Women in 1 Timothy (Could Steve respond?)

[Guest]

I forgot to add that many men dont step up to teach because they dont want the hassle. i really like it, so it is not a hassle to me, but until you try it, you wont really know.

TK

[Guest]

I forgot to add that many men dont step up to teach because they dont want the hassle. i really like it, so it is not a hassle to me, but until you try it, you wont really know.

TK

What hassles do many men want to avoid? The time commitment? Something else?

My curiosity is really aroused because I honestly had no idea that there was a problem attracting (is that the right word? I puzzled over it for a while) men to serve as teachers. I probably should have figured it out since there seems to a feminization of the church going on.

Frankly, I'm kind of thinking that if men won't "step up" to the task, that's even more reason for women not to. Maybe I've been over-thinking this today, but isn't it kind of shameful to say, "since there isn't a man to lead, a good woman will always get the job done?" It's true, but why should the men be let off the hook?

[Guest]

time commitment, the fact they dont want to be viewed as a "sissy christian"- (sorry, but i think that is true), a fear that if they teach they will have to live holier lives, etc. all exceedingly lame excuses, but true nonetheless.

i dont think most churches (like mine) are willing to hold adult christian education "hostage" pending men stepping up. something is better than nothing, they would argue.


just to be clear, I personally dont have a problem with women teaching.

TK

[Guest]

The strongest argument I've heard for women in ministry came from an evangelical, not a liberal. You can read Greg Boyd's essay here:

http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-c ... -ministry/

Greg uses a few arguments I've never heard before, and I've read quite a bit on this topic. For years I've heard it said that women can serve in some ministerial roles but not as senior or head pastor. Greg rightly points out in his essay that the NT knows nothing of a head or senior pastor so that particular "rule" looks a bit arbitrary.

He also points out the numerous inconsistancies with the common interpretation, which I found compelling and somewhat humorous. I also like the approach he uses, which is to first lay out the best arguments against women in ministry, then point out their weaknesses in light of more clear passages. It's very much a "Steve Gregg" kind of approach, even though they arrive at a different conclusion.

[Guest]

The strongest argument I've heard for women in ministry came from an evangelical, not a liberal. You can read Greg Boyd's essay here:

First of all, I know no one who argues against women in ministry. There were clearly deaconesses in the early church. The primary meaning of "deacon" is "distributor". The first deacons were appointed to serve tables so that the apostles could concentrate on dispensing the word of God (the gospel). These first deacons distributed food. So did the deaconesses who were appointed later. Deacons and deaconesses were servants, not overseers.

There were no female overseers ("bishops" if you insist) appointed in the early church. There were no female apostles.

I appreciate Boyd's work in the are of "open theism", but I think he is pretty weak here. I can find only two quotes from Boyd where he tries to prove there were female leaders in the early Church. Here is the first:

In verse 3 [of Acts 18] Paul greets Priscilla as another fellow laborer in the gospel. In addition to working as tentmakers, Priscilla and her husband Aquilla oversaw a congregation that met in their home. Although some people interpret 1 Timothy 2 as forbidding women from teaching or having authority over men in any circumstances, Acts 18:26 says that Priscilla and Aquilla instructed Apollos, an apostle in need of further training.

It doesn't say that they instructed Apollos. It says that they explained they explained the way of God to him more accurately. It is true that Priscilla and Aquilla were a husband and wife team. She was a support, a helper for her husband, an overseer. But there was no evidence that she independently oversaw any congregation. It is also incorrect to refer to Apollos at this time as "an apostle in need of instruction". Apollos had not been baptized in Jesus' name at that time. He had received only the baptism of John.

In Romans 16:7, Paul mentions that a woman named Junia was imprisoned along with him for the sake of the gospel and he describes her as “outstanding among all the apostles.” The word apostle usually means “sent one” in the New Testament. It refers to a person who is called and empowered by God to speak the gospel with authority. According to Paul, Junia was one of those people.

It is incorrect to assume that the accusative singular "iounian" is the accusitive form of the name "Junia". The nominative form could also be "Junias" as many translations have it.

Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), the bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote an Index of Disciples, in which he includes this line: "Iounias, of whom Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria" (Index disciplulorum, 125.19-20). In Greek, the phrase "of whom" is a masculine relative pronoun (hou) and shows that Epiphanius thought Iounias was a man.

Here are just a few verses in the NT, where the ending "ian" indicates an accusative singular masculine noun. Mt 1:8,9,10,11. There are many others. We know they are masculine in these verses because they are preceded by a masculine article.

[Guest]

First of all, I know no one who argues against women in ministry. There were clearly deaconesses in the early church. The primary meaning of "deacon" is "distributor". The first deacons were appointed to serve tables so that the apostles could concentrate on dispensing the word of God (the gospel). These first deacons distributed food. So did the deaconesses who were appointed later. Deacons and deaconesses were servants, not overseers.

Paidion, there are a great number of people who argue against women in the ministry, including the church that Greg Boyd got saved in. Boyd's essay is a rebuttal of this legalistic view since those who hold it are not consistent with its application across the board.

I think many Christians are so afraid of liberal theology that they run to the opposite end of the spectrum, selectively ignoring cultural contexts in their interpretations. Paul said he doesn't permit a women to teach or have authority over a man. But isn't an overseer in the Kingdom one who serves another? Perhaps we take this modern notion that pastors and leaders are powerful and authoritative positions, but is the Kingdom really set up that way? Isn't the greatest one actually the least and a leader the servent of all?

A woman who seeks to be an overseer because she's power-hungry or wants to rule others is not a good thing. But that's also true of a man! If someone seeks to truly and humbly serve others, it shouldn't matter if they are a man or woman... it's equally commendable. Likewise, if someone is seeking power and control, it also doesn't matter if they are a man or woman... it's equally wrong.

I think many modern churches are set up under a false notion of one man ruling a body of elders who rule over a congregation. The Kingdom is about people of different giftings all serving one another and Christ in love. I'm not sympathetic to the Feminist Movement by any means and think they've actually hurt women, as a whole. But the backlash against that movement has caused some to ask the wrong questions. "Should a woman be allowed in the role of a head pastor?" How about, "Should anyone be allowed in the role of a head pastor?"

[Guest]

So it would seem that on the basis of your arguments, that a woman could also be the leader in the home (as a servant of her husband and children).

But Paul explicitly states that she is to be in submission to her husband. Nowhere does Paul state that a man is to be in submission to his wife.

At this one someone will doubtless drag out the "mutual submission" statement of Paul. But Paul doesn't actually teach mutual submission. If everyone is submitted to everyone, then, in practice, no one is sumitted to anyone.

Paul wrote:

... submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. Ephesian 5:21

First Paul stated that we are to submit to one another, and then he gave the example of wives submitting to their husbands (but not the other way around). He probably also had in mind the submission of disciples to their overseers --- as we find in Hebrews 13:17

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls...

Do you find anything about overseers submitting to everyone else?

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders...

Does Peter also instruct that the older people be subject to the younger?

So it seems that Paul's instruction to "submit to one another" is not mutual submission, but rather that appropriate submission to those leaders whom God has set, either in the home, or in the church of God.

[Guest]

Paidion, I made no mention of wives and husbands and believe it to be a different topic entirely. In fact, the only commonality is that both issues involve men and women. My comments were all related to how Christians should gather and edify one another. Perhaps you could define the word "authority" as it relates to church gatherings. Would you be opposed to a woman reading scripture aloud in a gathering of men who were being disobedient to the text as a means of reminding them?

Paul said women are not allowed to speak in a gathering and that it was shameful. He said if they have questions, they should ask their husbands at home. How unfortunate to those sisters that were single or widowed. If you take Paul at face value and delve no deeper, then we must say such women were never allowed to ask questions, though they could prophesy in public if need be. What a strange set of standards.

[Guest]

The article is a long one, and I take exception with almost everything about it. I am on the road right now, and will attempt to give a lengthy response when I am back home.

I'm still looking forward to your response. 8)

[Sean]

Great! This thread is in the new forum. Now maybe Steve can respond to it.