[jlisenbe]

Well, I guess I will have to take the Bible's view on it or yours. No offense, but I'll go with the Bible. I just can't find any Biblical reason to be thankful that "women are finally gaining ground as church leaders." I realize it is a popular cultural idea, but I cannot be led by culture. Now I would be thankful for women to take their proper and utterly vital place in the family and in the church. But as with all things, it would need to be in line with the Bible. Either that, or we should just throw out the Bible and stop pretending to believe it.

As to your point that women are quite capable of leading men stupidly astray (which is plainly true), I'm not sure how that helps your case.

[Wondergirl]

As to your point that women are quite capable of leading men stupidly astray (which is plainly true), I'm not sure how that helps your case.

How susceptible men (and far too many male church leaders) are to the temptations of the flesh.

[jlisenbe]

But have you not read what prompted Eve to eat the fruit? How it was appealing to the eyes, and to the taste, and was profitable to make one (supposedly) wise? What is that other than a temptation to the flesh? Many men have performed pitifully in fulfilling their responsibilities, but don't think that women are not susceptible to the allures of temptation.

[Wondergirl]

Gen 3
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Eve to Adam: Here, take a bite.

Adam: Okay. *mmmmmmmm, good!*

[jlisenbe]

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it."

Thank you for making my point for me. She was tempted by fleshly desire. And it never says Eve tempted Adam. It just says she gave it to him. How do you know he simply did not ask for it?

If you are waiting for me to agree that men can be tempted by women, I will certainly do that. Now I'm waiting for you to agree that women can, and frequently are, tempted by men. And when both of those facts are established, I don't see at all where women have any advantage in this. But enough of this. I'm done. I certainly do wish you well.

[Wondergirl]

But enough of this. I'm done.

Me too. After all, that story is an allegory and makes its point very well.

[dwashbur]

Deborah was the leader of the entire nation of Israel. Miriam led the celebration after the Red Sea crossing. Priscilla took the lead when she and Aquila trained Apollos. Paul refers to female apostles in the final chapter of Romans. The list goes on and on. 1 Timothy 2 is speaking of a specific situation in Ephesus, because he sent/left Timothy there to sort out some such issues in the church. That's what the first chapter is about.

Timothy was never a pastor as we understand it. He was a trouble-shooter.

You can hang your hat on one out-of-context passage if you want to, but it does not make your view biblical. Until you take ALL of the Bible into account and learn to temper these imagined absolutes with actual real events that God approved of, it's going to be hard to take you seriously.

[jlisenbe]

1. Paul referring to a female apostle in Romans is open to interpretation. At any rate, it is Andronicus (male) and Junia (female), so it is one. Many people believe they were a husband and wife team.
2. Paul's statement to Timothy was plainly not in reference to a specific situation. "I do not allow..." That is a general statement of Paul's practice in the churches. It is plain and obvious.
3. Paul's reference to Eve being deceived was used as his justification for his not allowing women to be in a position of being a formal teacher of men. That is another obvious demonstration that it was his general practice and not a specific situation.
4. There is not a single reference to a female pastor or elder in the entire New Testament with the possible exception of Priscilla, but even that is open to question.
5. It is not stated that Priscilla "took the lead" in teaching Apollos, but she did participate. That is a valid point, but she worked in conjunction with her husband.
6. That Paul told Timothy "I do not allow" does, I think, open the door to the possibility that others held a different view, but it is never stated, and I would not want to be the person that worked in a fashion different from Paul.

I don't mean to be repetitive, but to say that Paul was speaking to Timothy about a specific situation in Ephesus is just make believe. It plainly does not say that. I don't see any reason that a woman cannot be a Sunday school superintendent. I value women's service in the church. It is this business of playing "fast and loose" with the truth that bothers me. Miriam led the women in singing a song of praise. What does that have to do with this discussion? There were isolated examples of women used in leadership (Debra) or prophecy, but that was certainly not the norm. The list does not go on and on. As I said, if you know of a woman pastor or teacher listed in the New Testament, then state her name. Because our culture wants it to be so does not mean the Bible teaches it. We have an obligation to the truth.

[dwashbur]

The fact that Paul said "*I* do not allow" shows it was a thing of his, not a hard rule from the Lord. He never said it was, he said it was his practice, period. He never said everybody had to follow it, in fact the statement that it was his policy, not necessarily the Lord's, tells us that other people's mileage might vary.

The rest of your list is arguments from silence, which always cut both ways. It doesn't say it wasn't, but it doesn't say it was. It doesn't say A, but that means it also doesn't say B.

Priscilla did indeed take the lead, that's why she's consistently listed first. With a couple like them, that wasn't normally done so there's a reason for it.

And Sunday School didn't exist in his time, so the question of a woman being a superintendent of something that the Bible never remotely addresses is purely academic anyway.

Oh, and by the way, asking for a woman pastor in the New Testament is like asking for a woman bus driver. Pastors as we know them didn't exist. But there were women elders, which is the way the early churches were governed. Check it out. "Pastor" is an anachronistic term, and the one-pastor church was never envisioned in the New Testament.

[jlisenbe]

"And Sunday School didn't exist in his time, so the question of a woman being a superintendent of something that the Bible never remotely addresses is purely academic anyway."

I only mentioned that (Sunday School Super) because it was the original question in this thread.

Where do you find a reference to women elders?

I would agree with you that churches were more likely governed by a board of elders. Paul outlines the qualifications for them to both Timothy and Titus. In both cases they are referred to as being occupied by men. He does mention pastors in Ephesians 4 so they did exist, but as you said, perhaps not in the manner we have them now.

I am not arguing from silence. There are many men named as leaders in the early church. That is not silence, it is thunder. You simply don't find women listed in that capacity other than Priscilla and even that is not clear cut.

Paul's reference to Eve's deception is not silence. It is the foundation for Paul's position.

Yes, you can argue that Paul makes the prohibition and not the Lord. I am at least happy that you have abandoned the position that Paul was referring only to Ephesus. I am happy to concede that perhaps Paul was open to others allowing women to be teachers/leaders (though that is found nowhere), but I would also point out that, to take a position other than what Paul took, one should have a solid scriptural reason and not just be swayed by the winds of our present culture. To point out that one woman was a judge in the OT and two or three were prophets is not, to me, a compelling reason to begin to put women in the position of church leader, elder, pastor, or whatever you want to call it, and thus disregard Paul's clear directive. However, if someone does it, and holds to Jesus as Saviour of lost sinners and the Bible as the final judge of all doctrinal issues, then I can certainly fellowship with them and keep my mouth closed about our differences. But all things equal, I would prefer to fall on the side of Paul.

[dwashbur]

We can come back to that, but I couldn't help noticing that you glossed right over Deborah, Miriam, Huldah the prophetess, and all the other prominent women in leadership roles in the Bible. I mentioned them and you didn't. What about them?

Paul's comment about Eve is vague at best. What do you with the part about being saved through childbirth? We can't just grab the parts we like out of context and hang our hats on them, that's how cults gets started. (No, I'm not saying that.)

If we're going to appeal to that chapter we have to deal with the whole thing. And then we have to put it into the wider context of Scripture. There is nothing ambiguous about Priscilla's leadership role, simple Greek grammar and the normal practice of the day tell us that. She was the leader and her husband was her sidekick. It's right there in the Greek text for those who know how to read it.

You're not done, my brother. Lots to cover.

[jlisenbe]

I did mention Debra and the others: "To point out that one woman was a judge in the OT and two or three were prophets is not, to me, a compelling reason to begin to put women in the position of church leader, elder, pastor, or whatever you want to call it, and thus disregard Paul's clear directive." I also mentioned them by name in an earlier post. To say I "glossed over them" is puzzling.

Miriam was a songleader for the women on one occasion. She was not a leader of Israel. I have no idea why you continue to mention her other than from desperation to find female leaders in the OT of which there are relatively few. That is not a knock against women, but an appeal for the truth.

Priscilla was important and there is no doubt about it, but it never mentions she was a lead pastor. To say her husband was a sidekick is peculiar. He is mentioned last, and that is significant, but a sidekick? I took three semesters of Greek in Bible college. Now that is miles away from being a Greek scholar, but I'd be interested to hear your take on how it shows him as a "sidekick".

I have no idea what Paul is referring to with the part about women being saved through childbirth. It is an unusual text. However, it is plain and clear what he is referring to concerning women in leadership. His comment about Eve could not be clearer. Vague? Are you serious?

I'm not really clear as to what you are advocating for. All of this should lead to a conclusion. My take is that while Paul did leave an opening for women in leadership (his use of the pronoun "I"), it is a narrow window, and should generally be regarded as a less than good idea. But I'm sure there are circumstances where it is necessary. Still, the vast weight of the Bible falls in the other direction. When we consider how many men are named in positions of leadership throughout the Bible versus how many women are named, it is simply overwhelming. Every one of the 12 disciples of Christ was a man. Every author of a book of the Bible was a man. Every named apostle was a man with the exception of Junia, and that is tenuous. Paul's directives to Timothy and Titus about church leaders specifically refer to men. And your answer for all of that is....Debra? Miriam? Priscilla? All great women, but in an overwhelming minority. That is my point. If we ask who God overwhelmingly chose for leadership in the Bible, it is men. That is not misogyny, it is truth.

If your conclusion is that God might, from time to time, choose to use a woman in leadership, then we are not far apart. If you have concluded that women and men are equally candidates for leadership in the church of Jesus Christ, then we are in different places. Naming a handful of women from the Bible does not amount to making that case. But I have enjoyed the discussion and seeing your perspective on it.

[Wondergirl]

If you have concluded that women and men are equally candidates for leadership in the church of Jesus Christ, then we are in different places.

Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[jlisenbe]

As with all scriptures, it must be interpreted in context with the rest of the Bible. And bear in mind that this text was written by the same Paul who told Timothy, "3 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect."

Plainly a reference to male leadership. Told Titus the same thing. So it would seem to be an amazing thing for that same Paul to be advocating for female leadership in the church.

[Wondergirl]

And also consider that this was "a few years ago" when that country and its culture were not 2018 USA. Things have changed. We don't need to ride donkeys and camels (or are SUVs unbiblical?) or require a widowed woman marry her brother-in-law and we now wear blended fabrics. How Christians did things in 40 A.D. is not how we are required to do them.

From https://www.gotquestions.org/meaning-of-adiaphora.html --

Adiaphora, in biblical terms, would be the “disputable matters” mentioned in Romans 14:1(the ESV calls them “opinions”). We are not to quarrel over them. Some things are right, because the Bible says they are right; other things are wrong, because the Bible says they are wrong. But some things the Bible neither condemns nor approves. We often refer to these issues as “gray areas” or matters of conscience. We could also call them adiaphora. For example, the Bible clearly promotes truth-telling and condemns lying. But what about writing fiction? As long as everyone knows it’s fiction, that’s adiaphora.

We can also think of the “non-essentials” of the faith as adiaphora. Teachings on the timing of the rapture, the number of angels, or the identity of the two witnesses in Revelation 11 are non-essential to the faith; they are adiaphora. On the other hand, doctrines such as the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the bodily resurrection are essential and non-negotiable.

In one sense, there is no such thing as adiaphora in human behavior. Paul says, “Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17). Everything we do—even things that seem morally neutral—fall under the banner of goodness if we do them for God’s glory. And even things good in themselves can be done with impure motives and thus be dishonoring to God (Isaiah 1:10–15). Succeeding in our work, going for a run, playing games with friends, and all the other things we do that don’t seem either good or bad, can fall squarely under the banner of goodness when we do them in a way that glorifies Christ with thanksgiving.

[jlisenbe]

Well, I don't know how to answer that. I guess you are saying that, since some things have changed, then we can now just do whatever our desires dictate. I will stick with the Bible. It has survived over the centuries by the providence of God. If it hurts the feelings of some people, then I can sympathize with that. It sometimes hurts mine as well, but since it is God's word, then I'll stick with it.

[Wondergirl]

Are you a literalist? Please read what I added to my post above regarding adiaphora. Women as SS superintendents is adiaphora.

[jlisenbe]

Wow. You really DID add to your comment. I've already said I don't think the Bible would have an issue with a female Sunday School super. I do agree with your extended statement.

Yes, I am a literalist unless it can clearly not be applied in that way. When Jesus said He was "the light of the world", he did not mean He was the sun.

My major contention in this thread initially was with saying that Paul's statement about women leadership was made to a specific congregation. That is not true. Then it was the contention that, because there are a handful of women in the Bible mentioned in, or around, leadership, then we should ignore Paul's directive. Those are the things I object to. How we interpret the Bible should be a matter of honesty, altogether apart from our own personal feelings.

I would not attend a church with a female in the position of the "lead" pastor. That is my conviction and, it seems to me, a clear teaching in scripture. Would I listen to a lady speaker? Yes. I don't think Paul was saying women could not speak to men. I believe he was saying that a woman is not a good candidate to be primary leader/teacher in a church.

Would I refuse to support a church that had a female as the primary pastor/leader? No. I would happily support them. I would regard it as none of my business.

[Wondergirl]

I would not attend a church with a female in the position of the "lead" pastor. That is my conviction and, it seems to me, a clear teaching in scripture. Would I listen to a lady speaker? Yes. I don't think Paul was saying women could not speak to men. I believe he was saying that a woman is not a good candidate to be primary leader/teacher in a church.

That might be how the church survives, by being led by women. It's not doing well right now. Membership is really down.

[jlisenbe]

What we really need is a revival of Holy Spirit power. We need a revival of prayer. When the church exploded in the first century, it was not because they brought all the ladies in to become pastors. It was because the Spirit of God was at work in glorifying the name of Jesus as Savior and Lord. I certainly hope we can agree on that. It does not belong in the diaphora.