Women Preachers - could they be okay?

1 Tim 2: 12-14- Says women are not to have authority over a man, also she is easily deceived. Not confident it is wise for a woman to decide whether another person is spiritually ready for baptism.

Also in considering the order of creation/headship, I cannot see how a woman is qualified to baptize another.
Even if she is qualified, it seems she would need to be baptizing another female.
Not to mention, it indicates in the bible that baptism is very important to salvation so if there is any doubt, it seems wise to error on the side of caution.
Just my lay opinion here...

 

RE: Women's preachers??

I was just thinking the other day on this very topic, and was wondering if I should start a thread about this, and lo and behold!! Here is why I believe women can not preach nor be a deacon.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Tts 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Now, where can a woman be a "husband" of one wife? What part of "silence" isn't easily understood?

People can do as they please, but if I was in a church and a woman took the stand, I would "quietly" get up out of my seat, and leave. I would not raise a ruckus or disturb the others, I would just leave peacefully.

I am a true women's libber! I believe that women can do whatever, wherever they want to do it. But when it comes to the church, preaching is not one thing they can do. How many of the 66 books in the Bible where penned by a woman? How many women did Jesus choose out of the 12 for His Disciples? Zilch, zero, nada, none, nil. A lot of the womens preaching, I think, came from the woman's movement when they wanted to do everything men did. Like I stated earlier, I am a women's libber to the inth degree.....but when it comes to the church, no! If I do the same job as a woman, she should get equal pay. If she qualifies, she should get a promotion. I would like to see Hillary as our president, for crying out loud!! I don't want to offend the women on this board, but there are certain lines that can't be crossed, according to scripture.

Willis

 

If a man never had contact with a woman which was the case in the NT and is the same case in many churches in the same areas of the world we would not have pastors and those who see the need to hide their sin.


A more recent case made public is http://www.fox30online.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=5d0cab05-f940-4727-8674-96725e39d982

 

I couldn't pass this up.... Boston!!!!:laugh: :laugh:

That is a qualification for a Bishop... not a preacher.

You can be a preacher without being a Bishop.

 

You should have added the verse, "1 Cor. 14:35, "If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

The SBC has ignored that.

The SBC has been very deliberate about teaching women apart from their husbands. Just take a look at what Paige Patterson's wife is doing. She is teaching at SWBTS in the theological school to women who are single and married. She is usurping the woman's husband's authority as leader.

Now the SBC has recently elected a woman as secretary in the IMB.

Anyone knows that in churches when women do little ministry they quickly learn to work through their husbands. Their husbands get a lot of arm twisitng at home. Those men come to church with their wife in mind. I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard deacins repeat what their wives think.

When I pastored an SBC church there were three people (1 married man and 2 married ladies) who were involved at the state level. Everyone of them came back after meetings with ways "they knew" we could be successful in "growing a church." after all they got them from the SBC experts. The church was already growing quite rapidly from a dead church just a few months earlier. Since I left that church those same experts are still there and hired a pastor who was involved at the state level in the SBC and the church has steadily declined.

Something that is quite interesting is what is found at http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/

"During one of our Southern Baptist Conventions in the 1950's, Josephine stood before before the Convention during the Foreign Mission Board report and preached to the messengers on their sin of racism. She asked why they would send her and other missionaries to Africa to share the Good News with black men and women but Southern Baptist Pastors would not allow them in their churches. This was the same year that W.A. Criswell, who occupied the 'office' of pastor at First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas, delivered a message praising segregation and calling anyone who proposed desegregation 'heretics.' Dr. Criswell later repented and confessed his sin by saying "Never have I been so blind." This anecdote illustrates the difference between the authority of ministry and the authority of an office."

When I was in a seminary class a young male asked the elderly lady missionary about how she could be a missionary. She sensed his antagonism and responded by saying that if there were not so many lazy men who would do the job then we wouldn't have to go.

If men want leadership then they need to step up to the plate and quit being so feminine. Any pastor knows that in most churches that if the women didn't work not much would get done. They also know that the majority of leaders in ministry are women. Gee I wonder why? In churches where the men are leading they leasst most of the ministries.

If wants to see if men are really the leaders just see who the workers are. If there are few men working there are few male leaders.

The SBC has been good at helping to encourage immorality by not allowing women to serve as military chaplains. A friend of mine who is a military chaplain told me that since the SBC quit endorsing women as chaplains they just go get another woman who is not SBC to deal with the women in the military. Just imagine what the potential would be for sexual immorailty if there were not women dealing with women. Can you just imagine the situation of a man as a chaplain away from his family for one year on a ship and a woman on that same ship for one year who is having some problems.

 

Ok, I read the article. I don't see this as a valid reason for women to be baptizing other men or women though it's nice to be aware of these things. At some point, you need to trust your Pastor though. If a woman is uncomfortable with her Pastor baptizing her, maybe she and her husband can request a Deacon.

My main concerns are there is no headship between women baptizing other woman thus no men appointed to oversee it. No higher archey. Also, there are no biblical examples of women baptizing other women. This is a salvation issue (possibly) so I wouldn't risk it.
Just my opinion.

 

I don't get it.

 

Do you happened to know what Paul said about women who didn't have husbands? And didn't he appoint a lady to prophetize at some point?
I can't see this passage being applied today. Doesn't make sense.

 

Historically in the early church women baptized women. Just think about what anyone would have worn in their daily living--one outer garment. Imagine getting that wet? Most people only owned one garment. They would have slept in the same garment.

The women instructed and trained the women in the church. A man never had any personal contact with a woman in the church. It is still that same way in many places in that same area. In those areas you will not hear of pastor getting involved with women in their congregations. There is a clear separation between men and women. In a church setting women sit on one side and men on the other.

No man can ever instruct a woman like another woman. If that were the case just imagine a man personally discipling a woman.

I think one of the reasons why we have given the pastor such an esteemed authoritative position is because few people are being personally discipled in churches today like they would have been then in such close proximity to one another.

Women will hold other women more accountable than any man and without any kind of improper emotional attachment or involvement. Scripture teaches that the older women are to disciple the younger women.

I think if there were a clear separation between men and women in the church the world would not see the troubles it sees on the news because of immorality by a pastor and woman in the church.

I have never spent any time with a woman without my wife or someone else present and never will. Anyone in ministry has probably been accused by someone who wants to create trouble. Having a clean practice is always good. When I was a manager in industry we had offices that were glass to avoid any issues. People could not hear anything but everyone in the room could see who was in there.

Sometime read the article at http://www.fox30online.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=5d0cab05-f940-4727-8674-96725e39d982

 

Some of my missionary friends tell me that it is the same way now as it was then in many of those countries. Women discipled women and if a pastor wanted to contact a woman in the congregation he did it through a deacon then down to the deaconsess and then the woman.

Absolutely I agree. That is my point. Women should be discipling women and men should be discipling men.

I agree. I think the more we can minimize dierct contact between the pastor and women oin the church the less likely that they will engage in improper behavior. We read about those problems weekly now.

There were times when I baptized a lady that I would have rather not see what I did.

Men discipling men and women discipling women is much better. Men understand men and women understand women better.

 

I agree.

If God, the Holy Spirit gives the spiritual gifts solely at His discretion, as I contend Scripture teaches (Rom. 12:3; I Cor. 12: 6-7, 11; Eph. 4:7), and the spiritual gifts are not declared to be gender specific as I contend, as well (not one verse of Scripture I have ever seen put forth by anyone to declare that any gift is "gender-specific", although more than one has taken verses that speak of 'offices', and tried toforce them into the gifts), and if a woman can have one of more of the gifts listed in Rom. 12, I Cor. 12-14, and Eph. 4 of prophet/prophecy, ministry/service/helps, teaching, exhortation, giving, 'ruling'/administration, mercy, wisdom, knowledge, faith, healings, spiritual discernment, tongues/languages, interpretation of tongues, apostle, evangelist, then yes, even that of pastor/teacher. Junia was an apostle (Rom. 16:7); Philip (and perhaps Timothy) who was an evangelist (Acts 21:8; II Tim. 4:5) had four daughters who had the gift of prophecy (Ac. 21:9); other women are specifically said to teach, and "show mercy", among other Scriptures, that show the employing of other gifts.

Why then do we, as 'the church', feel the need to "help out the Holy Spirit"
in placing additional 'restrictions' and 'qualifiers' on His gifts, that He never did, while simultaneously "helping Him out', once again, by conveniently ignoring the distinctions He did make between that of "gifts" and "offices", and deciding that these two radically different words, and concepts [and the numerous 'qualifiers' for that of the offices of bishop/elder, deacon, (and yes, perhaps even that of 'deaconness'), all of which include the idea of "gender-specific"], really are best understood, when we somehow realize the 'gift' as being identical to the 'office'? While it is true that the "duties" of an office (able to teach; work of an evangelist) can sometimes parallel the "characteristics" of a gift, it still does not follow that the two are identical. yet that is something I see 'argued, in essence, all the time.

And I do not even have to have the 'charachteristics', of one of the two spiritual gifts I was given ('discernment', with the other being that of teacher, although not pastor/teacher) to see this, as it is that blatantly obvious.

I simply don't get it! So, once again I will try and get this across. And I will add a bit of emphasis, in my attempt.

The spiritual gifts :BangHead:
are not identical to the church offices. [Bang head!]

The offices have numerous qualifications; [Bang head!]
the gifts have only the Holy Spirit's discretion. :BangHead:

I suggest we would do well [ Bang head!]

to observe the Biblical distinctions [Bang head!]

when they are made in Scripture. :BangHead:

I'm not adding any more, at this time, for I seem to have suddenly developed a headache, somehow, and need to take something for it.

Ed

 

Rude!!

Uh- since I musta' overlooked the verse, in my haste, where exactly wuz' that verse that speaks of "Senior Pastor" in Scripture? I am aware of one where, one time, Paul showed a definite lack of class as he ignored the "Senior Pastor", while addressing the 'underling' types, however. AND even worse, he included "young Timothy" in this same lack of class.

Now that gives new meaning to "rude"!

Ed

 

Just curious, as to know why, if you are "not very passionate over" this, why did you comment? I do fully agree that the local church can do as she chooses, including change her mind. The church is 'feminine', after all. :thumbs:

(Ed now grabs a 'hardhat' and ducks the bricks.) :tonofbricks:

Ed

 

The 'hardhat' helped; my headache has now eased; :thumbs: the office of bishop/elder does not equal the gift of 'pastor/teacher'; see my post #32.

Ed

 

[quotation was snipped - no problem with you, Ed!!]

 

A pastor / teacher is not the same thing. You don't have to be a pastor to be a teacher, but you need to be a teacher in order to be a pastor. Pastor / elder / bishop is a position, not a gift.

 

How about we say this slightly differently, and use the same words as Scripture uses to show this contrast, that I do believe is here, and say that the gift of "teaching/teacher" (Rom 12:7b; I Cor. 12:28b3, 29c) is not necessarily the same as that of "pastor and/ teacher" (Eph. 4:11d)?

I will also agree that there is no such thing as the gift of pastor, without that of teacher, for Scripture definitely links teacher to pastor, right here in this verse, above.

But there is no Scripture that makes that gift of "pastor/teacher" as a "position" or 'office', that I have seen, without reading something into it that is simply not there, in Scripture.

Since the noun "poimen" rendered as pastor only occurs this one time, in the entirety of Scripture, everything we know about what it entails must of necessity be found in the words around it. And there is not one word about it being a position, but rather it is said to be one gift (charisma) in a list of gifts, with the words gift and/or gave (charis) occurring five times in Eph. 4:7-11, and that number is even more significant, considering that vs. 9-10 are a parenthetical, explanatory sentence referring to "ascended", and not directly tied in to "gift", at all.

Once again, I will repeat something I said earlier. One can do the work (or fulfill the characteristics) associated with a particular gift, without necessarily having the particular gift (or, at least, this being declared to be the case), with Scriptural examples including those of bishops (be able to teach); Barnabas, Apollos, Titus, Timothy, and Jude (exhortation); Timothy (do the work of an evangelist); and Peter, and John (healing). Not one of the above is said to posess the gift associated with the deeds, unlike that of Philip (evangelist); Paul and Barnabas, (apostle, teacher and/or prophet); Stephen (faith); and Agabus (prophet); to name a few in each case.

Ed

 

Many people would be suprised to find out what term early Baptist church leaders (c. 1689) preferred to use for themselves.:thumbs: