woman teaching in the church ?

[DaveHawk]

I'm in a discussion with a spiritial lady I have know for many years. You could say she is my spiritial mother. We are talking about lady's preaching in the church. I am wondering what you all may think about this. I am leaning very seriously towards Paul's teaching.

[Cato]

Paul's teachings were Spirit led, so I'm thinking we all should be following them. I think the issue has more to do with the proper interpretation of them.
:)

I am no authority here. But I was thinking it goes back to God's chain of command, more or less (this may not be the best choice of words). The man is primiarily responsible to God for the spiritual welfare of the family, and will answer to God. Likewise, God appointed elders to be the ones primarily responsible to Him for the welfare of the Church (local body), and I was thinking the teaching called for males.

This does not, however, extend to Bible teaching. I don't think there is anything in the Scripture that precludes a woman from ministering, teaching, etc, as long as she is not usurping the role of the elder/pastor.

I am looking forward to hearing about this, as I need to learn more about it. Good topic.

Cato

[Ray Cover]

Boy somebodys asking for it here. This is one of those dellimas we get into when our wife ask "Does the dress make me look fat?" :lol:

Joking aside I think we should follow the teachings of Paul. Scripture makes it clear that marriage is a picture of our relationship to God. Paul's writings in Scripture make it clear that the structure of the church has the same kind of symbolic "picture" to it regarding headship and authority.

If we consider ALL scripture to be the Word of God (some don't) we need to take seriously what it says even if it ruffles our cultural feathers.

I think we often cop out on being obedient to God in such things . It is too easy to blame the cultural practices and expectations of "that" time. But we have to realize it was God who pulled Abram aside and created the Jewish nation and shaped that "set apart" culture to suit Him building those symbolic pictures in as He went. The same is true of the first century church. :2cents:

Ray

[DaveHawk]

I am in full agreement. My delima is , I received an e-mail from a friend who is friends with this Jewish lady The Lord used me in her receiving Christ as her savor. She has become an ordained minister. She already is has and is a Dr. of Physictry and a very smart woman. I had no idea she was going for a Dr. in divinity. My friend who I turned her over to after she excepted the Lord today e-mailed me her letter about her conformation. Now I may have to add a stumbling block in her way and I don't want to do anything to hert her and she is in awe of me sence I'm the insterment the Lord used in her life. Much prayer has to go into this. I know she can be a worker for the Lord , but in what capasity ?

[Swanny]

That's a good point, Ray C. The goal is to let Scripture speak and ourselves to fall into conformity, but the difficult part is to have eyes that can discern when our own personal bias/short-sightedness, or tradition are steering our understanding of how God intended women to function in the age of fulfilment (I Cor.10:11) and in these last days (Heb.1:2). I always try to start out with my framework, or grid, and see how it might affect an issue of this nature. If my grid is skewed, then how I end up looking at a smaller detail (which, in this case, is very important) will most likely be skewed as well.

Many books have been written on this subject (one of the best...because it's comprehensive and not myopic, IMO, is from Jon Zens), and it is one of those hot-buttons or touchy issues in the church, but that shouldn't keep us from discussing it - it should give us more sobriety about our attitudes towards honoring one another with differing views. That being said....I'll put a few thoughts down of where I'm at in my present understanding...which is subject to change. :)

Looking at the issue through a redemptive-historical perspective, God created woman from man to be a suitable help-meet along side of him in the context of a covenant-union between them (Gen 2:20,24). This was the intent, but the fall of man changed the harmony of this principle in the relationship between husband and wife. The curse on the wife would be that in a fallen world, she would now sinfully seek to go outside how God intended her to function *in a marriage*....(Gen 3:16b). The New Covenant participants are the most priviliged of people in the fact that Christ death actually accomplished (not merely invoked a 'possibility') significant changes within a husband and wife in his kingdom in order to restore the intended order, *especially in marriage*.

We have examples in the OT of God using women in significant authoritative fashions. I won't find and list all the differing examples here, but God used them at times as prophets and judges, but no women were recorded to function as kings. It is also interesting to note that it was very un-nautural and undesired and looked down upon (not just in the Jewish society...but in most all cultures) for a woman NOT to get married. Paul, while under the influence of the Spirit in the NC, would invoke a change in the way the real people of God would view a single person, man or woman.

I'll try to post a bit more later. Gotta go take the family hunting....at the supermarket.

[Ray Cover]

Dave,

I think you hit the nail on the head, Much Prayer does have to go into this.
For two reasons. God needs to prepare your heart to tell it and her heart to hear it.

One thing I would keep in mind is even telling her in the most loving way possible she may not be willing to hear it. If that's the case don't let it be a wedge that breaks down your relationship with her.

I would do with her what my wife does to me. Holly and I have been married for going on 15 years and I have never been nagged. When she has an issue with me she very kindly brings it up one time and then bathes it in prayer. Its not long until God is either fixing me or changing her expectation. Holly doesn't nag me. She takes it to God and lets Him nag me. :jesus:

You may have to do a similar thing in this situation. such sitations are always hard. :2cents:

Ray

[DaveHawk]

Ray, your right on there, I tell my boys the same thing. I'm giving this over to God, He can deal with you on this matter. LOL

This lady was very high up in the policial realm in Washington Politics and when the Lord lead me to witness to her for 5 years and then pray the sinners prayer with her it caused an upheavel in her home [jewish] leading to a devorice and spoucial abuse but she is doing great now. I had to turn her over to a close friend cause I could see the relationship could get unhealthy with her. Please keep me in your prayers. I getting the sence I may not have a voice in this matter with her. This may have to come from someone else. But if the Lord wants me to talk with her I'm open for His leading.

[BLACK WOLF]

Wow...I applaud all of you and praise God for each and every one of you...the heart felt thought that is going into this moves me. Some GREAT advice!

Ray ;)

[Swanny]

If anyone has any critical thoughts about how I'm building this perspective....feel free to post them...I'm all ears.

Under the Old Covenant women had very limited roles...certainly none were priests (that I know of), but I think the point is clear in the OT that God used women in significant ways. Much more could be said here, but I'll jump right over to the coming of Christ. As I've mentioned before the newness that envelopes Christ and his New Covenant cannot be underestimated and left unnoticed. The kingdom of God consist no longer of people WITH a few priests, but is a kingdom OF many priests (I Pet.2). Those who are in Christ, by grace through faith, are indwelt by the Spirit and are the temple of the living God...men, women, and children. This is a 'radical' change with 'radical' consequences! Ethnicity no longer determines whether are one can be a priest, gender distinctions no longer prohibit either. Every priest has something to offer...both to God...and to the one another (the body). Christ death purchased 'gifts' or gracious abilities for each priest to use to serve and minister to one another (Eph.4:7,8; Rom and I Cor. 12). "There is neither Jew nor Greek, nor slave, nor free, nor male nor female, for you are all one in Christ...[joint] heirs according to the promise [given to Abraham] Gal.3:28. This is not an undermining of the creation order of husband and wife distinctions in function, but an enhancement!

In Acts 2 we find the historical account of the Spirit being given since the Christ conquered death and was now ascended. I would agree with many others that this is the birth of the church, or the New Covenant body of believers indwelt by the Spirit (I respectfully disagree with my covenantal brothers that Israel was the church of old). According to chptr 1:14 this was a mixed group gender-wise. Upon the Spirit being poured out the people began to speak in foreign languages they had never spoke before. Some people began mocking them and said they were under the influence of wine, but Peter (under the Spirit's influence) stood up and quoted from a passage in Joel....pinning the event that was now in progress back (he said 'this IS that'...not 'this is SOME of that') on what Joel prophecied hundreds of years earlier: "In the last days [now current events!], God says I will pour out my Spirit on all people [no distinctions of ethnicity or gender]. Your sons AND [my emphasis] daughters will prophecy.....even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days and they will prophecy....". If all we had was the OT and were reading this passage in Joel we would never be able to connect it to it's fulfillment in the church, but Peter did because it was meant to be a picture of what was going to be the reality found in the body of Christ, the church.

As Jon Zens has said (paraphrasing him)...this is the birthday of the church and we find women speaking in ways that God had predicted they would ALONG SIDE of the men...why in the world would there be a degression in a woman's role after we interpret Paul's instructions (as difficult as they are) to the church at Corinth and to Timothy (in reference to those who hold the position of keeping women totally silent when the church is gathered)?

Granted, as with anything new there will be abuses in both directions...supression and expression (as was happening in the church at Corinth), but Paul certainly wouldn't give instructions on the one hand that would totally dismiss a rudimentary principle of being one in Christ, and on the other, allow what would be a denial of the order in function or roles between a husband and wife which God divinely established upon creation. He will use *both* of these principles for instructions of how women and men ougth to function together in the body of Christ.

That's my framework, or grid that I use to take a closer look at passages that deal with how women are to function. Anyone see any cracks or holes in my framework?

Dave, is good advice to completely bathe the issue in prayer, but don't forget the bath water needs a tub or structure in order to be effective or useful....that's what doctrine is for...love and humility make the sweet smelling soap...takes it all to change lives to the glory of God...II Tim 3:16.

[Ray Cover]

Just a side note, we brothers with a covenantal view would agree with you that the "Church" was a New Testament revelation/creation and did not exist in its modern form in the OT times. We merely would say that OT beleivers are still saved by Christ work on the cross like we are. Where as now we are looking back on the event they looked forward to it. (even though their forsight might not have been as clearly defined as our hindsight) The Levitical sacrifice system was a temporary covering of sin that was a type or picture of Christ finished work not a permanant one like the cross was. We would say that they are under the same blood we are for salvation ultimately. I don't think we are in disagreement about that.

Back to the topic. I am still processing and I need some time to think your ideas through but here are my initial thoughts.

I agree with just about everything you wrote. I believe that the church is a church of preist that have direct access to God since the temple veil was rent.

I beleive that the NT church (or at least was taught to) valued women as equals in the faith. That is to say they are just as important to God as men and He directly works through both sexes equally.

The only potential disconnect I see is this. Can we equate equal value within the body with equal authority within the church leadership structure.

In other words, In marriage God has given the man headship in the marriage exactly as Cato said earlier. But does that structure of authority lessen the wife's value as a person or as a believer in God's eyes. No, she has exactly the same gifts, fruits and access to God's throne as the husband. Even though that's the case, a woman can't take that equality as a reason to usurp the husband's authority in the family.

Likewise, I don't think a woman can use her equallity as a person before God as a reason to usurp a role that scripture clearly lays out as being reserved for a man. It doesn't mean God looks on her as less of a person just that He has defined a structure for church leadership in which he wants a man to represent certain parts.

I will ponder this some more.

Ray C

[Swanny]

Hi Ray C, thanks for the feedback! I apologize...it wasn't my intent to direct the comment about my covenantal brothers towards you....I was thinking of those well known writers that do hold to historic covenant theology...the idea that Israel was the church is a necessary by-product of their framework of the two covenants they build the rest of their theology on: covenant of grace and covenant of works. I have heard R.C. Sproul (Sr. and Jr.) speak about this (and read about it in Table Talk), and they go through this in detail in their Geneva Study Bible. If you do a search on this topic with contemporary names like Michael Horton, John Frame, Richard Barcellos, Douglas Wilson etc... you'll eventually read them saying this exact thing. Even the older writers like John Murray, Benjamin Warfield, Hodges, Dabney, Shedd, John Gill, Richard Baxter etc. say the same in their writings. They believe the church isn't an entirely new enity...disconnected from the old...they say it's the same guy in different clothes kinda thing....or a different outworking of the 'covenant of grace'...though they admit some things are new.


The only potential disconnect I see is this. Can we equate equal value within the body with equal authority within the church leadership structure.

In other words, In marriage God has given the man headship in the marriage exactly as Cato said earlier. But does that structure of authority lessen the wife's value as a person or as a believer in God's eyes. No, she has exactly the same gifts, fruits and access to God's throne as the husband. Even though that's the case, a woman can't take that equality as a reason to usurp the husband's authority in the family.

Likewise, I don't think a woman can use her equallity as a person before God as a reason to usurp a role that scripture clearly lays out as being reserved for a man. It doesn't mean God looks on her as less of a person just that He has defined a structure for church leadership in which he wants a man to represent certain parts.

I'm glad you said 'potential disconnect'...yep, I didn't address any specific passages that Paul uses to construct leadership within the body, so you're right on target, IMO. I agree as Cato mentioned.....Paul said that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of his church (Eph.5). There can't be two heads. Interestingly, he didn't say 'the pastor' or 'the elders' are the head of the church...so how leadership functions in a church body isn't exactly the same as within a marriage. I'll peck some more later.

[Cato]

I'm listening, learning, and enjoying all this.

We all agree that the man is to be head of the family, accountable to God for its spiritual welfare.

And the marriage is a type for the relationship of Christ and the church, the church being the bride of Christ. As Christ gave up all self interest for the church, so also the husband is to die to self for the interest of his wife. And as the wife is a helpmate, so also the church is a helpmate for Christ (I think). Somehow it doesn't seem logical that God would reverse the roles in the case of the headship of the local church.

In I Timothy 2:2-6 Paul gives to Timothy the criteria for Overseers. Aren't they the local pastors? He says, husband of one wife.....one who manages his own household well...

Again, I am learning, but is seems there is a distinction between the teacher/evangelist vs the head of the local church.

Cato

[Ray Cover]

Swanny,

OK I see where you are coming from and maybe I have a warped view of dispensationalism myself. But I haven't understood RC Sproul to sell a works covenant vs a grace covenant. At least not if what you mean by works covenant is that folks in the OT are saved by works and in the New by Grace. Actually that is closer to what I understood dispansationalist to believe. There is one dispensation in which isreal was the church and was saved through the sacrificial system and there is now a new dispensaton in which we are coverd by the blood of Christ instead of animals. And there will be a future dispensation with yet another way of salvation. Like I said I may very well have a warped view of dispensationalism but that is basically the way I understand it.

I am thinking off my head here so I may not get all the Ts crossed and Is dotted but I think you will be able to follow me. The way I have always understood Sproul and covenant Theology,

The Adamic Covenant has a hint of salvation in that one is fortold who's head will be bruised (Satan) and one who's heel will be bruised (Jesus). Then Moses' Covenant through Abraham's Covenant (will be father of many nations ........), Davidic Covenant (there will be a king from the line of David ......) on through to the new covenant. Each covenant bringing closer to the cruxifiction and modern church. Each covenant finding its complete fullfillment in the cruxifiction and establishment of the Church. But covenant theology teaches that the cruxificaion was effective for all saints no matter which side of point "0" on the time line they lived because the cruxifiction was the fullfilment of the covenants that looked forward to the "new covenant."

Paul said that the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of his church (Eph.5). There can't be two heads. Interestingly, he didn't say 'the pastor' or 'the elders' are the head of the church...so how leadership functions in a church body isn't exactly the same as within a marriage. I'll peck some more later.

You are right they are not the head of the church universal but they are the head of the local assymbly or church group which is a microcosm of the church universal. I think scripture makes that pretty clear. So I beleive the example still stands.

There is a theme through scripture that women play a different role than men as a picture of God's choice in the order of creation and as a picture of His relationship to us.. Cato makes a good point in that the examples in scripture use men in the head leadersip positions. One would be hard pressed to find a scripture where it is implied that women are to lead the local church body.

There is one example of God choosing a woman (Debra) for a prophet but never as a priest (who were head of the temple or head of worship if you prefer). None of the early church leaders mentioned in the NT were women either.

Now there are women in scripture who are given leadership roles. Debra is one who comes to mind. But if you read the story God told Debra to tell the General (can't remember his name off top of my head) to lead the army into battle. The whimp wouldn't go unless Debra lead the battle. I would be very interested to see if all the other situations where women led were situations where men refused to, forcing the women into it.

I do beleive God will chose a women to lead if there are no men willing or available. But I don't think a biblical argument can be made that it is God's first choice for a woman to lead as the head of a local church.

Of course, you are a very capable man and may supprise me. :)

Ya know I got to say I am glad you guys are here. I am enjoying these converstaions even more than the archery sections. :amen:

[Swanny]

OK I see where you are coming from and maybe I have a warped view of dispensationalism myself. But I haven't understood RC Sproul to sell a works covenant vs a grace covenant. At least not if what you mean by works covenant is that folks in the OT are saved by works and in the New by Grace. Actually that is closer to what I understood dispansationalist to believe.

Not to get off course, Ray. C, but actually it's not a works VS. grace covenant for historic covenant theology...it's a works covenant (Adamic prelapsarian....before the fall) that gave birth (via sin) to an overarching 'covenant of grace' (salvific post-lapsarian). This alleged 'covenant of grace' has differing administrations...outworkings via the 'Old Covenant' and 'New Covenant'.

This link is probably a pretty concise read on the three most popular structures or grids to filter scripture through (though Piper's summary of NCT isn't totally accurate...which is understandable since it's been floating out there in church history for a while, but no one before 25 years ago has actually started solidifying the particulars):
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/law_gospel/disp_cov_ncov.html

And this link for an insightful analysis of whether 'the covenant of grace' is worthy of building an entire theological system on:

http://www.searchingtogether.org/articles/covenant.htm

But I don't think a biblical argument can be made that it is God's first choice for a woman to lead as the head of a local church.

I totally agree, but I also must respectfully point out that nowhere in Scripture that I remember does it specifically/clearly assign *headship* of the church to human leadership...only to Christ. See Eph. 5:23, I Cor. 11:3. Am I absent minded here forgetting a text that says otherwise? I personally think it adds confusion (most of the time) to certain dynamics in going with terminology where Scripture doesn't...even in smaller areas like these.

Back to the question of whether a woman should be a preacher...

Dave, are you implying the woman is 'the pastor' of a local assembly, or are you saying that she stands on a street corner, or goes into a synagogue and preaches the gospel to those who will listen?

IMO, another aspect that makes discussion profitable or unprofitable to all like this one is our use of terms...sometimes they are so infected more with how tradition has shaped our understanding of them, instead of how the Scriptures use them. The goal is to see if our understanding and use of the terms line up with the biblical usage....if not, we would do well to change.

Take the word 'preach' for example. David Norrington in his book 'To Preach, or Not To Preach...The Church's Urgent Question' (out of print, but still findable through Searching Together Bookstore for those interested) reveals that there are actually thirty some different Greek words that the KJV translators took the liberty to interpret all soley as 'preach'. Perhaps heavily influenced from the Anglican Church practice at the time?

He goes on to show how newer translations correctly give the flavor of those thirty some words....some of them left as 'preach' while a significant remaining amount are translated as 'dialogue' or 'converse' and likewise.

Doing this by my somewhat lacking memory (got the book presently packed away in a box)...he shows many passage such as the one where Paul was said to have 'preached till midnight' and the boy fell asleep and fell backwards out of the window....the word 'preached' in the text is the word that literally translated means 'to dialogue' (if I remember correctly NIV got it right)....which is totally different than the cultural expectation we all are guilty of picturing...that Paul had his pulpit and performed a monologue while folks were passive in voice....as in NO DISCUSSION, NO INTERACTION. Simply not accurate....thanks to tradition.

He went further to explain that in all the passages KJV translated 'preach' he took note of two things: the content of the message and who the audience was. He found out that (somewhere close to this) in 8 out of 10 passages the audience was clearly unsaved and the message was the Gospel...in other words, Paul was Gospelizing folks (often with discussion/interaction), while most today think of it as a term that describes what 'the pastor' does every Sunday....a 45 minute monologue designed to equip/encourage the flock who are mostly saved.

Granted their are a few passages where Paul tells Timothy to 'preach in season and out of season' to believers...so we can't swing too far and develope a picture of preaching that is too wooden/inflexible in that it is only Gospelizing the unsaved, nor can we say that some monologue is bad or unprofitable.

Just a few thoughts. Maybe Dave can fill us in on some more particulars if possible. Enjoying the 'dia'logue too! :)

[Ray Cover]

Thanks for the links I will check those out.

Ray

[DaveHawk]

this is great help and I thank you all for your insight. Here is a part of her e-mail, I left her name out.

"I have just gotten my Doctor of Divinity degree, and ...Lord, I love this...sit down, okay?
You sitting down?
I have, as of today, in church, become a flipping ORDAINED MINISTER !!!
...a non-denominational Christian minister ~ very yummy, don't you think???
I can perform marriages, baptisms, officiate at funerals , everything.
Y'know what makes me laff? They now call me -get this- "The Reverend Dr. --------"

She is very excited and I am happy for her, knowing what she has gone though.

" Now I know what all that "crucifying" was about..." she stated this.

I can see where the Lord would use a woman if no men would come forth but something is wrong with this.

[Swanny]

Is she married as well, Dave?

[DaveHawk]

I think she remarried a high school sweet heart who is a minister.

[Swanny]

Culturally speaking (the evangelical culture that is), most folks do not blink an eye when they see a man getting his 'ordination' and becoming 'the pastor' of a local church, while many still would have a problem with a woman doing the same. But, I would respectfully ask....why would anyone , male or female, who is truly interested in what the Authoritative Scriptures say want to become an 'ordained minister' when their is absolutely no such requirement...it (both ordination...and 'the pastor' as in top dog) is a tradition of man.

I know this will be a hard pill for many to swallow, but it is the truth, IMHO. It's also not my intent to become devisive (even with truth one can become devisive) and encourage folks to leave their local assembly...not at all. If you have any thoughts - again, I'm all ears as I don't have all the answers.

Please don't think I'm against anyone who is 'ordained'....that's not what I'm saying, as I have many relationships with folks who are and have benefitted from their friendships in many ways, but all of my beliefs must be based on Scripture alone.

I think there is more of an Old Covenant orientation as far as leadership/authority goes in our churches today, and the NC has ushered in a paradigm shift in how authority functions in the church....that's why human leadership (elders, overseers, pastor-teachers etc) is never said to be the 'head' of the church....

Lots of things have changed...one of the significant factors being the gift of the indwelling Spirit in all who are true participants of the NC. No longer to people have to be led by one man as in the days of old. In comparison to the OC, the NC is an era of maturity...Christ's work actually accomplished a tremendous amount....and the grace-full gifts he imparted to each are powerful to incite growth in all the body! Yes, there is leadership, but how they function has drastically changed from a one man leadership model found in the OT. See Mtt. 20:25

Here is some good reading. Sorry to defer...got a busy day packing...leaving for CO tomorrow.

http://www.searchingtogether.org/articles/ray/authority.htm
http://www.ntrf.org/elders.html
http://www.searchingtogether.org/articles/4tragic.htm
http://www.ntrf.org/one.html
http://www.ntrf.org/slaves.html

[Swanny]

I just re-read my post above...and wished I showed more sensitivity....a quality I lack sometimes....my wife knows and is working on me. So I apologize if I came across too harshly.

Sackett mentioned Gene Edwards on another thread. His right hand man is Frank Viola...who's put in a boat load of time in researching church history and has documented it in several books...one being 'Pagan Christianity'. Some eye opening stuff in there for sure. But here's one of his articles just for another reference.

http://www.ptmin.org/thepastor.htm

My desire is to see folks grow in grace. So I hope, if anything, this discussion will get folks to see their role/function in the body is vitally important for the maturity and edification of all in the body. Let's not be passive spectators!

[Ray Cover]

Sorry Swanny I have not read you response yet so If I say something out of context here please forgive me. But..I have to respond to Daves post of this lady's quote.

Dave your right there is something bothersome about this. It is something that bothers me much more than the issue of wether or not women are to be ministers. You know this lady and it may not stick out to you but I think you can sense it.

Please dont' take this the wrong way because I am basing this totally on the words she wrote and nothing else. My impression may be totally out of context to bear that in mind.

I see a serious missplaced priority in her words. What I don't see is a humilty in the opportunity to serve God in that capacity. She seems all enthused with what SHE GETS TO DO rather than enthusiasm in SERVING the church under God. I also see a bothersome attitude in her response to the "tittle" "Reverend Dr........."

I seriously get the impression that she is proud of what SHE has done and sees this as a validation of HER accomplishments not an affirmation of what GOD has done in her life.

Now like I said I am seeing these words totally out of context and may not be getting the correct picture but that is the impression I get from her words above.

God bless,
Ray

[Esquire]

I've decided to share an exegetical sermon by the pastor of a Bethel Church in Indiana on this subject that I found very helpful on this subject. This is the sermon: http://www.bethelweb.org/Sermons/2003/060803.htm

This is the church's website: www.bethelweb.org (http://www.bethelweb.org)

I also have found many sound biblical answers on the website for The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. www.cbmw.org (http://www.cbmw.org)

The following link (from cbmw.org) is to 50 of the most commonly asked questions regarding gender roles in the church, followed by an answer that is firmly rooted in scripture. Even if you come to different conclusions than the Authors, I think you will find these questions and answers extremely helpful in searching the scriptures for yourself:

http://www.cbmw.org/questions/

The church I recently attended just went through this when we were assigned a woman senior pastor. At the same time we started a study of 1 Timothy. Many in the class were greatful to have done the study. Many more wished we'd skipped over it, by the time we were done!

BTW, I played the sermon I linked to here, to my sunday school - a group of 40 or 50 young professionals in a United Methodist Church. It went great until the last few minutes of the sermon. :)

[DaveHawk]

Esquire, Good sermon. His sermon was right on line with my thinking about this. Thaks for shareing it.

[Esquire]

Wow Dave, you didn't waste any time! It was very helpful to me, and echoed what I basically understood to be true about this issue. The "created order" part was especially illuminating.

[edmott]

If you see that what they are saying lines up with the written word of God then OK. One always should be carefull with private counselling with the opposite sex. Also look at my bottom kicker line for fun.

[DaveHawk]

This is something I am finding myself cought up in and I want to learn all I can. Thanks Again.

Swanny, your insite is very good. I don't think anyone takes offence to your post at all. Thanks for sharing.

[BLACK WOLF]

Woe...great links Mike...I have to agree with him also. His sermon is right online with my thinking also.

Ray ;)

[Swanny]

"It’s not absolute silence. So what kind of teaching is he prohibiting? Teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership (Fifty Questions, CBMW). In our context, that would include the pulpit ministry, a gathering of adults like an Adult Fellowship and Kinship Group. Any place where that teaching role would usurp man’s created role to lead, women are not to do it. Does that mean that women can’t share spiritual truth? No. I might make the distinction this way. There is a difference between a testimony and a sermon. I have been blessed by the testimonies of God’s grace in women and how they were brought through. We have a recent example or two here. Great. But if that woman said, “Turn in your Bible and let me tell you what this means.” At that point, we draw the line. Why? Is she not gifted? Is she not able? No. She’s just not called to that. Men bear that responsibility. Women, it goes beyond just not speaking. There is an attitude that God treasures in women."

Mike, thanks for posting the link. Overall I think it was edifying, well-rounded and in line with the basic truths (function vs. essense), and I appreciate his God-honoring attitude throughout. The only area I think was weak in representing what I see in Scripture is the section I pasted above about how a woman can 'teach' in the lesser sense. He doesn't bring to light of the distinction between a wife vs. a single woman. Nowhere does it tell a single woman to be subject to men (in general) as their head. It seems all the passages where we find commands for women to be submisive are given in context to the husband and wife....though we do find several passages telling the entire body to submit one to another (Eph.5:21..another highly debated verse....Wayne Grudem and John Piper dealt with this in their book "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" which I personally disagree with their orientation of ...this verse...not their overall understanding of the roles which is good).

Which brings to light the fact that both I Cor. 14 and I Tim 2 passages where Paul says the *women* ought to be 'quiet' (a more consistant translation of the word/forms are translated elsewhere....I Thess 4:11 'lead a quiet life'... as in disposition, not verbal noise coming from their mouth...which is the idea of silence). As I understand it (not being a Greek scholar...but this isn't rocket science) the Greek word for 'women' is the same exact word for 'wife', and it's up to the translators to decide whether the context would indicate either. See the passage in I Timothy 3 where Paul goes into the qualifications of a deacon....some translate vs. 11 with 'deaconess' or 'their [deacon's] wives'. It's a judgement call. If, as I believe it to be,in I Cor. 14 the word is *wife* then the instructions make more sense as the abuse was from women prophecying in a *disorderly* way that would not be fitting to their role towards their own husbands....as I Cor. 14:35 says they are to ask their own husbands in private. Not every woman has a husband...and in the NC...this is good...I Cor.7.

In my opinion and experience, a single woman could function in a slightly different fashion and still be honoring to male leadership within the body....and do more than just share a 'testimony', but what steers much of our conception of HOW is our cultural ways we do things...there were no such things as a 'pulpit ministry' in the early church..with people sitting in pews and a guy up front telling everyone when to sing, when to pray, when to get up and go home. Folks sat in their houses, around the table, all the while engaging in Christ-centered conversation, interspersed with song, admonishing, exhorting, teaching and prayer....women included. This is the bulk of what they did and how they grew into maturity. The church was the seminary. So it's admittedly difficult to flesh these things out when we're filtering them through our American cultural expectations of what 'church' is.

This is a good discussion though. Dave, I do agree with Ray C.'s comments about your friends underlying attitude....very revealing about her motives.

[Swanny]

Mike, Just checked into your link you posted: http://www.cbmw.org/questions/

Very helpful! In fact, I agree with their position in #10 about mutual submission. When one reads it from "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood' it comes across a bit differently .........to me anyhoo. :)

Very good site to reference. THanks!

[DaveHawk]

In the light of all that has been said, I think we all agree that a woman should not be placed in the pulpit but that by no means is hard and true. God will and dose use who ever makes themselves avaliable. I a man and wife were in remote regions and the man dies I know God would raise up a man to take the position but if none are ready then the woman would most likely become the {helper} The word helper is used though out the bible and I see Paul elluding to this type of fuction for a spiritial woman.

[Esquire]

The next sermon in the series, entitled "The Dignity and Worth of a Godly Mom" is also very interesting and worth listening to. It delves into the verse that says a woman shall be saved through childbirth, which is sort of an interesting thing to say in this context. It can be found here: http://www.bethelweb.org/Sermons/2003/051103.htm

I have limited time to respond to this interesting subject right now. Swanny, and some of you others, I really appreciate your perspective and approach to both this and other matters. I will check back in as I am able.

Mike

[Swanny]

I happened to speak with Jon yesterday and found where he has his article on this subject online....

http://www.restorationgj.com/id163.htm

It's an excellent read for those interested in a slightly different perspective...one that I believe has been missing from the traditional church scene, but yet still upholds the essense vs. function principles God established upon creation.

[LILLIAN]

[SIZE=3][COLOR=DarkOrange]That's a good point, Ray C. The goal is to let Scripture speak and ourselves to fall into conformity, but the difficult part is to have eyes that can discern when our own personal bias/short-sightedness, or tradition are steering our understanding of how God intended women to function in the age of fulfilment (I Cor.10:11) and in these last days (Heb.1:2). I always try to start out with my framework, or grid, and see how it might affect an issue of this nature. If my grid is skewed, then how I end up looking at a smaller detail (which, in this case, is very important) will most likely be skewed as well.

Many books have been written on this subject (one of the best...because it's comprehensive and not myopic, IMO, is from Jon Zens), and it is one of those hot-buttons or touchy issues in the church, but that shouldn't keep us from discussing it - it should give us more sobriety about our attitudes towards honoring one another with differing views. That being said....I'll put a few thoughts down of where I'm at in my present understanding...which is subject to change. :)

Looking at the issue through a redemptive-historical perspective, God created woman from man to be a suitable help-meet along side of him in the context of a covenant-union between them (Gen 2:20,24). This was the intent, but the fall of man changed the harmony of this principle in the relationship between husband and wife. The curse on the wife would be that in a fallen world, she would now sinfully seek to go outside how God intended her to function *in a marriage*....(Gen 3:16b). The New Covenant participants are the most priviliged of people in the fact that Christ death actually accomplished (not merely invoked a 'possibility') significant changes within a husband and wife in his kingdom in order to restore the intended order, *especially in marriage*.

We have examples in the OT of God using women in significant authoritative fashions. I won't find and list all the differing examples here, but God used them at times as prophets and judges, but no women were recorded to function as kings. It is also interesting to note that it was very un-nautural and undesired and looked down upon (not just in the Jewish society...but in most all cultures) for a woman NOT to get married. Paul, while under the influence of the Spirit in the NC, would invoke a change in the way the real people of God would view a single person, man or woman.

I'll try to post a bit more later. Gotta go take the family hunting....at the supermarket.