women preachers

go2church, please give me the proof from the N.T. that people are called for ministry in a specific way.

After you have searched in vain, try to give me an example that you can rely on today.

Again after you fail at that, please tell me what objective standard people have at discerning this mystical "call".

Yet again, you will fail and I will be vindicated.

I do encourage you to look though. You might learn something.

 

Can someone please answer my questions?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Er...apparently not...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

To quote from the document I linked earlier in this thread:

"The most difficult part of this passage is 2:12, which is usually translated as: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." The problem is with the word translated "have dominion over" (authenteinin Greek), for it does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament. This is not the usual word for authority. Outside the Bible the word is used of murder, suicide, having dominion over, and, some argue, of sexual offenses. The original idea seems to have been "to thrust oneself." The uses of the word for murder and suicide obviously are not pertinent for this text. If the reference is to authority, as seems likely, the negative connotations of this word would require a translation such as "domineer." Whatever the meaning, what is prohibited of women with this word seems so negative that it would not be permitted of men either."

 

Ding! We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen! 'Authentein' is used (as opposed to the usual 'exousia'elsewhere in the NT); it appears in secular Greek literature to describe the techniques prostitutes use to seduce their clients. So, Paul does not say 'exousia' is not permitted - why?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Probably because there wasn't a problem with properly beheaved authority.

 

I Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

To understand this verse in teh context it was written, we must look at the Greek. Gunh and Anhr are the words in koine Greek for "wife" and "husband" respectively (not "man" and "woman" in general), and being guided in this verse by the passage which is its wider context, we can see that this context is referring to a home-marriage-family situation, not a church context. Paul is saying that he does not allow a wife to exercise authenteo over a husband in the marriage relationship (authenteo = control in a domineering manner).

This verse has to do with the marital relationship. It was not intended to refer to all men and women in a church setting. When we use this verse in the church setting, we misapply, misinterpret, and add to scripture.

 

I Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

To understand this verse in teh context it was written, we must look at the Greek. Gunh and Anhr are the words in koine Greek for "wife" and "husband" respectively (not "man" and "woman" in general), and being guided in this verse by the passage which is its wider context, we can see that this context is referring to a home-marriage-family situation, not a church context. Paul is saying that he does not allow a wife to exercise authenteo over a husband in the marriage relationship (authenteo = control in a domineering manner).

This verse has to do with the marital relationship. It was not intended to refer to all men and women in a church setting. When we use this verse in the church setting, we misapply, misinterpret, and add to scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Though I don't know about the Greek, the marriage relationship of a man and a woman is that of Christ and the chruch. We are the bride and He is the groom.

So, are you saying that a woman can not teach or usurp over a man at home, but in church it's fine to do?

 

First not all calls are mystical as you put it, although some may be.

Paul would be a fine example Acts 16, the Macedonian call. Don't know if I would call it "proof" per sa, but it does reveal that God does call whom He calls in different ways to do different things. Throughout the bible God didn't call everyone the same way everytime, why should we expect Him to do so now? Why the distinction in "call" between the New and Old Testament?

Objective standard, are you looking for a check list of some sorts? Ultimately you have to rely on the direction of the Holy Spirit and in some cases the additional counsel of others and then confirmation of the spiritual fruit of your life by other believers. Eventually it will have to be a settled matter in your own heart and mind.

This is the exact reason your comments are so out of line revealing arrogance and immaturity. You don't know me or anyone effected by my 14 years of ministry pursuits, yet you have no problem standing in judgment of me based on my interpretation of a few verses of scripture. Your conclusion is that I haven't been called to do what I am doing because I don't agree with you!!

Why did you go to seminary? Couldn't have been for the financial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. What if someone told you shouldn't go, you should do something else, would you pack up and leave school? Probably not because normally you don't go to seminary for kicks, you are convinced that you where doing what God wanted and no one was going to stop you from serving God as you see fit.

Why then is it so hard to think a women couldn't be as sure as you and I are about what God has called us to do?

 

I'm saying that this scripture was not written to be applied to the issue of female pastors.

 

Women should stay out of the pulpit, my friend! I Timothy 3!

 

Nice work on the prostitution of that text John.

Paul specifically tells Timothy that his letter is to instruct him on behavior in the house of God. Um, that would be church. Sorry, but your feminized theology of manhood/womanhood is a disaster to anyone who actually believes it.

 

Call it what you will. It's accurate to the scripture in question.

Take it up with the author. That's the way he wrote it.

 

Johnv

"I'm saying that this scripture was not written to be applied to the issue of female pastors."

I'd say you're correct in that 1 Timothy was not intending to address that topic. But the lack of any address of the issue leads me to conclude that Paul did not want women to be preachers - he'd (I think) have had to defend it if he did!

 

Not a chance John. It is only accurate if you rip it from the surrounding context and insert your feminized theology.

Egalitarians are men to lazy to do their job.

 

Yes, good observation. Thanks.

Yes, it is the lack of address that I've always found interesting. It doesn't appear that Paul expressly forbade women from the pulpit in any of his writings. However, his discussion was geared towards men at the pulpit. Many conclude that, while Paul didn't wish to scripturally ban women from the pulpit, he did not prefer them in the cultural context. In the culture of Paul's time, a woman at the pulpit would not have been taken seriously. In other words, if the society wishes to forbid women from the pulpit for their own societal reasons, then Paul didn't have a problem with that. To fast forward to our present day, we have some denominations that have women pastors that are healthy and doing the work of the Lord. There are some that have men only that are just as healthy and doing the work of the Lord just the same. We in the SBC stricty forbid women as pastors, which is perfectly acceptible.

 

Johnv--you're forgetting one thing, Bro'!! SBC churches are autonomious! Churches can have women preachers if they want to---and there are just a few----not many, now-----who deliberately disobey the word from the Word and who want to!!

One day, though, those churches who do will rise and give account of their diliberate disobedience in hireing a woman pastor---and those women pastors will rise and give account of why they diliberately disobeyed the word from the Word and took that church, too!

Blackbird

 

But having a woman as a pastor is a very reliable way to get your church booted from the convention!

 

StefanM is correct. Yes, autonomy is a distinctive, indeed. However, when a church joins into another Baptist denomination, or convention, they also adhere to that convention's articles of faith and practice. In the case of the SBC, they have accepted that pastors be only men. If my church were to have a woman pastor, we'd have to disfellowship from the SBC. We would continue to be Baptist in adherence with the distinctives, however.

 

Shamefully, there are at least two SBC churches here in the state with women pastors---and the state convention isn't making a move to give them the "boot"---the churches in question align with the CBF, also to the SBC's shame! If the state convention refuses to deal with the subject---its probable that the denom. won't either---until someone really presses the issue!