Why Do Baptists Allow Women To teach Classes/be Missionaries Not pastors Though?

You seriously don't know?

 

What SS classes do they teach, well that of course depends on the lpcal pastor in many cases. I believe women are instructed to teach women and children but not men. Paul a woman is not to teach men nor to usurp the authority from a man.

1 Tim. 2: 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Quite clear women are not to teach men. Nor pastor men. To od so goes against the order of creation Adam was formed first and therefore is the head of the family and should be the head of the church. The teaching of course of men is in scriptural things. Since this deals with teaching scripturally it does not apply to music director, or teaching children in sunday school. Paul's admonishion was not to teach men nor have authority over them in scriptural matters. Even as a associate pastor she would be in authority over a man.

 

The silence is not directed toward singing nor is directed toward praying nor is directed toward business meetings, it is directed toward offering scriptural teaching with men present.
Notice in the passage it says Adam was formed first and then Eve. Meanning Adam was to pass down God's commandments to Eve. Eve was told by Adam what God said and she was deceived by satan. Adam knew exactly what God had said and made a conscious choice to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Paul says the women are to 1st Corithians 14:34Let your women 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.

35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Again I believe on spiritual matters she is to ask her husband at home not in open worship. Guess what that would mena in a home bible study she could ask all she wants to, Paul only forbids it in Church, the formal church setting.
I know many baptist churches that now allow men and women to team to teach Sunday school in a couples class. I also know of some that allow women to teach a mixed adult class, so are they violating scripture by allowoing this?
We see many other denominational and non-denominational churches that have the husband and wife listed as co-pastors does this violate scripture?
If she teaches men or offers spiritual opinion it violates what Paul says in scripture. Or is it like many say today that was for those churches in that culture and it is ok today? What say ye to that opinion?

 

The women missionaries that were supported by churches I knew of had a man at the head of the work and she was limited to childrens ministry. You are correct some are working in the field alone, look at the ministry they are doing. As I just said many say Paul was dealing with the culture of the time was he or does all scripture apply to us today too?

 

Esurp actually means to snatch away. She is not to snatch away authority. I also believe that if a man doesn't step up and do a job it has to be filled by someone, but shame on the man who is qualified and doesn't do the mministry.

 

The word does not mean "usurp." The word means "have" in the idea of exercising authority over.

The usage of the word does not suggest that "Usurp" be understood. Nowhere in this letter is Paul advising Timothy to put down a feminine rebellion. The usage, here, is simply stative. The infinitive form helps in this understanding. The "remain" is also an infinitive and doesn't imply motion, necessarily. So, again, there is no "uprising." The "remain" is simply the infinitive of the verb "to be."

Now, some have taken this as license to treat women as second-class citizens. This should not be the case. Women can and should have a role in churches and in ministry. But, the Pastorate--a place of teaching authority--is not for women. This is also seen in the qualifications for elder in Timothy and Titus.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I agree that a woman may not be a pastor and I base that partly on the writings of Paul, but mostly on the example of Christ. He chose 12 men to be His apostles and no women. And for those who would say that was on account of the culture they lived in, I would say if Jesus wanted women to be the leaders of His church He would have chosen them. Jesus, less than any other man, was not bound by the customs of the day. Yet He selected only men.

As for other offices in the church, I would prefer not to appoint women but it is a personal perference and is not a hill I would die on. We see one instance in scripture of a very prominent woman teaching and exercising authority over a man.

Acts 18:24-26. I have occasionally sat under women as teachers and found them to be quite good at it.

 

Exactly my point Priscilla and Appolos were not in a formal church setting.

 

The reason is that the church is in the falling away from sound doctrine. It is called rebellion. According to scripture a woman is not allowed to teach or exercise authority over a man. many churches do not like what the Lord has commanded so they are doing an end run on the scriptures, but I believe one day they will wish they had not.