Women in Leadership

[_Les Wright]

Hi Steve,

I'm sure you have answered questions about this a zillion times...

Perhaps you (or others) can just direct me to some links, but here are my questions:

I understand your position to be that a women cannot be an elder based upon 1 Tim 2:12 being understood best as a restriction from this role. Correct me if I'm wrong please.

I don't believe I understand your understanding of the distinction between teaching/preaching/prophesying. It is often said that if a women can prophesy, obviously she doesn't have to remain silent, etc... Anyhow, can you clarify your understanding of this for me?

I'm not sure you claim to have this figured out, but I heard you talking about how elders may not have been 1 per church, or even 1 per city, but that they were possibly men who where in the area who could be called upon for serious matters, etc.. (I'm totally paraphrasing you here, and probably losing what you meant...) Could you clarify this for me?

In my attempt to understand the Bible's teaching on women in leadership, I find myself not wanting to place any 'extra' restrictions on women, but feel that they cannot be elders. The problem is that I am not really decided upon what an elder actually was/is. If it corresponds to the leader/pastor/leadershipteam/board of a local church, then I suppose a women shouldn't be in this position. However, possibly a women could lead a mid-week meeting with men attendees? I guess this wouldn't violate an 'non-elder' interpretation, but it may violate a more princabled bype interpretation (i.e. a women should never be in a place of authority/teaching over a man)?

On the other hand, if elders are more like a bishop today, then perhaps a women can be the leader/pastor of a local church?

So that no stones are thrown, I am not trying to restrict women in any way, I'm just trying to understand the Bible as best I can.

I have been on a DTS with YWAM in the past where the leader and most of the leadership were women. On a practical level, I didn't really have a problem with it. However, I have always felt something isn't quite right with women pastors. On the other hand, I have read and learned alot from godly women.

Your comments, or direction to lectures/links to old threads would be appreciated.

Thanks.
in Him,
Les

PS Yes.. you can probably tell that the church I attend is looking for a new pastor, and it is possible that it will be a women or husband/wife team. So, a follow up question would be, if I disagree with a women pastor or husband/wife team, is this reason to find another fellowship? I tend to think it is, but I'm not sure.

[Guest]

Hi Les,

The topics you outline have been discussed at:

CHURCH LIFE--1) Women and Authority 2) Female Pastors...
3) Preaching, teaching, pastoral ministry and women

CHRISTIAN LIVING/ETHICS--1 Timothy 2:12

You'll find them under the subject headings 6 months ago or longer. Hope this is helpful until Steve has a minute to answer.

kind regards,

livingink

[_Les Wright]

Thanks livingink.

I have read through all the threads that you pointed out (some of which I have already read, but was glad to read again).

Steve,

Allow me to shorten my post based upon what you've already posted.

Is an elder in the Bible best understood as 1) group of leaders for each church/city or 2) possibly men who where in the area who could be called upon for serious matters?

How do we judge what is informal authority? (i.e. can a women could lead a mid-week meeting with men attendees? Or, if elders are more like a bishop today, then perhaps a women can be the leader/pastor of a local church?)

If I (or any Christian) disagrees with a women pastor or husband/wife team, is this reason to find another fellowship? I tend to think it is, but I'm not sure.

- Sounds like you wouldn't say it necessarily is. I guess I feel the major danger is that my (my family, those who I bring to church) understanding will slowly change to reflect those of the church/group over time... I have heard others cousel agaist the dangers of having women in authority over me/my family, but it sounds kinda mystical to me.

Would you say that women are also banned from occupying the position of apostle, prophet and evangelist (Eph 4:11) because that would mean a position of formal authority? From other posts I realize a women can preach (i.e. evangelise the unsaved), prophesy (share a message/revelation from God) and teach informally, yet, this could occur without a formal position as it seems to for most men as well.

Tx
Les

[Guest]

Well Les, if Women are not allowed to be leaders, then Galatians 3:28 is wrong
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
I don't think God is wrong in what he wanted to say. Here is a link,

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... ew_topic=5

Several commentaries there, it is a complex issue. Not because of what God wants.

[Guest]

Jesusfollower,

You said:

"Well Les, if Women are not allowed to be leaders, then Galatians 3:28 is wrong
Galatians 3:28
'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.'
I don't think God is wrong in what he wanted to say"

You have made an all too common mistake; you have taken a verse with no regard to the context and attempted to make an unrelated point. Go back and read what Paul is saying. He has been writing about an inheritance (see particularly v. 18 and v.29) concerning the promise made to Abraham. Who are to be heirs? A woman would naturally be interested in this because except in unusual circumstances, in Paul's day they could not inherit anything. Paul's statement is about who will be heirs: all who are in Christ.

For the respective roles of men and women, we must look elswhere, where there is plenty said.

[Guest]

Right Homer, for instance,

I went from there to discuss where the idea came from that women should not teach or preach or that women should be confined in their ways of service. I made three particular points. First I covered the difficult scriptures—1 Timothy 2:11-15. This is the wonderful and memorable section about “suffer not a woman to teach.” I clarified this scripture by going through it word by word. We recognized that verse 11 is an invitation to learn to a culture of women who were excluded from education. The verse, “I suffer not a woman to teach or claim authority over man” is really a reference to a wrong doctrine, a Gnostic [a religious sect of the day] myth that had been creeping into the Church. The heart of that myth was that Eve was formed before Adam, and some versions of the myth had that Eve formed Adam. Eve was the font of all wisdom. The real translation of that section of scripture is as follows: “Do not allow the women to teach or claim authorship of man for Adam was first formed then Eve.”

Lots more detail was in the teaching. I just wanted to give you a recap for those of you who have not heard it. It is a tragically misunderstood section of scripture. Once you do see the beauty of it; it is such a welcoming invitation to women to rise up and to be whole. I went from there to looking at some of the watered down translations. Something that has occurred over time, due to wrong doctrines infiltrating Church scholars and teachers, is that translations have been modified just a little bit, particularly in the context of women. Perhaps the most memorable example of that is the word virtuous in Proverbs 31 and in the book of Ruth. The word virtuous is used two times in reference to women. It is used hundreds of times in reference to men. Every time the word is used in reference to men it is translated something like strong, valiant, courageous—lots of military uses of that word; however, the two times that it refers to woman it is translated as virtuous. The verse, “who can find a virtuous woman” is really “who can find a powerful, capable woman.”

The last place that I went was the issue that over the years in Church history a real confusion has occurred between the role of wife to husband and the role or relationship of woman to man. In Genesis chapter three, it has been understood and taught to be the standard for all of womankind. We need to be clear about the fact that Genesis chapter three was not God’s will. I am referring to what God spoke to Adam and Eve after the fall. It was not God’s will; it was a result of sin. It was a curse, and God’s heart was broken; thus, he said to Eve, “this is how it is going to be from now on. It is not how I willed it; it is just that this is the outcome.” What has happened over time is that that has become a standard for how men and women relate to each other. First of all, it was not meant to be addressed to all of mankind and womankind nor was it God’s primary will for a marriage. It is important to understand those things.

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... le&sid=532
And I think the reference in Galatians is more than just inheritance because it is spread all through the word.
This article explains some of it, it is again a very large subjest that takes some deep study.

[Guest]

Jesusfollower,

Could you please provide your source for the teaching you are advocating in the first paragraph of your last post? It may have some relevance to Les's specific questions.

livingink


I just looked at the link you provided. You pasted part of the article as your post. So, I guess I need to ask where Susan Carlson got the information to reinterpret this section of scripture.

Thanks

[Guest]

Jesusfollower,

You posted:

I went from there to discuss where the idea came from that women should not teach or preach or that women should be confined in their ways of service. I made three particular points. First I covered the difficult scriptures—1 Timothy 2:11-15. This is the wonderful and memorable section about “suffer not a woman to teach.” I clarified this scripture by going through it word by word. We recognized that verse 11 is an invitation to learn to a culture of women who were excluded from education. The verse, “I suffer not a woman to teach or claim authority over man” is really a reference to a wrong doctrine, a Gnostic [a religious sect of the day] myth that had been creeping into the Church. The heart of that myth was that Eve was formed before Adam, and some versions of the myth had that Eve formed Adam. Eve was the font of all wisdom. The real translation of that section of scripture is as follows: “Do not allow the women to teach or claim authorship of man for Adam was first formed then Eve.”

Where is you proof for these assertions (speculations?). Are you aware scholars disagree about the date of the origin of the Gnostics? That there may have been no Gnostics before the late 1st century?

[Guest]

This article explains the whole thing pretty thoroughly
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... nt&sid=477

Don't miss part 2 at the bottom of the article and never forget to follow along in your Bible, otherwise it is just another mans opinion. You also may need a few lexicons.

[Guest]

And Homer, I believe the much of the proof lies in the fact that the devil has tied the hands of over half the Church. You do know that the census is like 80% of Church membership is Women? I think, not sure of that # but they do out number the Men.
But that article I gave on the last post tells where the proof is for translation of II Timothy.