US preacher defends belief women can't teach men

A U.S. Baptist preacher has publicly defended himself for firing a female Sunday School teacher after more than 50 years on the job because he believes the Bible bans women from teaching men.

Watertown First Baptist Church Pastor Tim LaBouf, also a city council member in Watertown, N.Y., said women could fulfill any role or responsibility they wanted to -- outside the church.

"My belief is that the qualifications for both men and women teaching spiritual matters in a church setting end at the church door, period," LaBouf said in a statement on the church Web site (http://www.nnyinfo.com/firstbaptist).

LaBouf and the church board fired Mary Lambert, 81, earlier this month in a letter that cited the scriptural qualifications for Sunday School teachers, Lambert said.

"They quote First Timothy Two, 11-14: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent," Lambert said, reading from the letter.

"I was astonished," she said. "I would not go back and teach as long as this is their thinking."

William Carlsen, executive minister for American Baptist Churches of New York State, said U.S. Baptist Churches are autonomous and that there would not be many other Baptist Churches that share LaBouf's view.

"A considerable number if not a majority of American Baptist Churches have been quite aggressive in affirming the place of women's leadership roles within the church," Carlsen said.

The board of the Watertown First Baptist Church said in a statement on its Web site that the scripture rules concerning women teaching men in a church setting had only played a small part in Lambert's sacking.

"Christian courtesy motivates us to refrain from making any public accusations against her," the board said.

I appreciate your discussion on this issue.

I was brought up in a Baptist church, but this wasn't something emphasized.

When I was 24 I left the church I grew up in and started going to a near by mega church, which had women elders, and eventually women pastors. I thought this was cool and modern, and a sign of enclusivity. And the man who was a spiritual mentor to the head pastor even wrote a book on the subject of women in leadership.

Though in my young mind, I thought that women in leadership was cool, and whose time had come, there was something stirring in my sole. While I read the book that the professor had written, though my heart was open and reseptive to it, my spirit became very uncomfortable with it, and I never finished the book, that I can remember.

Though I wanted to go along with the program, little by little, this one issue haunted me more and more.

By the way, I wasn't someone who just showed up once in a while, or on Sundays. I regularly attended weekend services, which were designed for "seekers", and mid week services, which were more meat and potatoes. I also served in one of the youth ministries for 13 years, going to camp 1-2 weeks in the summer, and numerous weekend retreats.

I mention this, NOT to toot my own horn. I'm only trying to point out, that I was heavily involved, as I take my faith (what I prefer to call my personal relationship with the only true and living God) very seriously.

Eventually, I left that church. The main reason was that I was feeling called away from the ministry that I absolutely loved. But I was feeling more and more uncomfortable with the issue of the roles of women in the church. As well as a few other subjects that I don't feel are pertinent to this discussion.

Now I would never encourage someone to make spiritual decisions based on their feelings. For me it was a matter of time (years actually) and a lot of prayer.

Now as far as Biblically speaking, lets look at the entire context of the passage. In 1 Timothy 1, Paul opens with a greeting and then why he was writting this letter 5But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
6For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion,...

Now when we get to chapter 2, Paul starts to get into detail of things, but he is talking to/about the church (congregation) as a whole.

Verse 8 is the first to specifically name one group to do something,

8Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, ifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.

Then verses 9-10 he swithes to women,

9Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
10but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

These verses are focused on all women, and not just wives.

Next come the verses we have been discussing.

After that Paul discusses why he says this. And chapter 2 ends shortly at verse 15.

Now in chapter 3 Paul talks about church leadership,

1(t is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?,

I emboldened the words man, husband, he, and wife to make a point. You pointed out in your response how Paul was talking about wives in the latter part of chapter 2. But I want to point out that Paul uses both man and husband, as well as women and wives. He was clearly stating to whom he was refering.

Throughout this passage Paul is charging men with leadership, and what is required of them. Women are never brought into the discussion

Until verse 11

11Women must likewise be dignified, (V)not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

Paul seems to bring women in simply because he's putting very high standards to men, especially those who aspire to leadership, and to emphasize that even though women aren't involved in leadership, they themselves have certain qualities to aspire to.

To show continuity, the verses in chapter 2 would still fit perfectly here.

Now it may sound simple, but I don't want anything missed out. Chapter 1 is the only chapter in 1 Timothy that starts out introducing Paul, and announcing to who the letter is written. So it is obviously the start of the letter. When you get to 2 Timothy, once again, the introduction, and address. My point is that the entire book of 1 Timothy is ONE entire letter. So everything needs to be read together to see the entire context.

Also this letter is written to Timothy, a person, not like Corinthians or Ephesians, which were written to congregations. Read in its entirety your able to view that Paul is instructing Timothy on how to teach and lead those under him, Timothy. So When Paul says,
12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
You can see that Paul is instructing Timothy.

Now my last point is, that I've heard the argument that Paul was trying to conform to the society of the day. The problem is, first, where else does Paul EVER conform to society? I'm talking about conforming doctorine to society. Where in the entire Bible does the word of God conform to society? It doesn't. The Word is to transform the world not the other way.

I imagine Paul being about 5'-6" today, back then maybe 5'-0". But Paul was a spitfire. Here was a man preaching in the synagogue, dragged out and stoned, and left for dead, but didn't die. He gets back up, bloodied and battered, and goes back in, and says I'm not finished yet, and continues to preach the word of God.

Paul didn't shirk before Roman centurions, the army Rangers of the day.

In that light I don't see Paul conforming his message out of fear or respect of society. In fact, I see the exact opposite happening.

Now lastly (at last), whether we agree on this or not, at this point is really unimportant. We have both made our points, and I encourage you, that if you have other insights I might be interested in viewing, send them along. But as can be pretty frequent here on FR we need to be careful on how we do this.

3If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,
4he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions,
5and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
1 Timothy 6:3-5

I think that it is obvious that we are brothers (or sister and brother) and rejoice in that.

mountn man, thank you for responding. I enjoy scholarly debate. Please do not get offended by any of my reply. I wish to continue the discussion, at the very least it is an opportunity for me to wrestle with the truth, which I think is good for the soul. I am not going to respond to everything in your lengthy post, but I will touch on what I take to be your salient points.

I was brought up in a Baptist church, but this wasn't something emphasized.

So was I. But unfortunately the Baptist denomination as a whole has one of the strongest anti-women doctrines around. You were probably infected with it at an early age, as I was.

When I was 24 I left the church I grew up in and started going to a near by mega church, which had women elders, and eventually women pastors....I was feeling more and more uncomfortable with the issue of the roles of women in the church....Now I would never encourage someone to make spiritual decisions based on their feelings. For me it was a matter of time (years actually) and a lot of prayer.

I know of men and women who got divorced or turned gay after "a matter of time and a lot of prayer." So let's wrestle with the truth rather than your feelings or comfort level.

Now as far as Biblically speaking, lets look at the entire context of the passage. In 1 Timothy 1, Paul opens with a greeting and then why he was writting this letter...Now when we get to chapter 2, Paul starts to get into detail of things, but he is talking to/about the church (congregation) as a whole....Verse 8 is the first to specifically name one group to do something,...Then verses 9-10 he swithes to women,...These verses are focused on all women, and not just wives....Next come the verses we have been discussing....After that Paul discusses why he says this. And chapter 2 ends shortly at verse 15....Now in chapter 3 Paul talks about church leadership,...I emboldened the words man, husband, he, and wife to make a point. You pointed out in your response how Paul was talking about wives in the latter part of chapter 2. But I want to point out that Paul uses both man and husband, as well as women and wives. He was clearly stating to whom he was refering....Throughout this passage Paul is charging men with leadership, and what is required of them. Women are never brought into the discussion....Until verse 11....Paul seems to bring women in simply because he's putting very high standards to men, especially those who aspire to leadership, and to emphasize that even though women aren't involved in leadership, they themselves have certain qualities to aspire to. To show continuity, the verses in chapter 2 would still fit perfectly here.

What's your point in all this commentary? It seems that you are trying to say that 1 Tim 2:12-15 is about the general relationship between all males and all females. If so, then state that. No need to be shy about it. Since that is what you are contending, then let me point out that you cannot pick and choose what you want to include in this general relationship between all males and all females. If there is a demand that every woman be silent and in subjection to every man, then that means that EVERY woman is safe through childbearing with EVERY man. Of course this is a ridiculous assertion. But that is my point. Verses 13-15 are intentionally left out of the demand because to include those verses in the demand requires acceptance of the ridiculous assertion.

Furthermore, you contend that women cannot have any leadership position in the church because the author of 1 Tim 3 doesn't include women into the discussion until verse 11. We know this is patently false because Paul ordained Phebe as a deaconess in Rom 16:1. You leapt to these assumptions based on the infection of false doctrine and/or ignoring the contradictions throughout all scripture which is scholarly laziness.

My point is that the entire book of 1 Timothy is ONE entire letter. So everything needs to be read together to see the entire context. Also this letter is written to Timothy, a person, not like Corinthians or Ephesians, which were written to congregations. Read in its entirety your able to view that Paul is instructing Timothy on how to teach and lead those under him, Timothy. So When Paul says,12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. You can see that Paul is instructing Timothy.

I find it ironic that you prove my point all over again. Somehow you've convinced yourself that vague generalizations about the book as a whole allows you to take one scripture (1 Tim 2:12) out of context and build a false doctrine around it. Scholarly analysis of scripture doesn't work that way. God's Moral Principles of Truth transcend all Scripture. There are too many examples in scripture that disprove the false doctrine that every woman is to be silent at church and every woman is to be subject to every man. Your general commentary about 1 Timothy is fraught with error mainly because you ignore other scriptures which contradict it. In my previous post, I pointed out several. I don't expect you to address these contradictions because doing so will cast doubt on the false doctrine.

Now my last point is, that I've heard the argument that Paul was trying to conform to the society of the day. I don't see Paul conforming his message out of fear or respect of society. In fact, I see the exact opposite happening.

Truth stands on its own and is reaffirmed through all scripture. Apologetics of this type is scholarly laziness. You haven't heard this allegation from me. Lets stick to our discussion.

We have both made our points, and I encourage you, that if you have other insights I might be interested in viewing, send them along. But as can be pretty frequent here on FR we need to be careful on how we do this. 1 Timothy 6:3-5

I am shocked that you would even suggest this. You can try to shield false doctrine with this scripture. It may work for some, but not me.

I think that it is obvious that we are brothers (or sister and brother) and rejoice in that.

Ditto.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.