topic, my age has come into play and somehow my age is at fault for my belief that the Bible is true

Here is your question.

How can you believe that it's ok for women to be pastors, ministers, etc, in a position of authority when the Bible has said otherwise?

I will quote myself from above and from my last post, these are my answers.

you are using your interpretation as "gospel" and taking a select few verses that were to specific people at a specific time regarding social and church issues then to condemn me

Once again, I will not scripture pick. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Not to mention, we should take into consideration the whole, chapter, then book, and entire Bible when we are reading. I think to be so legalistic is to limit God's LIVING Word.

(also my marriage, at least that is how your post came across to me)

No, my post was in sincere care for you. I know what it is like to be a young married woman, not as young as you are, but I do know even at 23 it was very hard for me at the time. It seems you have been more confrontational (I was trying to be more discreet, I thought that was better) I don't remember you being so "matter-of-fact" and non compassionate to other person's understandings. I have just been suprised. It seems that you are a bit hostile in some of your posts.

The tone doesn't seem that you are doing it in a loving Christian manor. I was used to your postings beforehand that were always uppety and gregarious. Sorry I wasn't trying to offend you, but it seems everything I say does.

Again, I'm not sure where my marriage comes into play here in this post. What does my marriage have to do with the fact that I believe women are not to be ministers, or pastors, as such?

Absolutely nothing. I never said it did, I just stated what seemed to me to be the change in the tone of your posts. (ie. pre-marriage -vs- post-marriage)

I can respect that you have an opinion. But I think that there is a difference between sharing your opinion, and contemptuosly condemning and judging people you don't know. You might have read some of my posts, but it seems you don't even "interpret" my posts correctly. These are very small excerpts that I choose to share. I just don't feel it is your position to judge. I am not offended, or hurt or anything though. I feel very comfortable with my understanding, which has been filtered through the Holy Spirit.

In the end, I want to just sum up what I don't think you are understanding from my posts. I was truly concerned for you. I was suprised by the tone, so I was sincerely just gently encouraging you to take a self check. I have to do it often. There are those who encourage me to do the same sometimes too. It was not to offend you. Again, your marriage has nothing to do with this issue, I was just establishing the pivot where I saw change, and coming from experience, I felt for you.

If God wanted/wants me to have a different understanding, then so be it. But it hasn't happened yet. I believe and know in my heart that God has breathed his understanding into me. God has had so many opportunities to change the path of my life, if it wasn't in His will for me to become an ordained minister. He didn't intervene. I believe and know HE ordained me, and gave me the passion to follow His will of leading the lost to Him and discipling those who are in Him.

Only said in love,

Shelby

[Orr v'emet]

I was going to post the exact same thing. When I look at all of the scriptures quoted over and over regarding this issue, I can't ignore the way each of these sections are entitled (at least in NIV) either. They are entitled "order in worship" (or something along those lines) not "requirements for pastors" (or something along those lines). WE MUST remember that in that day, women were not formally educated, they could not read, so when Paul is correcting them for "speaking out" in worship, he is speaking to their disruption of the worship, and because men were (at least more than women) educated (at least jewish men were and educated about scriptures, etc) and the women needed to learn submission to their husbands, they were encouraged to save their questions for their husbands at home. Women were also told to respect the authority in the church and be submissive to it, not because it was MALE but because it was AUTHORITY (also to maintain modesty in appearance as well as actions so as not to be proud or boastful). In that day, of course, all of the authority was male...they were educated.

I agree that sometimes people do twist scripture for their own purposes. However, I am confident I am not guilty of this in this case. I assure you this has zero to do with anything "I want" and 100% to do with what I feel convicted of by the Holy Spirit in my sincere study and prayer over this issue. If I am wrong, I pray I will be convicted and not be able to rest until I am corrected by God, as I have prayed whenever this topic has come up. My stance has not yet once been swayed, but confirmed in my spirit.

I appreciate your comments Katie! :hug:

[apothanein kerdos]

1 Timothy 2:11-15

"A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

I was following this early on and backed off for a while so forgive me if I ask questions on something that has been addressed already. This is an issue that I really ride the fence on. I have been brought up to believe that women should have no leadership roles in the church but I see women in leadership roles whom I believe are anointed godly women who are drawing people to Christ.

The above verses are obviously always used in discussions such as these. Everyone tends to focus on the parts about being submissive and not exercising authority over a man etc. I wonder if we are overlooking the part that says "but to remain quiet". If we are taking these verses literally, which it seems that we are then why don't we take this part literally. If we do take this at face value as it says, then women shouldn't be singing special music, taking other roles in worship services etc. We should be on the pew in silence. Any thoughts on this or should we continue to choose to leave this part out?

I was going to post the exact same thing. When I look at all of the scriptures quoted over and over regarding this issue, I can't ignore the way each of these sections are entitled (at least in NIV) either. They are entitled "order in worship" (or something along those lines) not "requirements for pastors" (or something along those lines). WE MUST remember that in that day, women were not formally educated, they could not read, so when Paul is correcting them for "speaking out" in worship, he is speaking to their disruption of the worship, and because men were (at least more than women) educated (at least jewish men were and educated about scriptures, etc) and the women needed to learn submission to their husbands, they were encouraged to save their questions for their husbands at home. Women were also told to respect the authority in the church and be submissive to it, not because it was MALE but because it was AUTHORITY (also to maintain modesty in appearance as well as actions so as not to be proud or boastful). In that day, of course, all of the authority was male...they were educated.

I agree that sometimes people do twist scripture for their own purposes. However, I am confident I am not guilty of this in this case. I assure you this has zero to do with anything "I want" and 100% to do with what I feel convicted of by the Holy Spirit in my sincere study and prayer over this issue. If I am wrong, I pray I will be convicted and not be able to rest until I am corrected by God, as I have prayed whenever this topic has come up. My stance has not yet once been swayed, but confirmed in my spirit.

Kelsc, I already responded to what you said earlier. Let me get it for you:

On the surface this always seems like the logical explanation. However it doesn't take long to see that it holds no weight. For one, we have no historical documents that state this. It is all based upon assumption. Secondly, it's impossible to say one part of a letter is for the Corinth church while another part isn't. Context and logic do not support this claim at all. For one, it would be easy to assert that the belief on sexual immorality is soley to the Cornithian church. Under the logic that you have brought forth, this would be a completely justifiable claim. Thus it's false to try and say that this is merely a cultural issue or Corinthian issue. We use these books to dictate how we run the church, thus we cannot leave one part out simply because it contradicts the ideals of today. That is letting todays culture and beliefs interpret the Bible, something we should never let happen.

Likewise you give faulty analysis. The letter to the church of Corinth was written to gentile believers, not Jewish believers, thus the entire point of "jewish education" doesn't apply at all. We know from various Greek manuscripts at the time that Greek women (where this was written) were actually educated.

KMB, as for what you said, I did respond to it but unfortunately there's a lot of stuff to dig through. So basically the summarized version:

When Paul is talking about how he wishes them to be silent, it is simply adressing how a woman should be in the church setting when it pertains to authority. He'd rather a woman be silent than to have authority over a man.

Also, as a side note, whatever the translators title the passage has absolutely no relevance at all to the translation of it.

[Orr v'emet]

KMB, as for what you said, I did respond to it but unfortunately there's a lot of stuff to dig through. So basically the summarized version:

When Paul is talking about how he wishes them to be silent, it is simply adressing how a woman should be in the church setting when it pertains to authority. He'd rather a woman be silent than to have authority over a man.

If I'm taking the text literally without custom/context in mind, isn't it saying a woman should be submissive and quiet whether related to being in an authority position or not? Is what I'm asking make sense?

[apothanein kerdos]

KMB, as for what you said, I did respond to it but unfortunately there's a lot of stuff to dig through. So basically the summarized version:

When Paul is talking about how he wishes them to be silent, it is simply adressing how a woman should be in the church setting when it pertains to authority. He'd rather a woman be silent than to have authority over a man.

If I'm taking the text literally without custom/context in mind, isn't it saying a woman should be submissive and quiet whether related to being in an authority position or not? Is what I'm asking make sense?

Hmmm, I'm trying to understand what you're asking. Btw, it's good to look at all scripture in context...what I'm against is people making up the historical context

Now, it seems you're asking if this scripture means the only time a woman should be quiet is if she's in authority or if a woman should be quiet regardless. Let me clarify the interpretation a bit:

The Greek word used here (for silence) is hesuchia which is refered to a person who leads a life of quietness, someone who doesn't meddle in other people's affairs, ect. In other words, Paul is saying that women should lead a life that would not thrust them into a position of authority but instead lead a life that avoids being put in that situation.

[tsth]

There have been many Scriptural references to the repercussions of disorder of man and woman. Adam and Eve being the very first. What happens when man takes the secondary position to woman, in the implemented design of God? God describes His Order among men and women and leadership within the context of 1 Cor. 11:3 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. Only God ordains order, and He does so.......perfectly. When man/women decide to implement their own, we see the chaos and disorder that it causes among families, societies, and even churches. It brings the unraveling of the foundations that are vital to the harmony of families, societies, churches. Why do you think that even Solomon's worship became defiled? He lost his position of leadership in terms of his personal worship........he came under the "counsel" of his various wives and their "gods". The order was out of order, and the results were bound to come. If men do not lead, in love, the void will be filled, but not in the correct manner/order that God intended, and it will have it's consequences. We must acknowledge that now. Men are created to be leaders, in that order and if women or a society in rebellion, strips them of that calling, a nation suffers.

In His Truth,

Suzanne

Edited October 8, 2004 by tsth

[Shelby]

In other words, Paul is saying that women should lead a life that would not thrust them into a position of authority but instead lead a life that avoids being put in that situation.

So if she has lived a life true to God and has avoided any "thrusts" into positions of authority, yet God leads her to Stand Up and follow his will to lead a congregation, or become a missionary, or she is by virtue of her witness given a position of authority...... Then what? She should turn it down? Even if she feels and knows that it is God calling her?

I appreciate your translation and bringing us the original texts, but when you put the definition I don't think it made sense with this context. I am trying to really hear what you are saying.

IJN

[apothanein kerdos]

In other words, Paul is saying that women should lead a life that would not thrust them into a position of authority but instead lead a life that avoids being put in that situation.

So if she has lived a life true to God and has avoided any "thrusts" into positions of authority, yet God leads her to Stand Up and follow his will to lead a congregation, or become a missionary, or she is by virtue of her witness given a position of authority...... Then what? She should turn it down?

I appreciate your translation and bringing us the original texts, but when you put the definition I don't think it made sense with this context. I am trying to really hear what you are saying.

IJN

The hypothetical you offer is wrong though. You're asserting that God would go against His Word, thus in the hypothetical my answer is she thinks she's called but really isn't. Unless, of course, that authority position isn't over a man.