Posted on 12/27/2004 9:40:52 PM PST by xzins
It's a long article.
Start at the section "women in the early church." There's some really good data in there.
I'll read the whole thing tonite. This is my last day of vacation, and I don't want to spend it in front of the computer. I'm signing off in just a couple of minutes.
"The New Testament makes it plain that Christian women, like men, have been given spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7-11). Women, like men, are to use these gifts to minister to the body of Christ (1 Peter 4:10); their ministries are indispensable to the life and growth of the church (1 Corinthians 12:12-26). There are many examples in the New Testament of just such ministries on the part of gifted Christian women (see Chapter 5 in this volume). To be true to the New Testament, then, the contemporary church needs to honor those varied ministries of women and to encourage women to pursue them.
"But does the New Testament place any restrictions on the ministry of women? From the earliest days of the apostolic church, most orthodox Christians have thought so. One important reason they have thought so is the teaching of 1 Timothy 2:8-15:
(8)I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. (9)I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, (10)but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. (11)A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. (12)I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (13)For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (14)And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. (15)But women will be kept safe through childbirth, if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."Has the church been right to think that this passage imposes certain permanent restrictions on the ministry of women? Certainly this is what the passage, as translated above, seems to say. Women are not to teach or to have authority over men. They are not to do so because of the order in which God created man and woman and because of how man and woman fell into sin. However, many in our day think this passage does not require the contemporary church to limit the ministry of women. Others think it may limit only certain women from certain ministries in certain circumstances. ...
"Yet there are many sincere Christians who agree with everything we have just said but still do not think that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 puts any general restriction on the ministry of women in the contemporary church. Are they right? Has the position of the Christian church on this issue for twenty centuries been the product of cultural conditioning from which we finally are able to free ourselves?
"We do not think so. We think 1 Timothy 2:8-15 imposes two restrictions on the ministry of women: they are not to teach Christian doctrine to men and they are not to exercise authority directly over men in the church. These restrictions are permanent, authoritative for the church in all times and places and circumstances as long as men and women are descended from Adam and Eve. In this essay, we will attempt to justify these conclusions. In doing so, we will be concerned particularly to show why the arguments for alternative interpretations are not convincing."
Excerpt from What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men: 1 Timothy 2:11-15 by Douglas Moo
I would instead encourage such women to more properly train their male youth to follow in the Word and lead as true godly men should.
There are reasonable roles for both sexes.
Spoken like a true lawyer! You remain true to your profession. :-)
SHOULD A WOMAN TEACH IN CHURCH?
by Ray C. Stedman
The social movements of every age seem to be used by God to force Christians to re-examine (and clarify) their understanding of what the Scriptures teach. Painful as they may be, every such re-examination results ultimately in stronger and clearer statements on the subjects in question than the church has ever had before. This is certainly the case in the matter of the woman's role in the church. The secular Women's Liberation movement is forcing church leaders everywhere to distinguish carefully between attitudes toward women derived from customs and traditions of the past (often strongly macho-dominated) and what the Bible actually teaches and what the early church actually did.
In the scope of this brief article it is not possible to answer all the questions which are being raised today. But we would like to examine the specific question being asked by many Christians today: Should a woman teach the Scriptures, and especially, should she teach men or when men are present? We can say at once that the New Testament clearly indicates that both men and women receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit without distinction in regard to sex. Included among these is the gift of teaching, and other related gifts, such as prophesying (basically, preaching), exhortation, and the word of wisdom and of knowledge. Women prophets are referred to both in the Old and New Testaments, and older women are instructed by the Apostle Paul to teach the younger women.
A somewhat oblique reference in First Corinthians 11:4-5 suggests that both men and women were free to pray or prophesy in the open meeting of the church, though the woman must do it in such a way as to indicate that she recognizes the headship role of her husband. If she does so, there seems to be no objection to the fact that men would be present in the congregation, or any limitation placed on her for that reason. From the viewpoint of spiritual gifts it seems clear that "in Christ there is neither male nor female" (cf, Gal 3:28c( and God expects every woman to have a ministry as much as he expects every male to have one.
Though the ministry of women in the New Testament churches is not prominent in the record, nevertheless, there are certain references which indicate they were frequently and widely used in various capacities. Almost all commentators agree that Priscilla and her husband Aquila were side-by-side companions of the Apostle Paul in his work both in Corinth and in Ephesus, and that of the two, Priscilla was the more gifted and capable teacher, since her name is most often listed first. They were, together, the instructors of the mighty Apollos in his early preaching efforts. Here is a clear-cut case of a knowledgeable woman being used in the teaching of a man with no hint of an objection from Paul. Further, in Paul's letter to the church in Philippi he urges an unnamed fellow-worker (probably Epaphroditus) to "help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel," (Phil 4:3 NIV(.
In the letter to the Romans he mentions other women who labored with him "in the Lord," (Rom 16:1-2, et al.( Perhaps no question would ever have arisen about the propriety of women's ministry were it not for two passages from Paul's hand which seem to lay severe restriction upon them. In First Corinthians 14 he says,
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor 14:33b-35 NIV)
Again, in First Timothy 2 he says,
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. (1 Tim 2:11-12 NIV)
Taken by themselves, apart from their contexts, these two passages do seem to prohibit any kind of teaching ministry for women, especially in any public way, within the church. But let us look at some guidelines of interpretation which will help us in understanding just what the apostle means: Nothing in the above quoted passages can be taken in such a way as to contradict what the apostle himself permitted, or referred to with approval, in the practice of the church. He surely did not teach one thing and practice another. If, in First Corinthians 11, he speaks with approval of a woman praying or prophesying in public, as he does, then, surely, in First Corinthians 14 he does not contradict himself by forbidding women even to open their mouths in any circumstance in the public meeting of the church. We must, therefore, read the prohibition of Chapter 14 as applying to something other than the ministry of women permitted in Chapter 11.
We must note that the immediate context of both passages quoted above has to do with the problem of disorder, and even some degree of defiance, in the actions of the women involved. In both passages, though widely separated as to recipients and locality, the word submission appears: In Corinth the problem was one of so conducting the meeting that edification of all present would be central; therefore tongues were to be controlled and limited, and so was the exercise of prophesying. Furthermore, they were to remember that "God is not a God of disorder but of peace," and then follows the warning against women speaking in the church. It is clear from this that the apostle was not concerned about women who properly exercised their gifts in prophesying or in praying, but was greatly concerned about women who disrupted the meetings with questions and comments, and perhaps even challenged the teaching of apostolic doctrine with contrary views. This is what he prohibited, as Verse 37 makes crystal clear:
If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. (1 Cor 14:37 NIV)
He then closes the whole section with the admonition, "But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way," (1 Cor 14:40 NIV(. The word to Timothy (who was probably living at Ephesus) is similar in character. The general context in which these words about women appear is concerned with regulating the behavior of Christians at meetings, as 3:14 makes clear:
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Tim 3:14-15 NIV)
In line with this purpose, Paul tells the men how to pray (without anger or disputing), and the women how to adorn themselves (not with fine clothing but with good works), and from this he moves to the words of prohibition against a woman teaching or having authority over a man. These words cannot be taken as an absolute (no woman should ever teach a man) for if that were true Paul should have rebuked Priscilla for having a part in instructing Apollos. The words "have authority over" provide us the key to understanding this passage. Women should not be permitted the role of authoritative definers of doctrine within the church. They must not be permitted to do this, even though they may mean well, for the role of authoritative interpreters is given by the Holy Spirit to the apostles and elders, who, in the New Testament, were invariably men. This is supported by Paul's references to Adam and Eve which follows.
From this we are warranted in drawing certain conclusions to guide our conduct today: Women certainly can teach. They are given the gift of teaching as freely as it is given to men, and they must exercise those gifts. Women can teach within the context of church meetings. They are certainly free to teach children and other women without question, but are free to teach men as well if what they are teaching is not a challenge to the understanding of doctrine held by the elders of the church.
Many godly and instructed women know far more about the Scriptures then many men, and it would be both absurd and unscriptural to forbid such men to learn from such women. Even the elders should recognize the often unique and godly insights of gifted women teachers and should seek their input in arriving at an understanding of the Scriptures. It is, however, the duty of elders to make the final decision of what is to be taught. No woman may participate in this. It is my hope that this brief survey will help many in understanding the difficulties involved in answering the question with which we began. I, personally, thank God for the gifted woman teachers among us at PBC and rejoice that we have little or no problem with the question of proper authority in this matter.
Sorry, I’d have to disagree. Consider some of her statements…
”The concept of subordination is only first referred to in Genesis 3:16 as a consequence of the Fall. Domination/subordination is presented as a new reality brought into being by sin and is represented as a part of what is broken in the marriage trust. Speculation on this text which envisages women as inferior or as properly subordinate is a late development in Judaism, occurring first in the second century before Christ.”
”The prohibition in 1 Timothy (2:11-15) is unclear”
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” 1 Tim 2:12
There is nothing unclear about 1 Timothy (is 1 Tim 2:4 also unclear which is what you like to use on us Calvinists???). This is the mindless dribble that infects the church today. Use the scriptures you want and discard the rest but sound so scholarly. If she has a "high view" of scripture then perhaps she should join the Catholic Church who don't buy into sola scriptura.
If this represents the scholarship of the Methodist is it any wonder they’re having the problems they’re having.
The first sentence says it all. Interpret scripture based upon social movements. Sounds like a poor way to interpret scripture in my mind.
There is nothing unclear about 1 Timothy (is 1 Tim 2:4 also unclear which is what you like to use on us Calvinists???).
There are several women on these threads that have taken it upon themselves to attempt to publicly teach and admonish and otherwise assert scriptural authority over Christian men in matters of gospel and doctrine.
Since you believe that Paul is clearly stating that women should not exercise authority over a man, and should not be in a position to publicly teach doctrine to men, should they not leave such correction about doctrine and rightly dividing the word of God to the men on these forums?
Or is maybe 1 Tim 2:12 not all that clear on the subject? :-)
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the original article by Sharon Clark Pearson? Stedman seems to be disagreeing with the basic thesis.
I would direct your attention to Act 18 where both Priscilla and Aquila corrected Apollos in his teaching. 1 Tim doesn't say anything about women not correcting men in their teaching. Paul was giving instructions on how the church should be conducted and forbid women to teach men or exercise authority over a man in the church. This, btw-imo, does not preclude women from speaking up about doctrinal/theological issues in church either. Only in leading formal studies where men are present.
How do you interpret 1 Tim 2:12? Are you saying to disregards Paul's comments as out dated?
Apparently, you don't know what a theological liberal is. This woman is no liberal.
She says that the BIBLICAL and historical evidence indicates the church should be more visionary; i.e, I assume she means they should accept the ordination and pastoral leadership of women.
I'm not willing (yet) to go that far.
I am willing, however, to say that ministry within the church should be far more open to participation by women. That 1 Tim 2 passage is one that simply might have a more household-specific interpretation than many have acknowledged. It very well could be a censure of domineering wives.....which fits with all the remainder of the passage.
None of this speculation is extra-biblical. A liberal would have based their case on the argument that 1 Timothy is not an authentic Pauline letter.
This lady has tried to deal with the evidence, not dispose of it.
What if the formal study is overseen and the authority over the formal study is under the authority of a man. Would a woman then be allowed to teach?
I think this is what Stedman was suggesting.
The idea behind this passage is that everything is to be done in order. Thus the person who does the teaching must be under the authority of the male leader of the Church. Provided that the Woman has not usurped the Authority from the Male Authority or the Senior Pastor or the Bishop or whatever and provided that the teaching is in line with what has been authorized, then I see no problem with a woman speaking from the pulpit.
After all the Pulpit is traditional and not scriptural. If a woman is allowed to impart knowledge in a Bible Study session, there is no reason why she would be precluded from imparting that knowledge in a formal church building setting.
Again the Church building itself is traditional and not scriptural.
"Wherever two or more are gathered..."
My point in posting this article was NOT to agree with it, but to examine the evidence within it.
I have always tended in Stedman's direction, with the provision that there is fair evidence for deaconesses. I also think that 1 Tim 2 speaks to something very specific on Paul's mind, because of daughters who prophesy, women who pray, etc. Whatever this verse means, it does not mean ABSOLUTE silence.
However, I've not seen many of the posters engaging this lady's data. Some of her data is useful in other contexts besides this one.
I've search the Internet to find some other articles which Ms Sharon Clark Pearson has written to determine whether she is indeed liberal in her theological views. I’ve found none so I can only base my views on what is written in this article. However, it should be noted that Ms. Pearson is herself a minister and president of the Wesleyan Theological Society so she's not exactly coming from an unbiased perspective in writing about a women’s role in the church to preach/teach.
I would agree that Paul does not mean absolute silence and there are many places where women played a prominent role (Lydia, Priscilla, etc.). Ester is a prime example of a great woman God rose to prominent to save her people but it was Mordecai who she would rely upon for God given guidance and direction. Mary carried the Lord Jesus but it was Joseph who God revealed when and/or where he was to go. When the man wasn’t around, as in the case of Ruth, God used other godly women such as Naomi. There is clear Biblical evidence of precisely how God operates and a clear order of organization.
I do think Ms. Pearson takes liberties with the scriptures in assuming 1 Tim 2 has no meaning or is “difficult to understand”. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Steadman’s article as long as the woman is under the charge of the man but I don’t believe this is what Ms. Pearson is saying. From my reading she is co-equaling the woman’s role in the church with the man’s role and I believe her arguments to be spurious. If one is going to rely upon “tradition” of the church, you will be hard press to find a prominent woman theologian in the early church. Perhaps that is why they call them the early church “fathers”?
One can only conclude from the scriptures and from the tradition of the early church, women did not preach/teach theology or doctrine. Something I think the author either ignores or attributes to “Jewish biases”.
I meant to ping you on this response.
You didn't read far enough. At the bottom of the page:
Nazarenes are Wesleyan in tradition.
That does not contradict my statement at all.
Sure it does.
But beyond that, it tells me you know nothing about the Nazarenes if you think they are liberal.
Her arguments are far more sophisticated than simply appealing to cultural biases. I don't recall her using such a simple, shallow argument throughout the paper, but I'm open to correction.
She has piled historical data, on biblical data, on historical data to say that Paul acknowledged the onset of a new era in terms of male/female relationships to each other and to God. She indicates a faith in the Kingdom of God being different than the kingdom of man in its approach to male/female issues.
This is what makes her explanation of "household codes" so fascinating. Where before it was just Master/Slave, it is now .... Master/Slave and masters better be just in their treatment.
In Christ, she radically thinks, there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female....
Somehow, she comes up with the outrageous idea that we are all one in Christ Jesus! Now THAT is an absolutely LIBER(al)(ating) thought!
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.