Women in the Pulpit.

[Ricette]

I have news for those of you who think women should not take the pulpit. Before the sexist purge of the Church, women did lead. Women were teachers along with men. Why can not a woman speak her mind and lead the spiritual welfare of others? What is so awful and sinful about a woman taking the pulpit? Your God created woman from man Genesis says. Well if that be the case, she came from the mans SIDE. Not his feet, not his head. His side. To be equal. Personally I see the bible written by a bunch of men who lived 2000 years ago and such stringent and sexist laws no longer have any true place in 21st century society. If a woman wants to stand up and lead men or women or both on the spiritual journey, to teach them and nurture their souls, let them.

Besides, who best to do so? Women are nurturers.
To those who say that the woman must be submissive to the man, I am sorry but what century are you living in?  

[CCubed]

Ricette

I have news for those of you who think women should not take the pulpit. Before the sexist purge of the Church, women did lead. Women were teachers along with men. Why can not a woman speak her mind and lead the spiritual welfare of others? What is so awful and sinful about a woman taking the pulpit? Your God created woman from man Genesis says. Well if that be the case, she came from the mans SIDE. Not his feet, not his head. His side. To be equal. Personally I see the bible written by a bunch of men who lived 2000 years ago and such stringent and sexist laws no longer have any true place in 21st century society. If a woman wants to stand up and lead men or women or both on the spiritual journey, to teach them and nurture their souls, let them.

Besides, who best to do so? Women are nurturers.
To those who say that the woman must be submissive to the man, I am sorry but what century are you living in?

I always hear this and it's really stupid. Look, women have their place in the church and men have theirs. Women have just as important a position as men. No, they can't be pope, but they can be just as influential, if not more, as the pope.

Women are teacher's today. In fact, the people in charge of the schools are nuns, I.E. women. They are the main teaching source for catholic schools, in fact, they're usually the only source. It's not that we're saying that they are unequal, in fact, they are. They just were given different roles. God placed men in the position to organize things, women in the position to nurture.

Also, no one says the woman must submit to the man. It's deeper than that. The fact is, there has to be a sacrifice on both parts. Both the woman and the man submit to each other for the betterment of the other. This is a common misconception of the teachings on women.

Random fact: The church was and still is one of the biggest organizations involved in furthering women's rights. The church saw women as equals before it was a popular idea and it was persecuted for teaching it. So you cannot say that we "put the women down."  

[Sybil Unrest]

I find it interesting that in the New Testament we see women apostles, deacons (up until the 9th C AD) and bishops and all Christians, male and female, are called to be priests.

The Deutero-Pauline letters Timothy and Titus are often pulled out in the debate to stop women preaching.

Quote:

1. When the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing" (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men” (Redekop; see also Payne).
2. We know for a fact that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5). Women functioned in the Church as deaconesses. We know, therefore, that women did speak in the assemblies. 1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat.
3. The immediate context of the prohibition was the danger of Gnostic teaching that at the time affected mainly women. Enlarging its purpose to including a permanent norm for all time goes beyond the “literal sense” of the text and the intended scope of the biblical author.

(Source)

“Until women have learned what they need in order to get a full grasp of the true teaching, they are not to teach or have authority over men.” (Redekop)  

[CCubed]

Sybil Unrest

I find it interesting that in the New Testament we see women apostles, deacons (up until the 9th C AD) and bishops and all Christians, male and female, are called to be priests.

The Deutero-Pauline letters Timothy and Titus are often pulled out in the debate to stop women preaching.

Quote:

1. When the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing" (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men” (Redekop; see also Payne).
2. We know for a fact that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5). Women functioned in the Church as deaconesses. We know, therefore, that women did speak in the assemblies. 1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat.
3. The immediate context of the prohibition was the danger of Gnostic teaching that at the time affected mainly women. Enlarging its purpose to including a permanent norm for all time goes beyond the “literal sense” of the text and the intended scope of the biblical author.

(Source)

“Until women have learned what they need in order to get a full grasp of the true teaching, they are not to teach or have authority over men.” (Redekop)

Let's try this another way. How does women not being priests make men in charge of women?  

[Sybil Unrest]

Women not being priests excludes one half of the population - and more than half of the church population from the offices of the church. Not everyone is called to sacerdotal ministry - but to exclude some based on their genitalia runs contrary to scripture and church practise.  

[CCubed]

Sybil Unrest

Women not being priests excludes one half of the population - and more than half of the church population from the offices of the church. Not everyone is called to sacerdotal ministry - but to exclude some based on their genitalia runs contrary to scripture and church practise.

Church Practise? Church Practise has been that Men are Priests and Women are nuns for a while now. In the early years, there were Women Disciples, but not Women Priests.  

[Sybil Unrest]

CCubed

Church Practise? Church Practise has been that Men are Priests and Women are nuns for a while now. In the early years, there were Women Disciples, but not Women Priests.

Actually, that is incorrect.

Women were ordained in the early church and specifically preached, heard confessions, baptised, and performed pastoral duties. There were women deacons (cf Romans 16:1), elders, bishops (such as Bishop Theodora in the 9th C) and apostles (Rom 16:7).
Women were finally excluded at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century.

See: ChurchWatch,
some more information, and this  

[freelance lover]

ioioouiouiouio

Quote:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Scripture is not Divinely authoritative when it says it's not. In this passage, the author sets an example of how he leads his congregation, not a rule.

Just a thought... is Paul wrote this letter as well as the previous ones cited (if memory serves)... would he be considering that "scripture". Obviously he wouldn't be like "Oh, my letters will be considered holy texts one day!" We're reading his private and personal mail.

My point- they scripture given is NT and as thus would probably not have been considered scripture by the author, making the meaning of the scripture different than how we're interpretting it.  

[Mountain Rose]

I must say, I freaking love this topic. I'm a stay-at-home daughter, and all I want to do with my life is become a wife and mother.

Ladies Against Feminism is the coolest website ever, and I suggest you visit. mrgreen

ladiesagainstfeminism.com  

[`apple dumpling]

I think it's important to consider the time period that Paul's letters were written in. Women generally weren't educated, so they couldn't read. It makes sense that they wouldn't be allowed to teach- why would you let someone uneducated teach you?

However, now women can go the seminary and become just as educated, if not more so than men on scripture and God's will. If God is using someone, why would we ignore them?

Also, can someone please explain to me why having a v****a and breasts makes me less capable of preaching God's word? If I feel the call the seminary (which I have before) I should be able to go where God is calling me, regardless of my lady-parts.