One of the most controversial, or more so, touchy subjects regarding the Bible is within Pauls letters to the church regarding women's roles within the church. What I would like to know is how you as Chrsitian women feel about these scriptures. This is not just for women, but how do you as Chrsitian men feel about these scriptures? Do you understand the reasoning behind them, or do you feel they are a degradation to women?

Before really digging in and studying it out I did not fully understand why Paul wrote these words. But I did/do know in my heart that God never intended nor thought of women as less. We are loved equally, and the roles he intended with the male and female creation are equally important to each other. I personally do not feel less simply because God doesn't want women to preach and teach over men. He created us with roles in mind. Doesn't mean we can't or are incapable of doing the same things men do, but that it is not what he intended. That's also doesn't make us less. The roles intended are equally important to the cycle of life. One is meaningless without the other.

Many who feel that the Bible degrades women blame Paul. But I don't think they realize why he wrote what he wrote. I didn't until I studied it further. I believe man's misinterpretation of what Paul wrote and the misinterpretation of God's intentions are what led to the degradation of women. What I added below may not change those minds, and that is not my intention. I just want to know what you think about it.

Here is a response to a question someone asked on the site gotquestions.org that explains why Paul wrote what he wrote. I found it very informative as I didn't truly know exactly why he wrote what he wrote.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 states, "...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." At first glance, this seems to be a blanket command that women are not allowed to speak at all in the church. However, 1 Corinthians 11:5 mentions women praying and prophesying in the church and does not condemn it. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 must not be an absolutely command for women to always be silent in church.

The context of this passage, and much of 1 Corinthians, is the order and structure of the church. The Corinthian church was noted for the chaos and lack of order that was rampant in that assembly (v. 33). It is interesting that no elders or pastors are mentioned, and the prophets were not even exercising control (see vv. 29, 32, 37). Everyone was participating with whatever expression they desired “whenever” they desired. This included tongues and prophesying by women who were taking the lead in the services instead of being submissive, as God’s Word makes clear (1 Tim 2:11-15). Apparently, certain women in the Corinthian church were out of order in disruptively asking questions publicly in the chaotic services. It is not coincidental that many modern churches that have tongues-speaking and claim gifts of healings and miracles also permit women to lead worship, preach, and teach. Women may be gifted teachers, but they are not permitted by God “to speak” in such a manner in His churches. In fact, for them to do so is “shameful,” meaning “disgraceful” (v. 35).

The context of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 is talking about interpreting and understanding the gifts of tongues and prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:26-32). Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:34 is not commanding women to be absolutely silent in the church all the time. It is only saying that women should not participate when tongues and/or prophecy is being interpreted and tested (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22; 1 John 4:1). This is in agreement with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which says that women should not teach or have authority over men. If women were involved in deciding whether a prophecy was truly from God, they would be disobeying what the Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Therefore, Paul tells women to be silent when tongues and prophecy are being interpreted so that they will not be disobeying God’s Word.
Here is the link... Do women have to remain silent in church? (http://www.gotquestions.org/women-silent-church.html)

Did anyone learn anything from this or did you already know Paul's true intentions? Do you still disagree and feel that the Bible does degrade women, and that Paul's writing was meant to speak less of women?
As Christian women, did you feel like you were less according to Paul's writing? If you don't, what was it that made you feel/know differently? If you still do, then why do you not believe Paul was trying to bring order to the chaos the church had made?
What were your thoughts when you first read, heard or learned these scriptures? What do you think/believe now?
Come people, where are you? I don't want fights, nor a debate. Just want to know your thoughts and hear answers to my questions.

Well if the bible says women should be quiet and not equal to men then I think someone should take a permanent marker and cross it off. I'm not a women, I'm just all for equality

The epistle reader has to take into account not only the patriarchal society that Paul lived in (i.e. that the first-century biblical world of Judaism and Greco-Roman culture was characterized by male dominance and chauvinism), but also the historical situation (open disputes begun by women in some of the churches).

It is not a rule for all times and all places. It was for a specific situation.

The way I understand this is to look at the historical context. Women were not allow to learn of Scripture before Jesus came. The Jewish tradition was that the men were the only ones allowed to learn. Paul made the statement in regards to those women who were attending meetings and wanting information. They were told to go to their husbands to get the answers to the basics of the Scripture that they had missed out on. This was only for the purpose of allowing the meetings to be about Jesus and not about the history of the Bible.

I always feel that there has to be a good reason for all that is said in the Bible but probably the reason we have passages like this is because the real meaning is somehow lost in translation.
I mean, the Bible was not originally in English right, so in the process of translation, the true meaning may have been lost or could have been misinterpreted.
I can never accept that the Bible would propagate submission of women in any way.

The way I understand this is to look at the historical context. Women were not allow to learn of Scripture before Jesus came. The Jewish tradition was that the men were the only ones allowed to learn. Paul made the statement in regards to those women who were attending meetings and wanting information. They were told to go to their husbands to get the answers to the basics of the Scripture that they had missed out on. This was only for the purpose of allowing the meetings to be about Jesus and not about the history of the Bible.

But this is not what God would have, right? Women not being allowed to learn scripture? Is this what God intended or was this man's doing?

It was never about women not being able to learn. It was about time and place. They were instructed to learn the basics at home, then come to the meetings for more about Jesus. Many women were leaders in the early church, and are leaders today. Several wonem are listed by Paul as being key to the early church. Women are prominent leaders in my church today. God does want women to learn, and the Scriptute is often twisted and taken out of context to be used for the wrong motives.
But this is not what God would have, right? Women not being allowed to learn scripture? Is this what God intended or was this man's doing?

It was never about women not being able to learn. It was about time and place. They were instructed to learn the basics at home, then come to the meetings for more about Jesus. Many women were leaders in the early church, and are leaders today. Several wonem are listed by Paul as being key to the early church. Women are prominent leaders in my church today. God does want women to learn, and the Scriptute is often twisted and taken out of context to be used for the wrong motives.

Yes, this is what I was wondering. If Chrsitian women indeed knew that God does not and never did mean for women to be any less than men, and if they knew that this was not Paul's intentions either.

I would like to ask you another question as well savedsinner. Know before hand that my intentions are not to debate with you, I just want to know why you believe the way you do. As for other posts your and my beliefs tend to agree. I think on this one, we may not. I believe God allows women to have roles in church, but are not supposed to have any that would put them over men. For example they can teach but should not teach over men. Which in turn would mean they should not be the head of the church (pastor). From your post that I copied, if I do not misunderstand, you believe different than me. So I ask, what Biblically makes you believe the way you do?

Here is an explanation that someone else wrote that I agree with, that explains why I believe the way I do.

There is perhaps not a more debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors / preachers in ministry. As a result, it is very important to not view this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe that women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women - and there are men who believe that women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of Biblical interpretation.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 proclaims, “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.” In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created (1 Timothy 2:13) and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:14). God, through the Apostle Paul's writing, restricts women from serving in roles of spiritual teaching authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.

There are many "objections" to this view of women in ministry / women pastors. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education was a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples likely would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the Ephesian women from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek / Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 could refer to husbands and wives. However, the basic meaning of the words are men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to men and women in general, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.

Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women pastors / preachers is in relation to Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, Phoebe, etc. - women who held positions of leadership in the Bible. This objection fails to note some significant factors. In relation to Deborah, she was the only female judge amongst 13 male judges. In relation to Huldah, she was the only female prophet amongst dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was due to her being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel - hardly examples of godly female leadership.

In the Book of Acts, chapter 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, likely indicating that she was more "prominent" in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).

In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a "deaconess" instead of a "servant" - that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. "Able to teach" is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders / bishops / deacons are described as "husband of one wife," "a man whose children believe," and "men worthy of respect." In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders / bishops / deacons.

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the "reason" perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with "for" and gives the "cause" of what Paul stated in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because - "Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived." That is the reason. God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a "helper" for Adam. This order of Creation has universal application to humanity in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable...but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching and helps. Much of the ministry of the church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted to public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only to having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians chapter 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the Gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership – in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would include women serving as pastors / preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with how God has gifted them.

Moonlit:

No answers, only questions.

I think your last paragraph was a good explanation for me.
The passages you quote regarding women's role in the Church seem awfully "legalistic" and contrary to having more freedom. I can only interpret these to be suggestions for best case scenarios?



Grace and Peace

In the Protestant church I belonged to for years, I was not allowed to become a minister, but was often a Sunday School teacher whose classes included boys and a Bible Class teacher whose classes included males. When I asked the pastor to tell me why I couldn't become a pastor, he explained it as Moonlit did above and encouraged me to join the Altar Guild ladies who kept the vestments clean, set up floral displays in the chancel and on the altar, and scraped candle drippings off the candlesticks.

I still wonder why I was allowed, even encouraged, to teach/lead/mentor men and women in Bible classes but not be their pastor.

In the Protestant church I belonged to for years, I was not allowed to become a minister, but was often a Sunday School teacher whose classes included boys and a Bible Class teacher whose classes included males. When I asked the pastor to tell me why I couldn't become a pastor, he explained it as Moonlit did above and encouraged me to join the Altar Guild ladies who kept the vestments clean, set up floral displays in the chancel and on the altar, and scraped candle drippings off the candlesticks.

I still wonder why I was allowed, even encouraged, to teach/lead/mentor men and women in Bible classes but not be their pastor.

Do you agree that women should not pastor nor teach men according to the scripture, or do you believe that is a misinterpretation?

1 Timothy 4:16 (New King James Version)16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

I have read the entire Bible twice, and am reading again. There is nothing in there to lead me to believe women do not have place. I prayed for several months before joining the church I attend. I asked specifically for a place where God wanted me that I could grow. He has planted me in a place where women are teachers, leaders and pastors.

what Biblically makes you believe the way you do?

Do you agree that women should not pastor nor teach men according to the scripture, or do you believe that is a misinterpretation?

I believe Paul was speaking to the early Christians in that time.

If woman today has the potential to shepherd a congregation, she should be allowed to do so after obtaining the required education that will give her necessary skills.

1 Timothy 4:16 (New King James Version)16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

I have read the entire Bible twice, and am reading again. There is nothing in there to lead me to believe women do not have place. I prayed for several months before joining the church I attend. I asked specifically for a place where God wanted me that I could grow. He has planted me in a place where women are teachers, leaders and pastors.


It appears I have not spread enough love yet before I can give you another reputation point. Thank you for your response as well. I think that is what is most important when it comes to the Bible. To allow God to show you the meaning rather than rely on others. Not that church and other teachers and advisors are incorrect, but studying what you are taught and allowing God to show you the meaning means the most to our individual selves.

You are very welcome. I must also spread the love to give another greenie.
It appears I have not spread enough love yet before I can give you another reputation point. Thank you for your response as well. I think that is what is most important when it comes to the Bible. To allow God to show you the meaning rather than rely on others. Not that church and other teachers and advisors are incorrect, but studying what you are taught and allowing God to show you the meaning means the most to our individual selves.

I found this and I just thought that everyone should see this. His dad turned his back on him and looked what happened. And yet the gay kid is the sinner and not the father as many try to argue...

Bad Days For Gay Teenagers... (http://www.commondreams.org/views/063000-102.htm)

RALEIGH -- Someone I know committed suicide this past Father's Day. His dad had kicked him out of the house because he was gay. He was just a kid, a teenage boy, on the way to becoming a young man. He liked horror and action movies. He moved around and lived with friends. He worked various low-income jobs to get by.

On Father's Day, he decided there was no place for him in this world, so he killed himself.

I try and think of things that he could've done instead of making this final, fatal choice. What are all of the places that kids can supposedly go for support and guidance?

There's school. This is the place where kids are teased and taunted for being "sissies" or "wusses" or worse, where being effete means getting beaten up.

This is the place where teachers are prohibited from even discussing sexual orientation, much less being supportive of a kid in crisis about his.

He could have gone to his church, I suppose, except that many of the churches around here say gays are abominations and sinners, doomed to hell. All of the vaunted talk about "hate the sin, love the sinner" amounts to a lot of the former and none of the latter.

Perhaps the Boy Scouts could've helped him out. They're a classic bit of Americana where teens can go for leadership and learning. Except, of course, the Boy Scouts now say gay boys aren't allowed.

A time-honored tradition for young men without direction is the armed services. Except, again, you can't be openly gay and serve your country. If he'd been in England or France or almost any other part of Europe this would've been an option for him. But not in the U.S..

The company he worked at might've helped, assuming he had some kind of counseling benefit. Except, of course, a lot of companies still fire people just for being gay. It's perfectly legal to do so.

What about the government? Could social services or some other agency have helped? Maybe, but in North Carolina, it's a felony to love someone of the same gender, a crime against nature. You can be gay and pay your taxes, but you'd better not let the law find out.

Maybe he could've even gotten desperate and joined one of the "reparative therapy" groups in the area, the ones that supposedly help people change from gay to straight. But then again, he'd spent years trying to do just that to himself. All of his years of angst had just taught him that he wasn't straight, and that he couldn't be no matter how hard he tried.

What is the final message all of these groups gave him? Sure, none of them killed him, and no doubt they'll all shake their heads and mutter about what a tragedy it is. In the end, though, what did all of the rejections say to him?

They said "You're not welcome. You're different, and that's not acceptable. You're a freak, a mutant, a monster. If you are not the way we want you to be, then we do not want you. We do not want to see you, we do not want you around. You might as well not exist. You might as well be dead."

Make no mistake: he killed himself. No social group or club killed him. His family did not kill him -- I cannot even imagine the torment they are going through. But still, all of the messages, all of the attitudes, all of the rebuffs added up to something. They were all factors that influenced his choice, limited his choice, made him think he had no other choice.

Tragically, he's not alone in this. Everyone's heard that gay teens have a much higher rate of suicide than straight teens, and are more often the victims of violence. Yet the statistics keep growing.

Every day you hear of a church rejecting gays, rappers telling kids to kill gays, baseball players complaining about queers with AIDS. On the radio, and soon to be TV, "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger calls people who are gay "biological errors" and "deviants." (Schlessinger, who professes Judaism, doesn't seem to recognize that she uses the same language that Nazis used when talking about Jews and gays.) All of these words and actions add to an environment of intolerance and even hatred.

My friend is dead, but there a lot of other gay teens out there who are still alive. Until each of us makes a choice against prejudice, until we recognize that bigotry and homophobia are the diseases in our society, until we say that being gay is OK, they'll all be in danger.