Women in leadership roles....

[ebia]

Galatians 3
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[ebia]

Evangelist- sorry, I couldn't get to your link.

BlackmanX- care to give an explanation of what Paul was talking about when he said women should not be in leadership roles in the church or when he talked about male headship in the home?

BlackmanX's explaination, or will any explaination do?

[ollie]

Galatians 3
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

And:
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Romans 8:14.  

[C C]

Reba,

Don't you think that the scripture that says basically, "I don't allow women to teach in church" and the scripture that says, "women should teach women in church"  Don't you think that those scriptures are contradicting each other??
Which can be easily and happily concluded that obviously the first scripture isn't all encompasing of all women not teaching in all churches under any circumstances.

If women are teaching women in church, they're still teaching in church and not remaining silent DUH!!   then that's against Paul's rule about teaching in church which is clear indication that Paul's rule is not so all encompasing the way that it's made out to be.  And if it's not all encompasing the way its made out to be then just how narrow is the interpretation?  What really is the true interpretation???

What really is the issue here is that women ARE allowed to teach in church or they are NOT allowed?  Clearly they are allowed because in another place of Scripture women ARE instructed to teach.  

What it really means is that the rule about women not teaching in church is NOT all ecompasing.

The principle of the matter is that God made men for the laws not the laws for men.  But that doesn't include women does it. . . .    at least according the the Pharasees of our day.  I would consider the spirit of the man that gets in an uproar about a woman teaching in church as well as consider the spirit of the woman teaching in church.

Does anyone recall the Prophetess Anna of the New Testiment who had served in the temple for 80 years or what not?  She was in the Temple and she prophesied and people learned her prophecy and essentially she taught in church.    

Remember Ladies, we're dealing with the male ego, Christian or unchristian.  When men get all in an uproar and start getting legalistic about things, that's when we know their own spirit is not in check.  And women know better then men about the male ego and how a man's head swells so just for that reason God does raise up Godly female leaders.

I sat around wondering for how long the writer of the letter in the link was posted above in another post--I wondered how long that writer had to mull over how to prove that the Prophet Debra wasn't a teacher and a leader.  He discounted it by saying it was in Civil matters only.  Well, then how does that writer discredit the Prophet Anna?  She lived and worked in the temple from the time that her husband passed away.  I suppose that was civil matters only too.  Or what other sort of discredit would the pharasees of our day when in comes to the issues of female leadership might use to discount that there have been in fact female leaders raised up by God Himself.

Remember how the Pharasees were always in an uproar about Jesus and what laws He seemed to be breaking?  Didn't Jesus teach us a thing or two about our actions being about our spirit and the intentions of our heart?

The men that have huge hang ups about women teaching in church probably have the same spirit as the Pharasees that had huge hang ups about Jesus healing on the Sabboth.

I do believe that in our God given roles in life women do have burden LIFTED of the responsibility to teach in church.  We also have the burden of the responsibility of being in leadership roles.  No one can condemn women for not getting a hold of the reins and leading a group even when a group is going to hell in a handbasket.  The men involved will be in big trouble on judgment day, the women wont.  The scriptures are clear we don't have to do take the responsibility to teach and lead.  But the principle of the matter is that God can use anyone He wants for whatever purpose He wants including using women in leadership roles.  It happens!!

In all honesty, I think America has a whole lot of big problems and I think it is because the leaders that we have that are men are slackers.  They really are.  I have yet to see ONE single pastor that isn't conforming the the mold that our united states has created for us.

Even my favorite pastor in the whole world has to hurry up and end the surmon on the Sunday's that there's football.  I have yet to see a man that is totally like Jesus in our culture.

If God happens to raise up a woman leader that is dedicated totally to God and God can really use her because He has complete control of her, and she is fully yeilded to Him, I would follow her.  I haven't seen her yet.  But it's the principle of the matter.  I haven't seen any men yet actually doing all that they can do.  Yes, men have their faith, but they still cling to the cares of this world with part of their heart, mind and strength.  I think part of their hang up is that they're so busy being concerned about getting the speck out of their brother's eye or sister's eye, that God can clean out their heart.  And I totally believe this is one of the issues that makes men such slackers.

[C C]

Neo,

In Christianity there are neither male nor female, we're all supposed to be equal.  But it's almost like the human spirit doesn't want to embrace equality.  There's lots of Christians running around that would love to use Christianity to make themselves feel better about themselves.  Then they start getting out scriptures that point to women's roles of being submissive and quiet.  I think that they're taken out of context and were written in a day when you could get beheaded and beaten and imprisoned for mentioning Christ.  the principle of the matter is that god wasn't calling the women to those kinds of things for their own safety and security but for the safey and security of man AND women.  Imagine if you will, if Martin and Gracia Burnim--Imagine if Martin wasn't ready to die for Christ, and Gracia was off getting kidnapped by terrorists and Martin had to go save her??  The point is, women are supposed to wait around for the leading of their husband in matters such as these, but in EVERYTHING.  What if you are the wife of the Morman who teaches that the United States is a wicked and evil empire and then your husband tells you to go bomb buildings??  All I'm saying is you can't be a big Pharasee.  Obviously even the the scripture that says "in EVERYTHING" is NOT all encompassing.  Back to Paul's day and when couples went preaching, in the best interest of their husbands, if a woman got herself into trouble for being a big loudmouth for Christ, then her husband would have to risk his life to save her, what if the husband wasn't ready for that?  The idea was for women to wait around for their husband to be ready to give his life up for Christ  The scriptures were more related to the idea that a person's life was pretty much in danger for teaching about Christ.  Paul didn't want the women to get ahead of their men in going to the grave for Christ.  These days, it's all taken out of context and its all about male ego and male dominance.  The scriptures aren't about that though.  

Peace

[ebia]

God says that it is a disgrace for women to hold authority over men or to teach them - or even to speak in church.

No.  St Paul said it in a particular context to a particular readership with particular issues.  The human author isn't just God's dictation machine.  The message that God wants us to draw from it can only be understood by stepping back and considering it in context, and in the light of the rest of scripture.

You are demanding that we read the bible in the way muslims read the Koran - as a book dictated by God.  Although a small number of rather extream Christians try and do that, it's not how the bible is presented nor how it has traditionally been understood.

[ollie]

Reba,

Don't you think that the scripture that says basically, "I don't allow women to teach in church" and the scripture that says, "women should teach women in church"  Don't you think that those scriptures are contradicting each other??
Which can be easily and happily concluded that obviously the first scripture isn't all encompasing of all women not teaching in all churches under any circumstances.

If women are teaching women in church, they're still teaching in church and not remaining silent DUH!!   then that's against Paul's rule about teaching in church which is clear indication that Paul's rule is not so all encompasing the way that it's made out to be.  And if it's not all encompasing the way its made out to be then just how narrow is the interpretation?  What really is the true interpretation???

What really is the issue here is that women ARE allowed to teach in church or they are NOT allowed?  Clearly they are allowed because in another place of Scripture women ARE instructed to teach.  

What it really means is that the rule about women not teaching in church is NOT all ecompasing.

The principle of the matter is that God made men for the laws not the laws for men.  But that doesn't include women does it. . . .    at least according the the Pharasees of our day.  I would consider the spirit of the man that gets in an uproar about a woman teaching in church as well as consider the spirit of the woman teaching in church.

Does anyone recall the Prophetess Anna of the New Testiment who had served in the temple for 80 years or what not?  She was in the Temple and she prophesied and people learned her prophecy and essentially she taught in church.    

Remember Ladies, we're dealing with the male ego, Christian or unchristian.  When men get all in an uproar and start getting legalistic about things, that's when we know their own spirit is not in check.  And women know better then men about the male ego and how a man's head swells so just for that reason God does raise up Godly female leaders.

I sat around wondering for how long the writer of the letter in the link was posted above in another post--I wondered how long that writer had to mull over how to prove that the Prophet Debra wasn't a teacher and a leader.  He discounted it by saying it was in Civil matters only.  Well, then how does that writer discredit the Prophet Anna?  She lived and worked in the temple from the time that her husband passed away.  I suppose that was civil matters only too.  Or what other sort of discredit would the pharasees of our day when in comes to the issues of female leadership might use to discount that there have been in fact female leaders raised up by God Himself.

Remember how the Pharasees were always in an uproar about Jesus and what laws He seemed to be breaking?  Didn't Jesus teach us a thing or two about our actions being about our spirit and the intentions of our heart?

The men that have huge hang ups about women teaching in church probably have the same spirit as the Pharasees that had huge hang ups about Jesus healing on the Sabboth.

I do believe that in our God given roles in life women do have burden LIFTED of the responsibility to teach in church.  We also have the burden of the responsibility of being in leadership roles.  No one can condemn women for not getting a hold of the reins and leading a group even when a group is going to hell in a handbasket.  The men involved will be in big trouble on judgment day, the women wont.  The scriptures are clear we don't have to do take the responsibility to teach and lead.  But the principle of the matter is that God can use anyone He wants for whatever purpose He wants including using women in leadership roles.  It happens!!

In all honesty, I think America has a whole lot of big problems and I think it is because the leaders that we have that are men are slackers.  They really are.  I have yet to see ONE single pastor that isn't conforming the the mold that our united states has created for us.

Even my favorite pastor in the whole world has to hurry up and end the surmon on the Sunday's that there's football.  I have yet to see a man that is totally like Jesus in our culture.

If God happens to raise up a woman leader that is dedicated totally to God and God can really use her because He has complete control of her, and she is fully yeilded to Him, I would follow her.  I haven't seen her yet.  But it's the principle of the matter.  I haven't seen any men yet actually doing all that they can do.  Yes, men have their faith, but they still cling to the cares of this world with part of their heart, mind and strength.  I think part of their hang up is that they're so busy being concerned about getting the speck out of their brother's eye or sister's eye, that God can clean out their heart.  And I totally believe this is one of the issues that makes men such slackers.

Don't you think that the scripture that says basically, "I don't allow women to teach in church" and the scripture that says, "women should teach women in church

Isn't this in reference to the public gatherings or assemblies of the church and not to "in the church" per se. Is Paul telling the Corinthian church to obey a civil law of Corinth where women are not allowed to speak at public assemblies? If so, is it true, for us not of Corinth, to adhere to this admonishment?

[His_child]

So Paul's teachings are outdated?
Do we get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible still apply today?
BTW- Christians are still being murdered today for their beliefs.

ebia- anyone's explaination will do.

[ebia]

Since when does having to consider context amount to being irrelevent?  You can't understand Dante's Inferno without understanding the city and time he lived in, but that doesn't stop it being great literature.

Paul made a point that no longer applies to today's culture - it is therefore outdated.

The purpose Paul intended to fulfill by saying that in his letter may be outdated, but that doesn't mean there isn't something God wishes us to learn from it.  The bible isn't an instruction manual, its an opportunity to learn about God, and one of the ways it does that is by the inclusion of these letter.  The original purpose of which has long since vanished, but they still have value because we can learn from them.

Why?

Because if God knows everything and can do anything, he should easily be able to avoid them.

You assume he wants to.

It's not outdated - it has a context.  As does ANY text.

And is this the case when the author of said text is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent?

But he chooses to communicate through stuff that has a context, because the object isn't to inform us about facts and lay down rules, but to teach us how to grow closer to him.

[Allinall]

Neo,

In Christianity there are neither male nor female, we're all supposed to be equal.  But it's almost like the human spirit doesn't want to embrace equality.  There's lots of Christians running around that would love to use Christianity to make themselves feel better about themselves.  Then they start getting out scriptures that point to women's roles of being submissive and quiet.  I think that they're taken out of context and were written in a day when you could get beheaded and beaten and imprisoned for mentioning Christ.  the principle of the matter is that god wasn't calling the women to those kinds of things for their own safety and security but for the safey and security of man AND women.  Imagine if you will, if Martin and Gracia Burnim--Imagine if Martin wasn't ready to die for Christ, and Gracia was off getting kidnapped by terrorists and Martin had to go save her??  The point is, women are supposed to wait around for the leading of their husband in matters such as these, but in EVERYTHING.  What if you are the wife of the Morman who teaches that the United States is a wicked and evil empire and then your husband tells you to go bomb buildings??  All I'm saying is you can't be a big Pharasee.  Obviously even the the scripture that says "in EVERYTHING" is NOT all encompassing.  Back to Paul's day and when couples went preaching, in the best interest of their husbands, if a woman got herself into trouble for being a big loudmouth for Christ, then her husband would have to risk his life to save her, what if the husband wasn't ready for that?  The idea was for women to wait around for their husband to be ready to give his life up for Christ  The scriptures were more related to the idea that a person's life was pretty much in danger for teaching about Christ.  Paul didn't want the women to get ahead of their men in going to the grave for Christ.  These days, it's all taken out of context and its all about male ego and male dominance.  The scriptures aren't about that though.  

Peace

Hmmmmm...where to begin here.

How about...here...

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.As in all the churches of the saints, 34the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.  Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.


1 Corinthians 14:26-40

The principle Paul is teaching here is order.  God does things decently and in order.  Not every prophet is to speak at once.  They are to speak so as to build up the assembly.  If one has a message that is more profitable for the assembly the other is to keep silent.  Paul then says women are not to speak in the assembly.  I know guys that feel they shouldn't sing, or even talk!  But that's a little out of context, isn't it?  Especially since Paul also spoke of one fellas daughters who prophesied in the church and did so favorably.  The speaking is instructing.  And for a woman to instruct a man...well, Paul deals with that as well.  It's not to take place as she is not to usurp his authority.  That does not mean that the man is to lord over her, or even that she has nothing valid to say.  She is to ask her husband.  Why? Because he has all of the answers?  No.  Because that is God's design.  She asks her husband who is her head.  He asks Jesus who is his Head.  

Is the man better than the woman then?  By no means!  There is neither male nor female in the assembly as far as God is concerned.  But there is order.  There is structure and the expectation of that structure being enacted.  The woman is not the lead.  The man is.  Problem is, men don't lead.  Women take up the slack, and are wrong.  So are the men.  But if a woman asks her non-leading husband a biblical question, what's he going to do?  In most cases, be flattered.  And to not look like a moron in front of his wife, study to answer her question.  Does she know the answer?  Remains to be seen.  

In my life, my wife asks me things from time to time.  Sometimes because she really doesn't know.  Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.  When I do, I'm able to build her up.  When I don't, we are able to build each other up as we learn.

Sometimes she does know, but follows the example given.  I.E., last night at our bible study, I was going off on a tangent another fellow started.  But I was missing the key verse that clarified everything.  She quietly asks me what that verse means then if my tangent was right.  She was right and I wasn't.  I pointed that out to everyone!  And the issue was solved, biblically in truth and in practice.  I would have had no problem with her simply saying so on her own, but her obedience to God's word was blinding to me.  It built me up, and those around us as well.

Just a thought...

[rtwyatt]

My biggest problem with this discussion is that the same churches who don't believe in women as ministers are the same churches who have women teaching children sunday school.  If you are going to go by the scripture when it comes to ministering and teaching adults why not children?

[His_child]

My biggest problem with this discussion is that the same churches who don't believe in women as ministers are the same churches who have women teaching children sunday school.  If you are going to go by the scripture when it comes to ministering and teaching adults why not children?

For starters, it's hard to get men to step up into the role of leading the youth unless their wives encourage them.
Also, women are supposed to lead other women.

[C C]

 

You're never going to get me to agree that paul says I can't talk in church.  and you're never going to get me to agree that every word Paul says is law.  Paul was trying to get people into a closer relationship with the Lord.  

So, whenever people read Paul's words such as "Say Hi to Lodacia"--or some other person living in his day, does everyone who reads that have to stop all that they are doing and say "Hi" to Locacia who is already with the Lord and  dead to us?  Is there not something in the Bible that's against speaking to the dead?  Yes there is.  Should we all drop everything we're doing to say "Hi" to Lodacia?  Let's all have a big seyance or however it's spelled and call up the dead so we can say Hi and send our greetings to Paul's friends of his day!  

Whoever says ALL of Paul's words apply to all of today is blind and groveling in the dark.

All I can say is that people that believe that all of Paul's words are law and we must submit to them are stunted in their spiritual growth and blind, missing the whole point that Paul was trying to make.  

"The only genuine motivation in the Christian life that will consistently sustain a godly lifestyle is love.  Any other motivation will eventually fail.  If contemporary Christians spent as much time developing loving intimacy with Christ as is spent in defining proper Christian behavior, the world would be a different place.  It isn't without basis that the unsaved world sees Christianity as a religion with a particular system of behavior.  Many Christians make that their focus too.  They want to know God's commandments in every area of life so to keep them.   . . .any approach to Christian living that focuses on keeping rules as a means of experienceing vitory or growing spiritually is LEGALISM.  Legalism is a system in which a person seeks to gain God's acceptance or blessing by what he does.  People who live this way are called LEGALISTS.   . . .Is your concept of the Christian life one which suggests that Gdo's primary concern with you is your behavior?  If so, you are a card-carrying member of the LEGALIST LODGE."

Therefore, when you open your Bible to study, focus on the words that Christ spoke to the Pharasees.  Don't focus on the words that Christ spoke to the sinners.

[JudgeNot]

So, whenever people read Paul's words such as "Say Hi to Lodacia"--or some other person living in his day, does everyone who reads that have to stop all that they are doing and say "Hi" to Locacia who is already with the Lord and  dead to us?  Is there not something in the Bible that's against speaking to the dead?  Yes there is.  Should we all drop everything we're doing to say "Hi" to Lodacia?

Ha-ha-ha!!!  

CC - that's a real hoot.  I've never heard that particular argument!  I think you just made me smile for the rest of the day.

Yours in Christ,
JN

[C C]

 

Thanks!

Glad to make someone's day.  

Nobody believes me when I say that some people's ideas of the way to interpret the Bible are laughable.    You've made my day because you've proved my point.

Thanks!

I've thrown out my Legalist Lodge member card and now am under grace.  

In Paul's words,

"You know very well, my brothers (for I am speaking to those well acquainted with the subject), that the Law can only exercise authority over a man so long as he is alove.  A married women, for example, is bound by law to her husband so long as he is alive.  But if he dies, then his legal claim over here disappears.  This means that, if she whould give herself to another man while her husband is alive, she incures the stigma of adultery.  But if, after her husband's death, she does exactly the same thing, no one could call her an adulteress, for the legal hold over her has been dissolved by her husband's death . . .the death of Christ on the cross has made you "dead" to the claims of the law, and you are free to give yourselves in marragage so to speak to another, the one who was raised from the dead that you may be productive for God."  Romans 7:1-4 PHILLIPS

"The Christian is dead to the law!  is what Paul teaches us.  And yet, now everyone wants to make everyone one of Pauls words NEW LAWS.  We have died to Christ and made alive to live legalist lives under the words of Paul.  It's sheer stupidity and it's laughable!"

"A person who focuses on keeping rules will experience contstant frustration.  The purpose of the law is to show that a right relationship to God is not the result to conforming to external regulations.  Now we live on a new law which isnot based on external demands, but rather on internal desire."  Yet there are hundres of people coming in the name of Christ, who for Freedom set us free--making up all kind of NEW external demands--Paul's Words are the new external demands that they dump on us.

But that's not all.  We now have all kinds of churches that claim to be the only true church and they've made up hundreds of external demands newer and more difficult to keep than than the demands that they've given us from the words of Paul!

I don't know whether to  laugh or cry and sometimes I just want to give up hope.  "the core of Christian life doesn't revolve around DOING, but is grounded in BEING.  The Christian life is the life of Chirst.  Or focus is a person, NOT the performance of religious activities.  

Paul's words again:

Let me ask you this one question:  Did you receive the [Holy] Spirit as the result of obeing the Law and doing its works, or was it by hearing [the message of the Gospel] and believing [it]? [Was it from observing a law of rituals or from a message of faith?]  Are YOU so foolish and so senseless and so silly?  Having begun [your new life spiritually] with the [Holy] Spirit, are you now reaching perfection [by dependence] on the flesh?  Galations 3:2-3

yep, lots of men out there keeping thier wives quiet in church, I don't know how many marriages have been broken up by it, but it's NOT the principle of the matter.  We are legalists and we will focus NOT on love but on the New Law which has been given to us by Paul the apostle.    Who came to teach about Christ, but in so many of the century's legalist's efforts the effect of making Paul's words law do distract us from Christ, we now live by Pauls words as law.  We should change our names from Christian to some other name.

Peace