• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Women preaching

Sarai

Sarai

Member
Female
I apologise if this is in the wrong section,as I wasn't sure where to post it,and also if this is repetitious from earlier threads discussed at length.I'm mainly asking for practical advice on this.For me ,from my understanding of the Bible (especially Paul),women should not preach.
Full stop.However,in this day and age it is more and more common for women to be preachers and/or ordained.The church we attend does not allow woman preachers per se,but circumvents it by having woman 'speakers' at services.Essentially they preach the gospel just the same,but lack the title.I struggle with this,and it has led to numerous discussions with the children.If we interpret the Bible as not allowing it,why do they then do it?Why do we attend a place of worship that does it?I know you can't change churches at a whim,but there are no others around.This is a small village and I have no driving licence yet.So the options are take it or leave it..I have talked about this with the elders and the pastor but still feel uneasy at their explanation and reasoning.Basically they say women can be teachers and them 'speaking' in front of the congregation falls under this category.Any insight,anyone?Oh,and no offense intended towards anyone who may hold a different view.
 
I hold much the same view. Full stop! However the answer to your question will not be fully understood until you understand spiritual covering.
In short, a woman speaking in the assembly under authority (both her Adown and the assemblies Adown) is totally acceptable. This idea assumes that it is not a passive acceptance but with full support.
A woman without that spiritual covering and support becomes a Jezebel mentioned in Revelation. Why? Because of the biblical principle of the Adown (the man standing at the door of the tent giving account) and anything with two heads is a monster.
Obviously according to Paul's restrictions she could not be a pastor or deacon in an ordained sense, but could be an appointed servant leader as Phoebe of Romans 16.
 
As I see it, she may not be in a position of leadership over other Adowns, but is perfectly able to, and in some cases appointed to a position of influence over other women and children as in Titus 2:4. In the rare case of prophecy, she may even be able to influence nations or assemblies as Deborah did or Phillips 4 daughters
 
Women are to keep silent in the assembly and Paul made it clear a woman wasn't too even teach a man. Its not that women don't have anything to teach men, they're just supposed to do I through their actions. This is a full stop issue for me except that I don't put singing in that category. I can't remember why but there is some reason or another.

Feel free t attend church though. We're instructed to assemble.
 
@Vv76 this makes sense.I also agree teaching other women and children,but take issue at speaking to a whole church ie men included.
@Zec maybe youve heard how dreadful it can sound when men sing off-key?Safer to allow the ladies to sing lol
 
1 Tim. 2:11,12
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

@Zec. I think we are at a similar place in this matter with minor differences.
1). She is to learn in silence. She is not allowed to speak up or ask questions to gain clarity about what is being taught. Rather if she has questions, she is to learn from her Adown and allow him to take spiritual headship over his family.
2) It doesn't say that he didn't allow them to teach in the assembly. That phrase is clarified by the phrase "to usurp authority". Though in our English KJV, I recognize that most conservative assemblies apply/understand it that way, it's comparison with all scripture would apply it as, "But I suffer not a woman to teach in a manner that would usurp authority (or place her in authority) over the men of the assembly. "

For the record, I, personally, would have a huge problem with a woman bringing the message or sermon for a mixed assembly or even being the head worship leader. That's just where I've arrived. That being said, there are several instances biblically where women have played a vital role in ministry like Lydia, Phoebe who is listed as a diakonos (deacon/servant), Huldah a prophetess, Deborah a prophetess and judge, Philips daughters (well known first century prophetess' in the assembly among others who Paul commends as being fellow laborers with their husbands.
The issue first century was not that they had no role, it was that they had a limited role. This was not just a New Testament new idea. This perspective that is exemplified in the passage listed above has existed since the expulsion from the garden. It has just been applied and understood differently when viewed through a Roman/western culture much like marriage.

That being said, I fully recognize your right as the Adown of your house to order it as you understand it!
 
Last edited:
Sarai said:
@Vv76 this makes sense.I also agree teaching other women and children,but take issue at speaking to a whole church ie men included.
@Zec maybe youve heard how dreadful it can sound when men sing off-key?Safer to allow the ladies to sing lol
Click to expand...
Hey! Hey! Go easy on the guys singing! He! He! I know what you mean, but I would reply that there's nothing that sounds quite like a large group of guys singing the old hymns.
About a month ago, I was able to be at a men's retreat with about 1600 men & boys singing "It is well". I can tell you now that the angels had to sit down and listen! It was amazing.
 
Very well put and thoroughly explained VV76,thank you.This has clarified the issue for me.And I'll let you guys off the hook,sing to your hearts' content.On or off key,its the praise that matters: )
 
I'm going to attempt a synthesis, because I agree in part with Zec and in part with VV76.

Short version: The examples I see in the scriptures with some kind of leadership role seem to be entirely exceptions to the general rule. We can argue cases, but we live in a culture that is being given over to a rabid, reality-denying "feminist" (whatever that word means anymore) ideology. It's not our place or responsibility to judge others, but I'm looking to assemble with other families where men are men and fulfill their God-given roles as heads of their families. In that context, this whole issue becomes moot. Let the world and the government churches do as they will, but for our purposes, let's get the men where they should be: leading from the front.
 
I'm confused as to how "I suffer not a woman to teach" becomes "Women can teach in the assembly." Did I misread something? It seems like a general teaching on prohibition sort of encompasses time and place in its scope. All of those examples of those women you cite are very interesting, particularly Deborah, but none of them were teachers.
 
ZecAustin said:
I'm confused as to how "I suffer not a woman to teach" becomes "Women can teach in the assembly." Did I misread something? It seems like a general teaching on prohibition sort of encompasses time and place in its scope. All of those examples of those women you cite are very interesting, particularly Deborah, but none of them were teachers.
Click to expand...

If that were all it said then obviously you would be entirely correct. Though that would then present a single contradiction against the remainder of scripture without the second or third witness.

The restriction is on teaching men, not teaching.

The Greek word didasko has the primary function of teaching or instruction. Along with that in this instance is the idea of the woman schooling or correcting the teacher of the assembly on some point that she disagrees with. Obviously not her place. The whole theme of the passage is about role positions. Obviously the leadership role is reserved for the man.

I can see it now, a room full of women mastering telepathy so the older women can teach the younger women in silence!

Sola scriptura is only valid if alla scriptura is used
 
Last edited:
Verifyveritas76 said:
If that were all it said then obviously you would be entirely correct. Though that would then present a single contradiction against the remainder of scripture without the second or third witness.

The restriction is on teaching men, not teaching.

The Greek word didasko has the primary function of teaching or instruction. Along with that in this instance is the idea of the woman schooling or correcting the teacher of the assembly on some point that she disagrees with. Obviously not her place. The whole theme of the passage is about role positions. Obviously the leadership role is reserved for the man.

I can see it now, a room full of women mastering telepathy so the older women can teach the younger women in silence!

Sola scriptura is only valid if alla scriptura is used
Click to expand...

So your whole point is that women can teach women? I didn't realize anyone was debating that. It seemed like you were saying they could teach in the assembly of they had permission from their husband or father. Obviously if there are no men present then they're not in the assembly because not everyone is assembled.
 
Sorry bout the confusion. That's why I mentioned I thought we were very similar with minor differences.

Ive seen the extremes on both ends of this spectrum. Churches where the women are little better than inmates with trustee's over them, and the trustees have to run their homes as the warden (preacher/pope) dictates to them, (from the Bible of course) all the way to the other extreme where the women run the church and the men have to sit down and shut up because "God" gave the women "a word". Obviously neither seem to be rightly dividing the word IMHO.

To me the assembly is a better name than the church and can be any portion (more than 2 or 3) of its covenant body meeting together at a specified place, not just a building. I see many places where women are granted favor by God and given influence where us poor saps just bungle things up, typically outside the male dominated spheres in women's meetings, lower level Sunday school, vacation Bible schools or even outreaches like into public schools etc.

It's an interesting topic. I'm not entirely certain I know where the line is exactly. I do know that the men of the assembly are to be the leaders as both you and Andrew pointed out. I do know that there are times when the women as well as the children should be quiet as the men hash things out as well as teach, preach etc. Other than that I believe it comes down to the head of household. He is the steward of his home and is answerable ultimately to God for the actions of his spouse(s). He sets the boundaries as he understands them. No other steward has the authority to dictate decorum for his family. As long as she is within the boundaries he has set, unless he is requesting advice, is it any of our concern? It is definitely a scaleable model if it is done correctly. As goes the home, so goes the church, etc.
 
Vv76 a comment made by our previous pastor(who has since left)comes to mind.He said 'the only church where women lead is the church where men are weak'.You have once again stated things very eloquently and clearly.Thank you.
 
Agreed. (Not to disparage women at all, merely to comment that men do not follow easily). Growing up in the Northwest as a PK, I soon realized that most any man could lead a church of women. Leading a church filled with manly Godly men requires a Spirit filled, man's man who is ethical to a fault, and exemplary in character and ability to rightly divide the word. If he's lacking in any of those, a strong man will not follow.
 
Sarai said:
Vv76 a comment made by our previous pastor(who has since left)comes to mind.He said 'the only church where women lead is the church where men are weak'.You have once again stated things very eloquently and clearly.Thank you.
Click to expand...
I would modify that statement due to my last post. The only church where women lead is the church where the PASTOR is weak! Same goes for the home, just substitute husband for pastor.
 
I think the situation where women can lead is similar to the situation with Deborah in book of Judges.
It's an exception to fill a short-term need.
She shamed the men into leading so it wouldn't be said that a woman did all the fighting.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
If that were all it said then obviously you would be entirely correct. Though that would then present a single contradiction against the remainder of scripture without the second or third witness.

The restriction is on teaching men, not teaching.

The Greek word didasko has the primary function of teaching or instruction. Along with that in this instance is the idea of the woman schooling or correcting the teacher of the assembly on some point that she disagrees with. Obviously not her place. The whole theme of the passage is about role positions. Obviously the leadership role is reserved for the man.

I can see it now, a room full of women mastering telepathy so the older women can teach the younger women in silence!

Sola scriptura is only valid if alla scriptura is used
Click to expand...
what if alla hu akhbar scriptura is used?
 
andrew said:
I'm going to attempt a synthesis, because I agree in part with Zec and in part with VV76.

Short version: The examples I see in the scriptures with some kind of leadership role seem to be entirely exceptions to the general rule. We can argue cases, but we live in a culture that is being given over to a rabid, reality-denying "feminist" (whatever that word means anymore) ideology. It's not our place or responsibility to judge others, but I'm looking to assemble with other families where men are men and fulfill their God-given roles as heads of their families. In that context, this whole issue becomes moot. Let the world and the government churches do as they will, but for our purposes, let's get the men where they should be: leading from the front.
Click to expand...
I've seen that term used here before. What do you guys mean by "government church"?
Do you mean a church with like a church government, i.e. elders elect the pastor and then if the pastor says something they don't like, like rebuking an elder, they boot him out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top