Women Pastors

Just curious, why under 13? The Bible only says usurp authority over men. If you put your own age on it, my boy might as well check out of the house when he turns 13, if I have no authority over him.

If I find a bunch of teen boys in the back parking lot lighting up, do I as a woman have the authority to rebuke them?

As I understand authority in this sense, it is authority to lead a church as a pastor would in doctrine.

If we take it too far, then my English teacher in high school was wrong to teach my boy peers English in the Christian School. My speech teacher in college was also a lady and there guys in that class. Perhaps I shouldn't teach "Sean" piano and voice lessons because he is 17?

Do you see how it could get carried away if we add to what it says. No wonder the liberals are confused.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just curious, why under 13? The Bible only says usurp authority over men. If you put your own age on it, my boy might as well check out of the house when he turns 13, if I have no authority over him <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I just used 13, because that was the age when boys from the levitical tribe could go into the ministry and quite likely the age of Jesus when He stayed behind in Jerusalem in the temple and asked questions and taught. 13 is just my educated guess, I guess any age that they came into manhood. Whatever age you'd like to think it is is fine with me. It is true in these days that we live, less responsibility is placed on teens and therefore they come into manhood later than 13. But that could be due to our ways of bringing children up. If we brought them up correctly, maybe 13 would be more of an acceptable age.
As far as your children age has no significance, the Bible says honor your parents. Also says to obey them.

 

And Joy, yes maybe we could take it to far. But we could also and as many seem to want to do, not take it far enough, as to follow what God has said.
I'm not given you what I said here, this isn't what Joey thinks we should all do and therefore, do it. This is what God has said, and then man wants to try to take other scripture and twist it in a way it was never meant, to justify thier actions, such as allowing women to preach. They twist the scripture about women to keep silent in the churches and say do you follow this as to say, hey if you don't follow this then why should I follow this part? Well, mainly because God said it, and first off we are not to compare ourselves to one another, but to Christ. And secondly, the scripture as I said, they twisted it to say something that it's not saying. It is merely talking about usurping authority over the man.


God speed.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joey M:

1 Tim. 2:12-15 "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. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

Now if that is man's tradition and not Bible to you, then you've got a different Bible than I do.
A woman can teach Sunday School as long as it is boys under 13 and girls. She cannot teach men, nor can she preach, nor can she be a deacon, nor can she hold any office in the church that puts her in authority over the man.
Now there are alot of things that a woman can do to glorify God and be a help in the church. And a woman can preach, as far as witnessing testifiying , things of that nature. I'm just a Sunday School teacher and not a pastor yet when I teach I preach the word. A woman can preach the word, just not in the same sense that a pastor undershepards the church.
If you want a woman pastor, then that's fine check your Bibles in at the door, pick up your own angenda a sit down and listen to her. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Keith: Do I detect a little anger here?
Seriously looking at just vs 12, there appears to be three admonitions - (1) women cannot teach (no qualifications on ages - you added that) (2) nor shall she usurp men's authority - note this did not say can't teach BY usurping authority, and (3) but they should be silent. Taken literally women should always be silent; taken figuratively could mean women should not teach or loudly take over a man's authority. But to translate to say women can teach SS (for those boys &lt;13 or females) is certainly more problematical than to say they should not be head pastors.

I have no idea why you added vs 13-15 to this discussion unless you want to demean women in general.

Joey M: And Mike, your cheap shots do nothing for me. I'd rather be called a fundementalist than a yellow bellied liberalist that makes up their own doctrine, because they are afraid to offend anyone.
chew on that a while. I still love ya in the Lord and will pray that God open your eyes.


God speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you do still love that "yellow-bellied liberalist" Michael. I feel left out.

 

Question for Michael and Keith,

First, I must agree. Baptists, like everybody, interpret "literally at times and figuratively at times".

In this case, we have the more conservitive defending the apsence of women preachers from Paul's words. You say that if we take Paul's word strictly literal, they shouldn't speak at all. My question for you is, what would you say Paul was saying? What specifically was Paul trying to communicate? If Women were prophesing in the NT, and therefore Paul must not have meant for them to stay strictly silent, what was he talking about? And as far as women not teaching men, what was Paul specifically trying to command?

I guess what I am asking is, if Paul didn't mean to say what the fundies say he says, what do you think he meant? Why did he write it at all?

Thanks. Of all the issues in the Bible, this has been the most difficult for me to understand. I have never been in a church were women were totally silent, but I have never had anyone explain why we seem to be ignoring this one command.

 

keith,

Speaking for the moderators, please do not quote entire posts.

You know guys, sharp minds talk about concepts and ideas, others talk about each other! I try to remember that when I catch myself doing the latter!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pure and simple genius:
Question for Michael and Keith
I guess what I am asking is, if Paul didn't mean to say what the fundies say he says, what do you think he meant? Why did he write it at all?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would also like to see this question answered.

~Lorelei

 

I agree that there is a fundamental problem in the way we take a passage in the Bible and interpret half of it literally and the rest figuratively, or say one bit applied back then but the rest applies today as well - in both cases, without much exegetical foundation. So I look forward to other's responses on this.

For the record, last time I looked, my Baptist church and union does not prohibit women pastors, but women pastors cannot hold the role of senior pastor.

There are no prohibitions on who can preach from the pulpit - except for heretics and unbelievers of course. Choice of preachers is up to each individual congregations. The 'quality' of preaching therefore depends on how zealously pastors and their congregations 'guard' their pulpits from just any ol' Tom, Dick or Harry (or Harriet), ordained or otherwise. All of us are encouraged to 'preach' the gospel in word and deed and to 'shepherd' one another in our everyday lives.

As for me, I'm still reading and listening to the arguments.

artofstone

p.s. About the hair - is a bald guy really really super=spiritual?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pure and simple genius:
Question for Michael and Keith,
My question for you is, what would you say Paul was saying? What specifically was Paul trying to communicate? If Women were prophesing in the NT, and therefore Paul must not have meant for them to stay strictly silent, what was he talking about? And as far as women not teaching men, what was Paul specifically trying to command?

I guess what I am asking is, if Paul didn't mean to say what the fundies say he says, what do you think he meant? Why did he write it at all?

Thanks. Of all the issues in the Bible, this has been the most difficult for me to understand. I have never been in a church were women were totally silent, but I have never had anyone explain why we seem to be ignoring this one command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair question. I guess I'd have to say like a lot of scripture - it just isn't clear. And if it is clear, it can be unacceptable to our modern minds and to our consciences.

Looking at a larger context (1 Tim 2:8-15), it doesn't even seem to be limited to
how women are to behave in church; it could be how they relate to their other men anywhere. v 8 says "in every place" and it seems to not be limited anywhere in this passage. So women should only be able to learn anything in silence (v 11) no matter where they are (church, home, school, etc.) That's a hard interpretation to swallow but much more natural than this passage was written to prohibit women pastors.

The word translated "women" could be translated "wife" according to my footnotes. So it could quite naturely be how they relate to their husbands. They are to learn in silence and submission v11. (I for one couldn't stand it for long if my wife had to remain silent). Again that's a hard interpretation to swallow but more natural than the one some here are touting.

It could be that Paul had some particular immodestly dressed (v9) ladies in mind (if in fact this was written by Paul - the pastorals are often thought of by scholars to be non-Pauline, later first century with more church establishment issues being discussed). Maybe it was only applicable to these troublemaking ladies. And Paul put them in their place by recalling Eve's sin v 13-14.

But maybe the "saved" in v15 implies that the prohibition in women's speech is over once she's had a child (that's a stretch - no pun intended). And maybe the last phrase in v15 implies that women do not have eternal security since they have to "continue in faith...".

Face it ya'll (even you geniuses) the Bible is not so simple to interpret across the ages. So all this talk about an inerrant source of pure truth is unobtainable anyway. Only the Spirit can guide us into all truth as Jesus said (John 14:26). And apparently the Spirit doesn't guide us all alike.

 

By the way, I'm the head of my household. What I say goes and....
Oh no, got to go here she comes!!!


I like that. I am a fundamental, independant Baptist. And proud of it. I stand on what Paul said, a woman can not have authority over a man.... Can someone tell my wife that?


I also like the man dancing but couldn't paste it on here. I'll stick with what my fundamental brothers and sisters say. Others, not naming names, are compromising the Scriptures and that is a no no.

 

Keith,

Thanks for sticking to the topic at hand and answering the question so thoughtfully. You made some interesting points.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by keith:

Looking at a larger context (1 Tim 2:8-15), it doesn't even seem to be limited to
how women are to behave in church<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The larger context could also include 1 Timothy chapter 3 where is actually talking about the offices of Bishops and Deacons. Remember, Paul did not write the book broken down in chapters and verses. As soon as he makes his statement about women, he says "This is a true saying" and goes onto describe these offices.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by keith:
The word translated "women" could be translated "wife" according to my footnotes. So it could quite naturely be how they relate to their husbands. They are to learn in silence and submission v11. (I for one couldn't stand it for long if my wife had to remain silent). Again that's a hard interpretation to swallow but more natural than the one some here are touting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting concept and the first time I have noticed that about the word woman. The same word is sometimes interpreted wife. I don't know anything about the Greek, but I do wonder how the interpreters determined which definition was to be used.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by keith:

(if in fact this was written by Paul - the pastorals are often thought of by scholars to be non-Pauline, later first century with more church establishment issues being discussed). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not certain what you are saying here. Why would someone say this was from Paul if it were not?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, NIV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree that it is not easy to interpret things over the ages, but I still don't understand how some things have to be interpreted to begin with. If we take every verse and say well maybe he meant this or maybe he meant that, then how do we have a Bible to stand on at all? I know context is indeed extremely important, but that is context that is obvious and that we know about, not speculated context.

Michael,

The word I is not in the original texts from what I can see. Maybe someone can interpret the greek for me to help me see why it said "I"?

Is your entire belief system based on what Fundamentalists do or don't do? It seems your entire arguments are well you don't do this or you don't do that. Either way, your beliefs should be based on God's Word, not "fundies" words. I really wish you could get over this "fundie fetish" and actually look at what the Word has to say.

~Lorelei

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
There's a lot that needs to be pointed out about the 1 Timothy passage. First, notice how Paul says "*I* do not allow..." So, is this an eternal decree from God or an interpretation from Paul? I say the latter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you saying this passage is not scripture or that all scripture is not inspired? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Paul is quite fond of sometimes giving his opinion, which also sometimes changes, as for instance when he says in one place that it is better not to marry but then in another that every man should have his own wife. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In reading through your posts, it appears that you frequently ignore context to make your point. I notice the same from the KJVO crowd and that is probably not the company you want to keep.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you fundie men ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just a couple of points here. First, there are some passages of the Bible which establish principles and others which are commands. Whether it fits into one's worldview or not, it is a command that women should not have authority over men in the home and church. Secondly, you toss the title fundamentalist around much to freely. You obviously intend a negative connotation. However, the legitimate definition of the term is simply one who adheres to historical, biblical beliefs.

Many that you have labeled "fundie" here are legalist not fundamentalists. Charles Spurgeon was a fundamentalist. Jack Hyles was not.

With that in mind and since we seem to have a different point of view on the proper use of scripture, it might help if you could provide some outside support for your position. Can you cite an example of a female pastor within the first 300 or 400 years of church history? If it were allowable there should be an example. It would have been contrary to the Hebrew culture but women held prominent religious positions in Greek culture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Come on people, how about a little discernment? The fundies would like us not to use our God-given ability of discernment and reasoning and accept their pronouncements about what these passages mean without any questioning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. Fundamentalist believe that the passages mean what they say. Discernment is the way we understand the passages, not a license to make them mean whatever we want them to. Many of the people you accuse of being fundies use scripture out of context to support their KJVOnlyism. It does not work for them nor should it work for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That way they can try to force their legalistic, extreme literalistic interpretations on us and then condemn us as heretics because we don't accept those interpretations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not totally dissimilar to condemning someone as a "fundie" because they don't accept your interpretation of the Bible which is outside of its normal meaning.

Read and think, folks! ...so both they and their interpretations have lost much credibility.[/QB][/QUOTE] What kind of credibility can a position have if it stands in conflict with scripture? Perhaps, humanistic or philosophical or social or political but not biblical.

 

A little Greek from an amatuer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Interesting concept and the first time I have noticed that about the word woman. The same word is sometimes interpreted wife. I don't know anything about the Greek, but I do wonder how the interpreters determined which definition was to be used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same word is used to mean woman and wife. Interpretation is always 100% off context.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The word I is not in the original texts from what I can see. Maybe someone can interpret the greek for me to help me see why it said "I"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Greek, like Spanish, embeds the pronoun into the verb. Specifically in verse 2:12, Paul says, emitrepo (that's my own transliteration) which means I permit (or allow). In this case he says "ouk emitrepo" or I do not allow. In Greek (just as Spanish), if you actually place the first person prounoun, "ego", it is for emphesis.

I don't know if you know any Spanish (I know about two words) but as an example you would say

hablo

which means I am speaking or I speak and not

yo hablo

even though yo means I. If you want to say he speaks you write a different personal ending.

 

Dr. Bob,

You are a wise one! The "light" always extinguishes the "darkness." Now we "see through a mirror" a little more clearly!