Argument against Women's Ordination....

[BlackCalvinist]

Just wondering if anyone else thought of this.....

Ephesians 5:22-33 is pretty clear, in my opinion.

What if you have a husband and wife (the wife is a pastor)....

When they get in church, who's the head ? Does her being the spiritual head over a local congregation take precedence over his being the spiritual head of their relationship ?


Let's also say the husband needs to make a job decision which directly impacts his entire family, wife included (perhaps relocation). She 'feels' led by the Lord not to change churches and relocate, he feels that the Lord has blessed him with the new job.

Which 'head' makes the final decision there ?

Just thoughts in my spare time while typing up the doctrinal statement for my ministry website.

Anyone find any flaws in these arguments ? Or know of something better ?

 

[pastorway]

Paul uses that argument to support his statement that women are not to have authority over men in the family or the church.

The best and most clear Scriptures though are these:

[b:27424f3a28]1 Timothy 2[/b:27424f3a28]
11Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12[u:27424f3a28]And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man[/u:27424f3a28], but to be in silence.

[b:27424f3a28]1 Cor 14[/b:27424f3a28]
34Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak [in the context, preaching and speaking in tongues]; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

Phillip

 

[JonathonHunt]

[quote:f593b9ead8][i:f593b9ead8]Originally posted by OS_X[/i:f593b9ead8]
Just wondering if anyone else thought of this.....

Ephesians 5:22-33 is pretty clear, in my opinion.

What if you have a husband and wife (the wife is a pastor)....

[/quote:f593b9ead8]

Nah, she isn't... she just thinks she is...

 

[KayJay]

OS_X - I've always used that argument as well - I think its great.

Also, I think it is a good example not only to combat the idea that women could be ordained but also the idea that they could be "director of outreach" or "directer of leadership development" etc...though they may not call themselves "pastors" they function as such and men really are, unfortunately, under their authority.

It amazes me the number of positions that have been created within the body and are COMPENSATED for it...of course I think our senior pastors/teachers should be paid but the idea of "director of this that and the other" even existing but ALSO being paid is sorta wacked I think.

 

[Harrie]

Does Paul forbid women to teach and lead in the church only or also in general?

 

[Bradley Arakelian]

The ordination of women

Kerry Gilliard's thoughts are very pertinent. I remember a conversation I had more than ten years ago with a teaching elder from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He observed that so many of the women pastors are either divorced or never married. I wonder why?

 

[strictestsect]

What would you do if you knew of a woman who was being ordained this Sunday? You knew her personally. You know the folks who were ordaining her. You even knew the Pastor of the church whom she was using for the service.


You knew the date and time of the ordination and live 5 minutes away.

W W Y D.....(lol)

 

[KayJay]

Well Strictestsect - I probably would want to go to the event and make a scene haha ...but I am a woman so...some might think that is inappropriate...I might think so too...don't know

 

[strictestsect]

Well a scene might be appropriate so that maybe one might see the seriousness of the error. What will be wrong, for someone to stand up and ask for a biblical justification for the ordination of a woman?

 

[BlackCalvinist]

[quote:20693004ec][i:20693004ec]Originally posted by strictestsect[/i:20693004ec]
What would you do if you knew of a woman who was being ordained this Sunday? You knew her personally. You know the folks who were ordaining her. You even knew the Pastor of the church whom she was using for the service.


You knew the date and time of the ordination and live 5 minutes away.

W W Y D.....(lol) [/quote:20693004ec]

[img:20693004ec]http://theologicallycorrect.com/expressions/chuckball.gif[/img:20693004ec]

Just substitute the rock for a Bible.

in my opinion:
[quote:20693004ec]God has ordained that as men are the heads of the marriage relationship (Eph. 5:22-33), they are also to lead the local church assemblies via the offices of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon (1 Tim. 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9). Women are called to serve in other ministries in the church, including (but not limited to) instructing younger women how to live godly lives (Titus 2:6-7), but are NEVER called to lead the church.[/quote:20693004ec]
http://theologicallycorrect.com/doctrinal.shtml

 

[A.J.A.]

As excellent as the argument is (and it can cite other Scripture like 1 Peter 3:1-6, etc), it probably won't bring them around. From what I've seen, the same people who approve of female pastors also dislike male headship. If they cared what the Bible said, they wouldn't approve of female pastors in the first place.

Harrie;

"For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside?"

 

[KayJay]

Harrie,

I have thought for a while about your question whether women are forbidden to teach/lead in the church only or in general.

My personal take on it - at least from my reading of the passage where Paul says he forbids women to teach/have authority over men - means she is not a) to teach men or b) to have authority over men in the assembly or the heirarchy of leadership.

I don't think this means they can't teach each other or children - and I don't think this means they can't teach their own husbands now and then in an informal, nonstructured setting. I think it is pretty much inevitable that that should happen because, after all, women are usually thinking creatures just like men.

 

[pastorway]

Priscilla taught Apollos!! She and her husband taught him privately, as in discipleship, not in the function of teaching in the church. Acts 18:26

The point of "teaching" men is a matter of authority in the church. It does not mean that women cannot teach men anything anywhere. It means that in the teaching authority of the church, men are to lead. That means pastors/elders, and any who teach men officially in the church, must be men. The word in 1 Tim 2:12 where Paul says a woman is not permitted to "teach" has the same connotation as when Paul writes in Eph 4:11 that God has given "teachers" to the church. It is an office with a function in the body of Christ.

Women are expected to teach other women! Titus 2:3-5

Phillip

 

[cupotea]

Pastor Way

Our pastor has asked our female pianist to step up behind the pulpit on Sundays to lead singing during public worship. For some reason that doesn't set well with me.

However she is not teaching bible doctrines, but still in a position of leadership during public worship.

What's your take?

 

[pastorway]

Leading music is teaching! Music is didactic in nature and we are to "speak to one another in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19). Also, in the OT those who led in worship were all qualified priests. So there is authority in leading worship - whether that is singing, preaching, etc.

I would not have a woman lead music in the worship service. And we do not have "special" music at our church where anyone is singing solos, either. Worship is corporate. We all sing, we all pray, we all give, we all fellowhsip, and we all hear the Word! And those qualified as elders lead.

Now for the next question, I do not think it is wrong for a woman to pray out loud in mixed company, but I do not think a woman should lead the congregation in prayer, for the same reasons stated above.

Phillip

 

[Saiph]

A question for the egalitarians:

Why were there no female Apostles ? ? ?

How can a woman be a "one woman man" ? ? ?

 

[cupotea]

Thanks Pastor Way,

I totally agree with you. I've been praying for God to open a door with another church, but I am provedentially hindered due to a handicap. Also I just found out the pastor of the church I was praying about, a man whom I loved and respected passed away a couple of months ago from a heart attack.

 

[BobVigneault]

This is just an observation and I don't find the explicitteaching of scripture to push this but, when we quote 1 Timothy 2:

11Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

we emphasize loadly verse 12 but miss the revolutionary shift put forward in verse 11. "Let a woman learn....", we love to quickly add "in silence" without contemplating that Paul has just cleared the way for the doctinal education of women.

Women were next to chattel, they learned to run the home and pass on those duties to their daughters under Jewish tradition but Paul now opens the way for women to learn the doctrines of the faith. It's an AMAZING shift. If we couple that verse with Paul's exhortation to 'not be hearers of the Word only, but doers" we must ask "Why shouldn't a woman teach?" While learning she remained silent (not out of submission but out of ignorance) now let her teach.

As with the method of baptism and the order of decrees I see some vagueries here and we should not take such a rigid stand regarding, roles, authority and teaching of and by women. Just food for thought.

 

[smhbbag]

[quote:c6a16e20d2]Women were next to chattel, they learned to run the home and pass on those duties to their daughters under Jewish tradition but Paul now opens the way for women to learn the doctrines of the faith. It's an AMAZING shift. If we couple that verse with Paul's exhortation to 'not be hearers of the Word only, but doers" we must ask "Why shouldn't a woman teach?" While learning she remained silent (not out of submission but out of ignorance) now let her teach. [/quote:c6a16e20d2]

in one sense, i think you are quite correct.....it is an amazing command and quite a shift, in a sense, to exhort women to learn and study all the doctrine they can. They should be as mentally active in pursuing God and study as the men in leadership are. I think that is a great point in the text.

However, i do not see how you can put the idea in the text that "once she learns enough and becomes well enough studied, why not let her teach?" - this is simply absent in the text. If this is what Paul had in mind, he certainly would have said as much. And to the contrary, He spoke about the REASON why women are not to teach or have authority over a man.....and that reason was NOT that they were incapable of sufficiently understanding doctrine, but because of the very nature of things - giving his justification from the accounts of Adam and Eve (v. 13 - "For" ). This reasoning is not a subjective or cultural crutch Paul leans upon for his argument, but a timeless truth that men are to be in headship in both the church and home.

to simply put my objection - your implicit statement that women should not have led because they were incapable, but once they are learned enough to do so then they should - is simply not in the text......while the text DOES directly say that women should not teach or have authority over men in the church - the reason for this command is NOT that they were unqualified in doctrinal learning, but because of the nature of things - Adam was formed first, then Eve...and it was the woman who fell into transgression first.

As long as it remains true that Adam was formed first, then Eve....and that Eve was first deceived and became a transgressor, then Paul's conclusion from that reasoning (that only men formally lead and teach the church) is still valid.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by smhbbag]

 

[BobVigneault]

smhbbag, you're argument is consistent and I agree for the most part but you said:

"This reasoning is not a subjective or cultural crutch Paul leans upon for his argument, but a timeless truth...."

Timeless may be too strong of a word to use here because at the time of the writing the scriptures consisted of the received body of apostolic instruction and that was still forming. How could a woman teach when the doctinal and ethical norms of the church were still being compiled and she only knew how to bake bread and mend clothes?

Teaching and prophecy are two very different things. Teaching does carry with it authority derived from the scriptures being taught. In God's order men arrived at the doctrinal and ethical norms for the church through the teaching of the apostles.

Prophecy is what I'm doing know, I'm explaining how the scriptures have affected me so that I may encourage the body. I claim no authority over anyone reading this. Scripture alone holds the authority.

As long as the doctrinal and ethical norms of scripture are not challenged then why can't a woman lead the choir. It's more of a prophetic position than teaching and women are free to engage in that.

 

[wsw201]

The following is a very interesting article regarding 1 Tim 2:12 and the role of women teaching:

http://capo.org/rfwhite.html

 

[smhbbag]

maxdetail:

regarding [quote:af5f1871fc]Timeless may be too strong of a word to use here because at the time of the writing the scriptures consisted of the received body of apostolic instruction and that was still forming. How could a woman teach when the doctinal and ethical norms of the church were still being compiled and she only knew how to bake bread and mend clothes?[/quote:af5f1871fc]

I think this makes my point quite well......it's precisely because Christ's NT church was still forming, and the apostolic instruction regarding it was still being laid out - Paul's commands here are prescriptive to what that Church should look like and how it should function. Now, if this is the case, Paul's commands can either apply ONLY to the body that Timothy was responsible for, or it can apply to the Church in all locations and times. Because Paul's reasoning for not allowing women to teach or have authority over men harkens back to Adam and Eve.....that reasoning is still applicable, thus making Paul's conclusion about the role of women binding on today's Church. The fact that the apostolic teaching was still being formed I believe only strengthens my case.

and about your specific example of a woman leading the choir of a church, or leading worship for a congregation, my response has already been summed up in this thread.

from PastorWay: [quote:af5f1871fc]Leading music is teaching! Music is didactic in nature and we are to "speak to one another in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" (Eph 5:19). Also, in the OT those who led in worship were all qualified priests. So there is authority in leading worship - whether that is singing, preaching, etc.

I would not have a woman lead music in the worship service. And we do not have "special" music at our church where anyone is singing solos, either. Worship is corporate. We all sing, we all pray, we all give, we all fellowhsip, and we all hear the Word! And those qualified as elders lead. [/quote:af5f1871fc]

i would say that in addition to "Leading music is teaching!" that leading worship and choir is also exercising formal authority over men, teaching them and leading them in lifting up their voices in praise to God.

also, is a woman taking up this role not equivalent to robbing a man in the church of the opportunity to become more comfortable in leading and teaching in the church? simultaneously you have men learning to become passive and women becoming comfortable exercising leadership in a formal capacity over men. is it ok for a wife to be the head, so to speak, of worship over her husband in the choir??

again, i am thankful that we, as brothers, can run and cling to holy scripture for perfect guidance on this issue. if any of my comments seem disrespectful or lacking in charity, I am sorry - it is not intended. there's nothing I love more than seeking truth in the Word with brothers.

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by smhbbag]

 

[BobVigneault]

Jeremy,
I very much appreciate your comments. They are well made and filled with graciousness and I am pleased to call you 'brother'.

I do disagree though that didactic and authority are inseparable. I believe one can teach without taking authority over someone or doing violence to the authority of scriptures. I have taught the very thing we are discussing and of course in the arminian setting I was in I received many slings and arrows, but my friends reminded the complainers that I always had my finger in the text. I qualified everything with "don't take my word for it, look to the scriptures". I was teaching a certain application of the scriptures as we searched for THE interpretation of the scriptures. I wasn't teaching with authority but reminded my hearers of the authority of scripture. The application of scripture is a function of the prophet and the teacher. The interpretation of scripture belongs to the one with authority.