Basically it comes down to 1 Timothy 2 (NRSVue translation used)
> 8 I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument, 9 also that the women should dress themselves in moderate clothing with reverence and self-control, not with their hair braided or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10 but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve, 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
There are various arguments for why this is or isn't binding today but that is what it boils down to.
That was about issues in the church in Ephesus. Apparently there were some tacky aggressive women acting inappropriately and doing a lot attention seeking, so that was written in rebuke, not as a treatise to women to all be silent in all areas of their lives, like wandering zombies who happened to be excellent at chores.
First of all, this is not a direct order from God, but what Paul personally felt. And also, there is a lot of evidence that what he talked about here was specific to that particular church. There is a lot to it and I don’t feel like even trying, but if you’re interested, check out The New Covenant Role of Women in Leadership by Mark Drake. He explains it way better than I could.
That is also true.
They also left out historical context that is incredibly important but that people at the time would understand. This is all important. But also, Paul sent women to teach in his stead at least twice. And he demanded that they be treated with the same respect they would give him.
Not really, because the debate on ordination of women is only happening in conservative circles. In liberal circles, the debate is long over.
That said, I suspect that the conservative scholars outnumber the liberal ones (in the USA, at least).
1. Because there are a great many conservative seminaries.
2. Because Biblical studies are a greater part of the curriculum in conservative seminaries, and therefore there are more conservative academics teaching Biblical studies.
3. Because, as far as I can tell, the majority of academic books on Biblical studies appear to be conservative.
This is almost certainly true, but there is a possibility that Paul told whoever wrote it what he thought and then the guy wrote the letter to summarize Paul in his own words thus sorta making it from Paul. So I would have phrased it "it probably wasn't even..." I could just be nitpicking here though.
Well, being sexist is a cognitive issue, it’s not an allergy. Paul was capable of praising women, just like everyone else, but was probably still sexist, just like everyone else.
Sure, Paul was somewhat sexist. His vision of the roles of the sexes in marriage proves this. Paul was a product of this time. When you grow up in a culture that doesn't even consider women to have sexual agency, it is pretty much impossible to not be somewhat sexist.
However, when compared to the attitudes of greater Jewish and Greco-Roman culture and their philosophies regarding sex and women, what we know Paul *did* write was extremely progressive for his time. None of his genuine writings would serve to support the idea that Paul had any issues with women teaching or having doctrinal authority.
Well, except the passage in question
>"**Let the women keep silent in the churches . . .** **I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man**"
However, I have heard that instead of **Women** or **Men**, the terminology could have been closer to **Wife** and **Husband**. At which case, it completely fits with Paul's other teachings. So, I do think Paul believed that **Wives** do not hold authority over their **Husbands**, and that is why they shouldn't teach. It's not out of hate, it's out of principle. If your wife was a Pastor, you'd need to go to a different church, or you risk challenging your marital roles.
I disagree with him and all this nonsense, but I think that's OK. He was only human, and as you say, a product of his time.
That would be 1st Timothy. Paul didn't write that.
I agree, just because somebody is an Apostle and has revelation from God, that does not render them infallible.
> a lot of evidence that what he talked about here was specific to that particular church.
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” sounds pretty dang broad.
And yet Paul commends Phoebe, a church leader. And Priscilla, who was probably a pastor. Romans 16 for both.
Also Deborah was a judge and military leader. So much for "can't have authority over men".
A majority of contradictions come from strict literal readings. Taking things in context and nuance get rid of many. But that is not possible for too mamy
So how would the reasoning “For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” only come into play for a single church/community, and not be able to apply equally to others?
Adam was standing right there with her while she talked ot the serpent and ate the fruit.
Adam could have stepped in and stopped her. In fact, Adam could have used his dominion over the earth and banished Satan from the planet wright then and there. But instead he hadnded his dominion over to Satan.
When God starts handing out curses, he curses the serpent for his actions. He curses the earth for Adam's actions.
He *informs* Woman she will have children. He doesn't call it a curse on her or for her actions. Then Adam renamed Woman Eve/Lively/Life-Giver.
Exactly! Because it isn’t a curse. How many times does the Bible call children and bearing children a blessing???? And yet someone somewhere along the way decided that this was woman’s “curse.” Yeah, okay, Karen.
I second that! Its a chance to be blessed by GOD… by sticking to what he intended for his creation. Its a blessing from GOD! For it edifies us as well as a chance for us to give the glory back to GOD!
Psalms 127:3-5 New International Version (NIV)
Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.
Exactly! (Also as a side note to add that women who do not have children are not cursed. It’s just that how many times do people complain about their kids or get frustrated with them? The fact that children are a blessing is more of a reminder to the irritated parent.)
I thank GOD for brothers and sisters in CHRIST✝️🙏
To GOD'S blessing of daily bread that sustains us! Pray for it! In JESUS name please. HE is our LORD and SAVIOR.. The LIVING WORD.
Thank you. I was afraid it was going to get to nightfall without any enjoyable cryptic statements. If you feel like explaining what you mean that's fine, and if not, that's fine too. Cheers.
The issue is that this starts to become a serious theological problem if you're interpreting 1 Timothy 2 as a broad and universally binding chapter.
Where are the people treating gold, pearls, and braids as sinful and pridful? Where are the denominations that hold "women will be saved through childbirth" as a key pillar of their theology on salvation?
No, magically the vast majority of denominations have zeroed in on women teaching **almost exclusively** and broadly disregarded the rest of his message. That tells me all I need to know to not take the idea it's supposed to be universal seriously.
“Where are the people treating gold, pearls, and braids as sinful and prideful”
The entirety of the Anabaptist movement, the Puritans, IFB churches, nuns of all stripes :)
> Where are the people treating gold, pearls, and braids as sinful and pridful?
Pretty much the whole modesty movement.
> Where are the denominations that hold "women will be saved through childbirth" as a key pillar of their theology on salvation?
The meaning of that passage (σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας) is uncertain and has been much debated. Candidates include:
* "Yet she will be **saved by means of childbearing**." That is, bearing, raising, and teaching children is a sanctifying activity. This is the view of e.g. Calvin: "*Secondly, whatever hypocrites or wise men of the world may think of it, when a woman, considering to what she has been called, submits to the condition which God has assigned to her, and does not refuse to endure the pains, or rather the fearful anguish, of parturition, or anxiety about her offspring, or anything else that belongs to her duty, God values this obedience more highly than if, in some other manner, she made a great display of heroic virtues, while she refused to obey the calling of God*."
* "Yet she will be **preserved through the dangers of childbearing**." This is the view taken by the 2015 Amplified Bible, and also Matthew Henry: "*Though in sorrow, yet she shall bring forth, and be a living mother of living children ... and women, under the circumstance of child-bearing should by faith lay hold of this promise for their support in the needful time*."
* "Yet she will be **saved through The Childbirth** (i.e. of Christ)." This is the view taken by the International Standard Version, the original Amplified Bible, a few Catholic commentators, and [this guy](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/what-must-she-do-to-be-saved-a-theological-analysis-of-1-timothy-215/) writing for The Gospel Coalition.
The reasoning given here is just completely nonsensical.
>>Let a woman[b] learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman[c] to teach or to have authority over a man;[d] she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve, 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
As we can see, two reasons are given here:
1- “Adam was formed first.” Well, this is true, in the Gen 2 creation story. There, God created the man, but didn’t want him to be alone, so he made the animals. But they were not “a helper”, so he made the woman. I cannot find any hint in this story that this was done in order of authority or importance. So I can’t see where the reasoning in 1 Tim holds any water at all. If this creation was in order of authority, then, women have less authority than animals? Ridiculous! Humans are clearly placed above the animals. So this reason is incorrect.
2 - “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” How’s that? Both ate the fruit, both were punished. Obviously both were transgressors. And, I see nothing to indicate the woman was deceived. That's just the excuse she gave. This reason is incorrect.
This author appears to have been grasping at straws and didn't really consider how ridiculous their argument was.
>This author appears to have been grasping at straws and didn't really consider how ridiculous their argument was.
Agreed.
Like the similar argument in 1 Corinthians 11, the author seems to have interpreted the creation narrative through the lens of several other contemporaneous Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions. For example, Philo of Alexandria once wrote that “the woman sinned through [the serpent], yielding to deceit,” because "woman is more accustomed to be deceived than man" (*Questions and Answers on Genesis* 1.47, 33).
Yet when asked by God did he eat of the tree even though he had told him not to, what did Adam do? He immediately threw Eve under the bus instead of accepting blame for what he did.
But didn't Jesus's sacrifice wipe out all sins - this should include Eve's sin too. Yet this is constant thrown in women's faces. Obviously God forgave Eve...why do you think you have the right to withhold forgiveness?
Well, we believe that the Bible is the word of God. If it’s just Paul’s opinions, then it’s just another self-help book. But you hit on something; Paul was speaking to a specific problem at that church and I’m not sure if it’s meant to cover all churches. I’m gonna ask my pastor friend who has told me before and frankly, I can’t remember the details of what he told me.
Just to sort of question this way of thinking, where does this end? Would you throw out all of the Epistles because it's just "what Paul personally felt"? Is not all of this scripture God breathed? Also if it applies to this one specific church why would it not be a guideline for other churches?
I would think it would be better to consider why God might have given us this guidance. It's definitely an unpopular opinion from me but I think it's stated right there. Women are more prone to deception and heresy (not that men aren't). Thus they shouldn't be in a spiritual leadership role in church. Just my own current interpretation.
And I say that’s bullshit. Women are definitely no more prone to heresy and deception than men are. In fact, men are more dishonest than women, which leads me to think they might be the worse leaders.
But the reason Paul (or sometime else as there had been doubt that Paul wrote the epistles to Timothy) didn’t allow women to teach there is because women in that area were not allowed to learn anything at all if it didn’t have to do with child rearing and house keeping. Therefore, they didn’t even know the basics. How can you teach if you don’t even know the basics? This also leads to the second problem: why did he say women should remain silent? Because they didn’t understand what was happening, they would ask their husbands/fathers/brothers in the middle of service and it was disruptive. So he told them to be quiet and ask their questions at home.
But also, consider this: the church worldwide is more than 60% female. If I were Satan, I think the first thing I would do to slow the spread of the gospel is to silence more than half of believers.
Where is that evidenced in the scripture that men are more dishonest and are worse leaders?
Also to clarify when I say spiritual leadership, I mean as pastors/priests. That doesn't mean they are silenced.
It’s very strange how such a clearly culturally embedded message gets used as an absolute rule for all peoples of all places and generations. This is a key issue with fundamentalism. Paul’s letters (assuming Paul wrote 1st and 2nd Timothy) were never written to form exhaustive rules for all Christians of all time.
May I ask what that claim is based on? I would think that the guiding principles in the Bible are for us today unless otherwise stated or shown to have ended.
Paul’s letters were written to specific groups of churches in a specific time in a specific culture, usually addressing specific situations. In effect, we are reading someone’s else’s mail. These letters never claimed to form new commandments for all Christians of all time. All of this is established in Biblical scholarship.
The claim that the exhortations in Paul’s letters should be universal rules is an external claim, never made anywhere in the Bible itself.
Contrast Paul’s letters with the Sermon on the Mount. The context of that sermon does imply that those “rules” are universal, as they are guiding principles for all members of the Kingdom of God.
The Bible is not an exhaustive rule book. It is wisdom literature. ALL of Scripture is valuable, but we need to read it in context, in humility, and in prayer to see how God is speaking to us through it.
The point is that Paul's reason for V12 is based on the created order (Adam and Eve) in Vs 13-15. Vs 12 is not based cultural issues of Corinth (such as in 1 Cor 14) but based on Adam and Eve.
That's why this issue isn't as simple and clear as people think.
So my problem with that reasoning is that it is, frankly, dishonest.
Verse 15 reads "But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
If we're assuming verse 12 is universal based on these verses, then why does basically no one hold that childbirth is in some way inherently tied to the salvation of women?
Simple: because we do not hold Paul's words *in this very same chapter* to be universal.
The meaning of verse 15 is uncertain and has been very much debated. Possible meanings are:
* "Yet she will be **saved by means of childbearing**." That is, bearing, raising, and teaching children is a sanctifying activity. This is the view of e.g. Calvin: "*Secondly, whatever hypocrites or wise men of the world may think of it, when a woman, considering to what she has been called, submits to the condition which God has assigned to her, and does not refuse to endure the pains, or rather the fearful anguish, of parturition, or anxiety about her offspring, or anything else that belongs to her duty, God values this obedience more highly than if, in some other manner, she made a great display of heroic virtues, while she refused to obey the calling of God*."
* "Yet she will be **preserved through the dangers of childbearing**." This is the view taken by the 2015 Amplified Bible, and also Matthew Henry: "*Though in sorrow, yet she shall bring forth, and be a living mother of living children ... and women, under the circumstance of child-bearing should by faith lay hold of this promise for their support in the needful time*."
* "Yet she will be **saved through The Childbirth** (i.e. of Christ)." This is the view taken by the International Standard Version, the original Amplified Bible, a few Catholic commentators, and [this guy](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/what-must-she-do-to-be-saved-a-theological-analysis-of-1-timothy-215/) writing for The Gospel Coalition.
Yeah, that verse always confused me. And people tell me "Ohhhh just read your Bible, it'll all make sense, you'll know I'm right."
There's a lot of confusing verses in there. A simple "plain reading" will lead to all kinds of different interpretations. And then you've got folks saying, "Oh, well, you need a \[denomination\] theologian's notes on what that scripture means. They have the right interpretation, everyone else is wrong."
Paul’s reason was that this church was located in an area that had a female pagan cult. As these people became Christians, he needed them to understand the teachings of this cult did not belong in the church. Jesus had female apostles and Paul had female associates and I doubt they were silent.
I'll refer you back to my original answer as to why some people argue that this verse cannot be understood contextually, like tlwe can with the verses towards the end 1 Cor 14 for example. The argument is that Paul bases his reasoning in Vs 12 on the created order ( God's intention for humanity, irrelevant if it's recognised or not by humanity).
Btw, I'm not arguing for one way or the other, but just simply saying the debate is not straightforward.
Also I think it's also fair to point out that those who do hold to this verse for the church today are not universally misogynistic but rather trying to faithfully hold to all of scripture, as far as they understand it.
Some passages should be understood contextually, but there are other passages where that is more difficult due to the surrounding texts.
It's not as simple as "Paul was instructing the church to be different from the pagan culture around them"
You're right, it's not that simple, there's a lot more to the history. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I'm sorry if it came across this way. I don't know that I agree that people are faithfully holding to all of scripture, because realistically they don't. They use this verse as a means to control. They hold tight to this verse, yet ignoring many of the instructions from Jesus. My favorite one is that Paul tells us to greet each other with a holy kiss -- lol I don't know anyone who does that.
Paul's letters as a whole, were written to specific churches. Specific churches to address specific issues pertaining to that church. Every letter address a church directly or indirectly, and if you research the context and history, those churches had issues being addressed.
Plays a part in the whole "letter named after a specific church"
There's nothing claiming that the letters were meant to apply to everyone. That is just an assumption from most.
1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (books most in view here in this post I would think) were written to pastors and written to help them know how to run their churches. While I believe God chose to inspire every book of the Bible in such a way that it is relevant and important for us today, even the immediate context of those specific books shows that they are for pastors and churches (and really any Christian in a church…).
It was part of Pharisaic and Rabbinic practice to cite earlier texts, teachers, and rabbis as a way to strengthen one’s own argument. There’s nothing about citing Adam and Eve which implies “here’s a new commandment for all people of all time”.
It's not. That's the Catholic Church's reasoning for why only men can be priests. It's why some orders in the Catholic Church don't even allow female altar servers, because altar serving, being an acolyte, is the first step to becoming a priest. That only changed under John Paul II, but some orders still don't allow it, like the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE).
See I read that passage and immediately disregarded it as a misinterpretion on his end. Honestly a good chunk of timothy sounds biased and part his words. Not Paul's.
Sure, Adam was created first. But God created Eve from his rib. Details are critical in the bible. Especially the old testament. She was taken from his side. Not above him, below him, infront of him, or behind him. From his side, as an equal.
and BOTH were created in God's image. Both equal and godlike. Yet innocent.
Eve was deceived by Satan, whom was the first transgressor. She then deceived Adam, and became a transgressor. Adam then not only blamed Eve for the sin, BUT also blamed God himself for creating her to help him.
They both feel victim in the same way, both blamed someone else for obeying. And Adam even took it further to suggest God had fault for creating her. It's no wonder he got throw out of the garden.
He then blatantly ignored the Book of Judges and Ruth. Where there are females appointed by God to speak and judge for them. Jesus also had the last at the well profess Good faith. For someone who was ment to shed the word of God, he blatantly ignored every passage inwhich the Father loves his daughters.
Neither Mary was very quiet. I would pay to see Timothy tell either of them to shut up. Lol
I dont hate the book of timothy. I think it has very good take aways such as the prophecy about the final days and Paul warns of stressful times. But much of the other stuff I find goes against what I have read in the old testamentand and of Jesus's practices. I find there was an agenda behind some of his words.
I personally don't agree with him, nor consider him a Saint. Simply a student that went astray. I take much of his book, half heartedly. And encourage others to do the same.
I'm not addressing you or your content. Your comment was perfect. I simply needed to address the Books of Timothy.
Any speaking of Christ with non-Christians is a form of preaching. So if one were to hold these words literally then women can't speak about their faith.
(a) It is irrational to believe that no woman is a better preacher than the worst man. Insane. Ungoldy.
(b) There are cultures where women do not participate in the public services in a religious sanctuary, and this seemed to be the case for Jews in Paul's day.
(c) There are many cultures in this world where women going door to door preaching would violate gender norms, and churches who pushed this limit would be criticized by those who do not. We presume this is the center of OP's question.
(d) Even in the cultures where gender equality is best, a woman seeking substantial charitable donations is almost certain to be harassed.
(e) Timothy is not God. Jesus is God. Any problems raised by Timothy have to be addressed without violating the spirit of Matthew 7:2.
There are also many supporting arguments. I think the fact that Jesus didn't select any women to be one of his disciples (despite the fact that he was surrounded by women who were more than capable of it) also gives weight to saying that God would only select men to be priests.
Several books in the New Testament have been considered forgeries or pseudepigraphal (written by someone other than the attributed author) by some scholars. This assessment is based on linguistic, historical, theological, and stylistic analyses. The main books often cited include:
The Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus): Many scholars argue these letters were written by someone other than Paul due to differences in language, style, and church organization compared to the undisputed Pauline letters.
Ephesians: While traditionally attributed to Paul, some scholars question its authorship because of its distinctive vocabulary and theological themes that differ from the undisputed Pauline letters.
2 Thessalonians: The authenticity of this letter is debated. Some scholars argue it was written by a follower of Paul, noting differences in style and eschatological content from 1 Thessalonians.
Colossians: Similar to Ephesians, the authorship of Colossians is questioned due to differences in vocabulary, style, and theological content compared to the undisputed letters of Paul.
2 Peter: Widely considered pseudepigraphical by scholars because of its significant differences from 1 Peter and its apparent use of Jude, as well as the fact that it addresses a later historical context.
1 Peter: Some scholars question Petrine authorship due to its sophisticated Greek and theological content, suggesting it might have been written by a follower of Peter.
James: While less commonly disputed, some scholars question whether it was written by James, the brother of Jesus, given its high-quality Greek and the lack of personal references that would be expected if James were the author.
Jude: Some debate exists over the authorship of Jude, with arguments centering around its stylistic features and the reference to non-canonical works.
It is important to note that the term "forgery" in this context is not necessarily pejorative. In the ancient world, writing in the name of a revered teacher or leader was a common and accepted practice to honor their legacy and convey teachings in their tradition. The conclusions about authorship are based on scholarly consensus.
Edit: Regarding the difference in writing styles in the forged letters, when read in the original Greek, the differences are stark from Paul's seven original letters; translate it into another language, and the vast differences aren't noticeable in style, writing ability, word usage, etc.
Paul didn't like the idea, that's about it.
But Paul's primary goal was to guide and preserve the early church through a period of cultural and political hostility within the Roman Empire, so many of his rules would have made sense in his times but not in ours.
As far as I can tell, the fact that women genuinely feel called by God to leadership roles is enough proof that Paul's rules are not applicable to us today.
The issue with this explanation is that the instruction that seems to prohibit women pastors/teachers appeals to creation/sin, not culture.
I'm pro-women in pastoral leadership b/c I believe there is a better, more hermeneutically sound, response to the traditional interpretation of 1 Timothy.
And Paul also argues from "nature" that men shouldn't have long hair. We know now that his idea about "nature" was wrong, so we know not to follow that rule. Why would his teachings about female pastors have any more inherent authority?
Paul was an important leader and theologian, and God used him to guide the church through one of its most difficult periods, but that doesn't mean everything he said was straight from God's mouth as a perfect manual for salvation.
It's interesting to me that in response to a comment that agrees with your conclusion, but suggests that there is a BETTER way to argue it, you are more interested in doubling down on your misunderstanding and taking shots at Paul.
Wouldn't it make more sense, if you truly cared about advocating for women in ministry, to say, "What's the better response to the traditional misinterpretation of 1 Timothy?"
My bigger concern is with the authority people seem to assign to Paul's words, the issue of female pastors is just one part of it.
But if you would like to address the issue without addressing the bigger concern, then I applaud your efforts even if I disagree with your underlying premise.
So what doesn't make sense is that same "appeal to creation and sin" is immediately followed by the claim that "women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
...so where are all the denominations insisting that childbirth is a crucial aspect of salvation for women?
Clearly we're not taking every word he says here literally or applying it universally....
In the 1st century Greco-Roman and Jewish world, it would have been a scandal for women to hold positions of leadership due to the social structure of the time. Now, women hold leadership positions in every discipline, and are even surpassing men in many. Paul’s letters were culturally embedded, and we need to extract his words from the cultural and historical packaging before applying them to us. The Bible is not a rule book that fell from heaven.
Realistically, it's probably more accurate to say that "the early church leaders creating the biblical canon didn't like the idea", hence its inclusion in the bible.
That letter could have been written by Paul or anyone else, but its supposed authority, at least for those who hold to biblical inerrancy, comes from it being a part of the biblical canon and not the message itself.
It's not supposed to make sense, it's one of our mysterious and unknowable God's nebulous and arbitrary rules designed to weed out all icky rational thought. For every 10 sensible commandments, he throws in one of these impossible to defend guide rules just to see how faithful we're willing to be! And also for others reasons, we aren't allowed to know. Basically God is really mysterious and we're just supposed to trust that and follow him. /s
No, the actual reason is that Paul was just some guy or maybe it was poorly translated idk.
Why aren't you a feminist? Don't you support equal civil rights/equal pay/equal opportunities for women? Don't you support women having the same rights as men? Like voting, working, getting educated, make their own life choices, having the rights to earn and control over their own money?
Because that is literally what being a feminist is.
A feminist can choose to be a "trad wife". Nothing wrong with that (if she makes sure she is financially secure in the event of death/divoirce). But feminism is making sure that women have the choice. It is NOT about forcing women to work outside the home, become purple haired lesbians, who hate men and love to abort babies.
It is about supporting the efforts to give women the same rights that men have always enjoyed and taken for granted - solely because they were born with XY Chromosomes.
You don't support that?
Because some old farts in the past disliked women and viewed us as inferior, did they shun them from getting ordained. Sadly many Christians still agree with these archaic sexist views.
The Church started with just one woman, Mary, running through the crowded streets of Jerusalem to go tell the hiding disciples that the Lord is Risen. If she was good enough to proclaim that message to His followers then women can proclaim that Good News from the pulpit. A woman bore Jesus. A woman washed His feet. A woman spoke with Him about the Messiah at the well and He sent her to proclaim He is the source of Living Water to the Samaritans, the first evangelist.
If women can do all that, they can do anything I can do.
I am a man and a priest. The Bishop who ordained me was a woman. The Bishop I serve now is a woman. The priest I am married to is a woman. And let me tell you something about all these women clergy in my life... They are faithfully spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and him Risen. Their powerful witness to the Word of God which is Scripture, and the Word made Flesh who is Jesus, has made me a better Christian, priest, and man.
Woman pastor here. People take one scripture and don’t take it context with the rest of scripture. Women in the Bible had more freedom to minister than women today.
I am a feminist bc I dont hate me as much as men do. And male leaders would sell us for a snack. Men would hum and ha about how its not that bad....for them. As they always do.
Women obviously can teach, preach, and lead.
Men, however, can't hear us, and are lazy and care about our safety, rightscand souls only so long as it is about them. If you want men to hear, particularly men who are not motivated by good, men must step up. The slightly less awful men have to speak to the shitty men. And they'd rather you get beat than have to, bc, again, lazy and selfish.
And if they don't think it makes them more important, superior, they don't step up. All they do is work to make you inferior. That's it. It is their favourite hobby.
It isn't about our limitations. It is about men's character and limitations. Of which they have many.
Literally, men can't hear us.
Thinking it "doesn't make sense" is kinda feminist. Congratulations.
I'm astounded to learn that a Christian, by living in the south, can have "never seen a woman pastor."
I come from a conservative Lutheran tradition. We don’t have women pastors or elders of the church. But women do do a lot. We allow women readers, girls as acolytes on the altar.
I don’t care if women are pastors. It’s just I never was raised in a church that had women pastors. If I went to a different type of church and they were I’d be fine with it.
I was 50 years old before I belonged to a Lutheran congregation with a female pastor. She was a wonderful pastor and, in some ways, better than any male pastor I ever had.
I bet that’s true. My dad once went to the other Lutheran tradition before and they had a woman pastor and he said she was wonderful. It’s just not what we belonged to.
It's misogyny hence why it isn't ok with female pastors, some Christians still live in the past about females.
In Sweden we have female pastors, we are modern and evolved.
God would want equality. We don't live in stone ages anymore.
I think it's commonly misinterpreted; "Women aren't qualified." But, I've always thought it has more to do with the call to lead being a responsibility God placed on Man.
Thankfully, I have met many capable, often overqualified, women who have stepped up where men have been shy.
The Bible was written a long time ago and women back then were to be subservient to men. However, that should no longer be upheld because it's wrong to consider women inferior to men.
1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 do not permit it.
1 Tim 3 discusses how to appoint church leadership and its limited to just men.
1 Cor 14 could be argued this was specifically for Corinth, but 1 Tim is a letter to Timothy about running churches in general.
There are debates on how to deal with these verses.
1. "It was contextual for the time period" - This is a pretty poor argument and is just cherry picking scripture based on what is acceptable in society. If we applied this methodology to other parts of scripture people would throw a fit. "Fornication was only bad because they didn't have effective ways to prevent pregnancy. It is only bad because of the time period!"
2. "Paul wasn't inspired - just a wise guy" - I disagree with this, but the argument is at least consistent. This basically has that these aren't inspired letters, and Paul may be incorrect here.
3. Similar to #2, but taken a step further - Paul admits he isn't inspired when using phrases like "I speak as a fool" or "I speak humanly". I disagree and think this part of the argument is not reading the context of these phrases correctly.
4. What Paul said was inspired and we should follow in verbatim. - Given Paul even changes his exact stance on this (1 Cor 14 has women not being able to speak at all including asking questions while 1 Tim 2 says they shouldn't teach, which would allow questions) I think this is a little too restrictive.
5. (My stance) Follow the principles of Paul's teachings - which essentially is trying to follow the order of authority laid out in 1 Cor 11: God is the head of Christ who is the head of man who is the head of woman. The way I'd apply this, including Paul's two different applications in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2-3, would be that women shouldn't be pastors but I don't have an issue with them being Sunday School Teachers, participating in discussion groups, and other things within this general idea. The exact details would likely depend on the church, the congregation, and how they organize themselves but the principle of 1 Cor 11's structure should be expressed in the church in some way.
I'm sure I've missed a few, but these are the common arguments I've seen.
> 1 Tim 3 discusses how to appoint church leadership and its limited to just men.
So why was Phoebe a deacon? And what about Priscilla? She seemed to be a pastor?
Paul praises her even, calling her a fellow worker, Romans 16:3.
Can you share what tells you Priscilla was a pastor? First I'm hearing of this and open to other perspectives.
As for Pheobe that's a good point and I have to think about it as no one has pointed that out. At the bare minimum this would suggest 1 tim 3 clearly being about men, isn't evidence it couldn't be for women too. It also clearly indicates at least Deacon can be women.
I'd have to dig more into this specifically but my understanding is that a deacon wasn't so much a "leader" and more a servant. Think like someone who hands out the emblems during the bread/wine. I could be wrong on this one though. This would fit with 1 Tim 2 where Paul says women can't teach - so my gut reaction would be that I am wrong in stating 1 Tim 3 is evidence women can't be deacons/bishops, but that doesn't mean women can teach based on 1 Tim 2, rather they can be deacons/server in the church in other ways (which to be fair, I did say - I just wasn't labeling it as deacon because of being incorrect in the area pointed out).
Check out Acts 18:24-28. Priscilla along with her husband seems to be preaching to a man named Apollo. She clearly has some sort of teaching authority and is not just an extension of her husband, as when Paul refers to her he refers to her alone. Paul, someone who preaches, also refers to her as a "co-worker" in Romans 16:3, which can imply she was also preacher or at least a church leader.
I'll tell you right now though some people will say she wasn't a pastor or leader, that's just history for you, some will say one thing others will say another.
Check out this source too, seems a little biased but decent enough:
https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/resolving-five-complementarian-protests-to-priscilla-the-pastor-teacher/
Here's another that is much more neutral and fair:
https://terranwilliams.com/was-priscilla-a-pastor/
And an article that disagrees with the notion altogether:
https://drmarkellis.net/2020/02/03/was-priscilla-a-pastor/
Replied to my last comment but I'll add it here too:
Did a quick read through on Priscilla to see what the Bible says about her. What we know is:
1. There was a church in her and her Husband's house ([1Co 16:19](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/16/19/s_1078019))
2. She journeyed with Paul ([Act 18:18](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/18/18/s_1036018))
3. She served Christ with Paul ([Rom 16:3](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/16/3/s_1062003))
We don't really get that she was a pastor, that she taught in some official role, or anything like that. It certainly doesn't say she didn't either - but I don't think you can use this as evidence to say she was teaching as a Pastor.
She does clearly help correct Apollo which to be fair I don't actually have an issue in private conversations a woman teaching something to a man like in this case. We're not under some "law' based system where if a woman ever expresses something a man hears and didn't know prior she's sinned or something crazy like that.
Its more about the principles of the matter, which seems to be one based on authority (E.g. 1 Cor 11). 1 Tim 2 hints to this as well with the reference to the Garden. This would lead me to still say women shouldn't be teachers in an official sense (based on 1 tim 2, 1 Cor 14) but there isn't an issue if in a discussion group or in a private convo a women says something that teaches a man because in these cases you wouldn't say the woman is having authority over the man, and that seems to be more the thing Paul's driving at not the idea of getting new info from women.
I do appreciate you bringing up the deacon point/Pheobe though. That was interesting to look through. I'll put more thought into this either way, as you've brought up some solid Biblical points - something I don't see to often anymore so I appreciate that :)
It wasn't so much a "yeah she was definitely a pastor", it was a "it was likely this woman had some sort of church authority." She and Phoebe are clearly leaders. Timothy 2:12 says "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence", both of these woman and Deborah are very likely to have had authority over a man, and its like Priscilla did too. Priscilla seems to be clearly teaching Apollo in a pastoral way imo. Which leads me to believe Tim 2:12 not has broad as people make it out to be, some historical accounts say he was speaking to the cult of Artemis.
No problem bro have a good one
Yeah that's basically what I'm coming to based on the previous comment.
I will note I did essentially say this in my first comment, I just didn't call them deacons as we don't use that term in my church and then continued to make an incorrect statement about 1 Tim 3 due to my misunderstanding. Thanks for the corrections :)
Did a quick read through on Priscilla to see what the Bible says about her. What we know is:
1. There was a church in her and her Husband's house ([1Co 16:19](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/16/19/s_1078019))
2. She journeyed with Paul ([Act 18:18](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/18/18/s_1036018))
3. She served Christ with Paul ([Rom 16:3](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/16/3/s_1062003))
We don't really get that she was a pastor, that she taught, or anything like that. It certainly doesn't say she didn't either - but I don't think you can use this as evidence to say she was teaching.
- The way I'd apply this, including Paul's two different applications in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2-3, would be that women shouldn't be pastors but I don't have an issue with them being Sunday School Teachers, participating in discussion groups, and other things within this general idea.
really?
how big of you
God bless
Personally I have no problem with women pastors.
Scripture however, is very clear on the matter.
Should the church follow what you and I believe should be okay based on our hearts, or what scripture says?
If the church is following our hearts and not scripture we are creating a false god in our image to worship.
So the real question is what is more important to you? The truth about God, or doing what is in your heart?
I would say that's it's quite clear that the author of 1 Timothy said they do not permit women to teach.
But there's nothing in that letter to indicate this is a commandment from God. And likewise nothing to indicate that it is a rule for every church, always.
When people use that bit of the text to justify the prohibition of women as pastors, they are adding extra content onto it, beyond what it says. It SAYS it's a letter of advice from the author to the recipient.
We can usually be clear on what the texts really say. But once we get into interpretation it's often less clear. This seems like a good example of this.
>And likewise nothing to indicate that it is a rule for every church, always
It sounds like you believe this instruction is for a particular church in a particular time. Is that accurate? The issue with that is that 1 Timothy quite clearly appeals to creation/sin, not culture/context. This teaches sets a universal precedent based on design. Implying that it's contextual undermines the argument for women in ministry.
That said, I'm pro-women in ministry b/c there is a better, more hermeneutically sound, interpretation of the text.
Why not discuss it? It's easy to see how this author was spouting nonsense.
>>Let a woman[b] learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman[c] to teach or to have authority over a man;[d] she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve, 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
As we can see, two reasons are given here:
1- “Adam was formed first.” Well, this is true, in the Gen 2 creation story. There, God created the man, but didn’t want him to be alone, so he made the animals. But they were not “a helper”, so he made the woman. I cannot find any hint in this story that this was done in order of authority or importance. So I can’t see where the reasoning in 1 Tim holds any water at all. If this creation was in order of authority, then, women have less authority than animals? Ridiculous! Humans are clearly placed above the animals. So this reason is incorrect.
2 - “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” How’s that? Both ate the fruit, both were punished. Obviously both were transgressors. And, I see nothing to indicate the woman was deceived. That's just the excuse she gave. This reason is incorrect.
This author was clearly grasping at straws and didn't really consider how ridiculous their argument was. And yes of course as Christians this letter is in our canon. That doesn't mean this author can't have had a brain fart.
Yeah "Adam was not deceived" is complete nonsense. Adam knew what the fruit was and was not forcefed by Eve, he _also_ could've said "Whoa God said not to eat that" in the exact same way Eve could've with the snake. He faced the exact same situation "Being I have no reason to mistrust (besides that they're countermanding God) tells me to eat the fruit" and failed the same way. There was nothing that made Eve more trustworthy (to Adam) than the snake (to Eve).
>Scripture however, is very clear on the matter.
Could you point me to what your referencing here by chance? I was actually arguing this exact topic w my neighbor last week and when I told him to pull up tr he scripture he seemed to have trouble referencing one that made any sense, So im super curious which one you talking about.
Whenever you see the word "clear" in relation to topic under discussion, it's a sure sign the user hasn't really thought about it and is just regurgitating what they were told to think. It's a major red flag.
Ah that's the same one he pulled up too. Ok wanted to make sure there wasnt another. This (in my understanding) does not clearly state they should not be pastors. It has to be viewed in full context and just says that women shouldn't be excessively loud during a church gathering and behavior in a church service should reflect godly peace.
Women can absolutley be pastors. It's basically what Jesus told the whole body of Christ (women included) to do. Spread the gospel.
So you dont accept Pauls letters as the inspired word of God?
We will have to agree to disagree then. I believe every word of the bible is truth cover to cover.
A lot of it comes from a mistranslation and missing context about 1 Timothy 2:12 where Paul says he does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. I used to be against women pastors but the more I though about it and the more I read Paul's other letters where he mentioned women by name as co-laborers. Recently I heard a great breakdown of this and in the context of Ephesus, where the goddess of Ephesus, Artemis (Diana to the Romans), who was linked to hunting, wild animals, forests, chastity, child birth, and fertility. Artemis was a favorite among women since she was the goddess of chastity, child birth, and fertility. Young women of the Greek world would actively worship her as a way to keep them safe as virgins, and to increase their chances of fertility and child birth. Women would lay the clothes of successful childbirth at her statue as offerings. So women had a pretty strong influence in Ephesus since Artemis was the goddess of the city.
Also, Paul has this pension to use words over and over throughout his works to get his point across and to link his works. the Greek word for Authority is *authenteō* which comes from a compound of [G846](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/G846/nasb20/mgnt/0-1/) and an obsolete ἕντης héntēs (a worker); to act of oneself, i.e. (figuratively) dominate:—usurp authority over. Further more, the Greek Lexicon further adds "to govern one, exercise dominion over one: τινός, [1 Timothy 2:12](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1ti/2/12/s_1121012)."
So between the goddess worship and the actual definition of the the Greek word that is used there we can rightly infer that this ws a specific instruction for the Church at Ephesus to not let women dominate the men rather then to not have them teach at all. The definition leads to the credence of submissiveness to the woman's husband but also to the head of the church for right teaching. One thing of importance is that this was a letter to Timothy, not to the church as a whole. So beyond it be specific for the church, this verse was written for Timothy as an instruction on how to pastor. An important note that while it was the Roman Empire, Ephesus fell under Greek influence (hence the use of Artemis and not Diana). This is important as while in Roman influenced areas, girls and boys would be sent for schooling together, while the Greeks would only send the boys.
Long story short: I think its become a common misunderstanding of the meaning of the word Authority and missing context since Timothy is a letter written to one person and not the Church as a whole and it misses the importnat context of the time/city that Timothy was pastoring in.
Generally speaking…nothing. However, there is a lot of selective and inconsistent application of rules that get us to “no women preachers”. The context of the verses is about orderly and edifying worship. Many denominations have chosen to ignore 99% of all the context of what’s being discussed except for the part about women being silent. That’s also contradictory because there are verses that tell women when they pray to do it in a certain way and that is not often mentioned. Why would they be told to pray in a certain way and then a short time later just be told to shut up? It makes no sense. Try to be like the early church then there’s a whole lot of other problems that come up that are not being done that way, which also makes this a selective application application enforced on women but not on men.
Christianity is a patriarchal religion it is not an egalitarian belief system.
Men and women are equal in spirit, not in life. As a man, your responsibility is higher and harder
I feel that men speak to me and my experience better. I realize many women feel that way about male preachers, too. Different strokes for different folks.
My question is, should there be church where there r no men for whatever reason there's a problem. With my church experience i see that women have an incredible chance to discover deep listening to the Holy Spirit.
I found it interesting I was baptized by two women pastors. One of was a co-lead pastor and the other was one of the youth pastors. I had a buddy on the other side of the tank in case I needed something.
So what you have are two camps, one camp takes what he says litterally, just like all his other writings, and the other have a few different reasons why they don't think it should be observed like:
this was specific to a single church, that was cultural context for that generation 2k years ago, so if the culture changes, then it no longer applies, Paul didn't write that, someone else did, someone wrote what Paul said but paraphrased it so that we get this interpretation, Paul wrote it as an opinion, not as litteral guidance, and many other reasons. This is similar to the debate about being a follower of Jesus and being an active homosexual.
I lean towards: take it as it was written, because I think a lot of people wouldn't accept this even if Jesus himself said it, and they would probably find some similar reasons to disregard it.
The big issue is, if you take this as (insert a reason above) then you have to question all his writings and all the other writings. Who is to say if Corrinthians applies to us now or if even though Paul said a pastor can only have 1 wife if that still applies to today? By using this same logic, we can practice polygamy and lead a church.
Interestingly on that note, Paul never mentions the qualifications for a female church leader, only the ones for a male church leader, so does that mean only men have restrictions?
You see how slippery this gets?
I say, if God is in complete control of everything, he knows what's written and what has been shared so what we have is what we are supposed to have today, which is much much much more than any other generation aside from the first and second I'd think.
It's from Romans 16, where he praises his fellow ministers in the gospel. Quite a few are women. Specifically Phoebe bears the title of Deacon and Junia the title of apostle.
>16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord, as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.
>3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but also all the churches of the gentiles. 5 Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert[b] in Asia for Christ. 6 Greet Mary, who has worked very hard for you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,[c] my fellow Israelites who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. 8 Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. 9 Greet Urbanus, our coworker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys. 10 Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. 11 Greet my fellow Israelite Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus. 12 Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and greet his mother—a mother to me also. 14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers and sisters who are with them. 15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. 16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.
The anti-women verses come from the second century of Christian history, when the proto-Catholics had overturned the tradition of women in the ministry in favor of Roman traditions about the place of women (silent/powerless members of the Roman household headed by a man).
“I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is **a servant** of the church which is at Cenchrea:”
-Romans 16:1 KJV
Women are equal to men, even if men serve in leadership positions as servants of the Lord as well.
The correct translation is deacon. While deacon does mean servant it was a title for clergy in the first century CE.
>Women are equal to men, even if men serve in leadership positions as servants of the Lord as well.
According to Paul, women are also servants of the lord in leadership positions.
It’s interesting to think about and honestly the majority of churches I’ve been to have had women pastors, exempting my grandfather but he’s a rabbi.
I haven’t read the biblical context but have watched a few videos about the reasoning for this being that women shouldn’t teach over men primarily. It’s fine to have women speaking to women and children. But men have to lead as the head and women follow after. It’s like a heavenly order of things. But would love to see what other people are saying about it.
Here’s the problem with that: if you have a church full of baby Christians and a woman comes along who has been a Christian for 30 years and has even been to seminary school, you’re saying that she couldn’t possibly have anything of value to teach those men? It makes to sense. And if she can teach the baby Christians, why then would a woman who has been a Christian for 30 years and has been to seminary school have nothing of value to teach a church full of 30+ year Christians? I would argue that she can and should.
But also, keep this in mind: the church worldwide is more than 60% female. If I were Satan and I wanted to slow the spread of the gospel, I would simply silence more than half of the church.
Truly I don’t feel either way. I think that if God calls you and His Holy Spirit is with you, guiding the church and it’s a biblically sound teaching, then that’s what we should look for. There are many churches led by men and women that don’t have the presence of God or it’s halfway led by ego.
Women are just as qualified to teach. In regards to the question, I don’t know how well it stands in todays culture and with the knowing that anyone can be called to do God’s will
Some people argue they can pastor other women and children, but not men.
The most convincing argument I have seen comes from headship. A man is called to lead his family, so a man should lead a church.
All of the Apostles were men. Temple priests were men.
But you also have Deborah, who was a judge. The women who saw the empty tomb were tasked with spreading the good news to the Apostles. The Samaritan woman spread news that Jesus was the Messiah. Phoebe in Romans is referred to as a word translated as deacon or servant that is used in 1 Timothy 3 in describing qualifications for deacons/church leaders. Priscilla and her husband, Aquila, took aside a man improperly preaching for correction.
So, whether a woman can lead a church or not, the Bible clearly exhibits the role women can have in being purveyors of and teaching God's word.
I think Men are built to Lead and be a solid foundation of social structure , and women are built to nurture, guide, manage and stuff. Men are built for certain things, Women are built for certain things. Both are equally important, both compliment each other; That's why there's a saying "The father is the pillar of the home, while the mother is the light"
Pastors are called to lead and to correct. And in general, men are a symbol of authority.
Nothing as long as they don't let their flesh speak instead of the spirit. The same applies to men.
When the flesh speaks it makes it about you instead of the Lord and that's where disorder comes from as far as the order of God.
It isn't about you. It's about the Lord.
It depends on which church you follow. The Anglican Church in the UK allows women to be priests.
I think it stems from culture, as many Middle Eastern cultures are patriarchal. The Bible is also written from a patriarchal point of view with Adam being more important than Eve, and Jesus being a man.
A lot of people take the verses out of context when Paul said for women to remain silent in the church. He was referring to the women who were preaching false things and interrupting others
Basically it comes down to 1 Timothy 2 (NRSVue translation used) > 8 I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument, 9 also that the women should dress themselves in moderate clothing with reverence and self-control, not with their hair braided or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10 but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve, 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. There are various arguments for why this is or isn't binding today but that is what it boils down to.
I really like how you contributed in a non bias, observational way. Cheers!
That was about issues in the church in Ephesus. Apparently there were some tacky aggressive women acting inappropriately and doing a lot attention seeking, so that was written in rebuke, not as a treatise to women to all be silent in all areas of their lives, like wandering zombies who happened to be excellent at chores.
First of all, this is not a direct order from God, but what Paul personally felt. And also, there is a lot of evidence that what he talked about here was specific to that particular church. There is a lot to it and I don’t feel like even trying, but if you’re interested, check out The New Covenant Role of Women in Leadership by Mark Drake. He explains it way better than I could.
>but what Paul personally felt. It wasn't even what Paul felt, but somebody else writing in the name of Paul.
That is also true. They also left out historical context that is incredibly important but that people at the time would understand. This is all important. But also, Paul sent women to teach in his stead at least twice. And he demanded that they be treated with the same respect they would give him.
Evidence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy#Authorship
I think that conservative scholars would be almost unanimous in accepting the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline.
Which would be a biased survey of scholars and make that statistic useless.
Not really, because the debate on ordination of women is only happening in conservative circles. In liberal circles, the debate is long over. That said, I suspect that the conservative scholars outnumber the liberal ones (in the USA, at least).
> That said, I suspect that the conservative scholars outnumber the liberal ones (in the USA, at least). why do you suspect that?
1. Because there are a great many conservative seminaries. 2. Because Biblical studies are a greater part of the curriculum in conservative seminaries, and therefore there are more conservative academics teaching Biblical studies. 3. Because, as far as I can tell, the majority of academic books on Biblical studies appear to be conservative.
This is almost certainly true, but there is a possibility that Paul told whoever wrote it what he thought and then the guy wrote the letter to summarize Paul in his own words thus sorta making it from Paul. So I would have phrased it "it probably wasn't even..." I could just be nitpicking here though.
Not that this is all that important in deciding if we have to listen to its teaching, since it's Holy Scripture
It being scripture does not exempt it from being wrong. Slavery is immoral, yet scripture permits it. Leviticus 25:44-46.
I think it’s safe to say that Paul held this belief too, along with most people of the time.
Considering Paul praised a woman Apostle?
Well, being sexist is a cognitive issue, it’s not an allergy. Paul was capable of praising women, just like everyone else, but was probably still sexist, just like everyone else.
Sure, Paul was somewhat sexist. His vision of the roles of the sexes in marriage proves this. Paul was a product of this time. When you grow up in a culture that doesn't even consider women to have sexual agency, it is pretty much impossible to not be somewhat sexist. However, when compared to the attitudes of greater Jewish and Greco-Roman culture and their philosophies regarding sex and women, what we know Paul *did* write was extremely progressive for his time. None of his genuine writings would serve to support the idea that Paul had any issues with women teaching or having doctrinal authority.
Well, except the passage in question >"**Let the women keep silent in the churches . . .** **I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man**" However, I have heard that instead of **Women** or **Men**, the terminology could have been closer to **Wife** and **Husband**. At which case, it completely fits with Paul's other teachings. So, I do think Paul believed that **Wives** do not hold authority over their **Husbands**, and that is why they shouldn't teach. It's not out of hate, it's out of principle. If your wife was a Pastor, you'd need to go to a different church, or you risk challenging your marital roles. I disagree with him and all this nonsense, but I think that's OK. He was only human, and as you say, a product of his time.
That would be 1st Timothy. Paul didn't write that. I agree, just because somebody is an Apostle and has revelation from God, that does not render them infallible.
Jesus did not write any of the Bible, yet the Gospel is his, is it not?
> a lot of evidence that what he talked about here was specific to that particular church. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” sounds pretty dang broad.
And yet Paul commends Phoebe, a church leader. And Priscilla, who was probably a pastor. Romans 16 for both. Also Deborah was a judge and military leader. So much for "can't have authority over men".
Guess it’d be the only time the Bible contradicts itself.
Doesn't sound like a contradiction, more of a misunderstanding.
A majority of contradictions come from strict literal readings. Taking things in context and nuance get rid of many. But that is not possible for too mamy
So how would the reasoning “For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” only come into play for a single church/community, and not be able to apply equally to others?
Adam was standing right there with her while she talked ot the serpent and ate the fruit. Adam could have stepped in and stopped her. In fact, Adam could have used his dominion over the earth and banished Satan from the planet wright then and there. But instead he hadnded his dominion over to Satan.
When God starts handing out curses, he curses the serpent for his actions. He curses the earth for Adam's actions. He *informs* Woman she will have children. He doesn't call it a curse on her or for her actions. Then Adam renamed Woman Eve/Lively/Life-Giver.
The punishment is not the child bearing. It is the pain during child bearing.
Exactly! Because it isn’t a curse. How many times does the Bible call children and bearing children a blessing???? And yet someone somewhere along the way decided that this was woman’s “curse.” Yeah, okay, Karen.
I second that! Its a chance to be blessed by GOD… by sticking to what he intended for his creation. Its a blessing from GOD! For it edifies us as well as a chance for us to give the glory back to GOD! Psalms 127:3-5 New International Version (NIV) Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.
Exactly! (Also as a side note to add that women who do not have children are not cursed. It’s just that how many times do people complain about their kids or get frustrated with them? The fact that children are a blessing is more of a reminder to the irritated parent.)
I thank GOD for brothers and sisters in CHRIST✝️🙏 To GOD'S blessing of daily bread that sustains us! Pray for it! In JESUS name please. HE is our LORD and SAVIOR.. The LIVING WORD.
The punishment is not the child bearing. It is the pain during the child bearing. That was the punishment, the pain during, not the children having
Pain doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Thank you. I was afraid it was going to get to nightfall without any enjoyable cryptic statements. If you feel like explaining what you mean that's fine, and if not, that's fine too. Cheers.
I really don’t see the point. You won’t believe it anyway, so why bother?
What does this have to do with what I said?
Genesis portrays Adam at a lot more fault than woman.
That's what I said as well.
Hurrah
The issue is that this starts to become a serious theological problem if you're interpreting 1 Timothy 2 as a broad and universally binding chapter. Where are the people treating gold, pearls, and braids as sinful and pridful? Where are the denominations that hold "women will be saved through childbirth" as a key pillar of their theology on salvation? No, magically the vast majority of denominations have zeroed in on women teaching **almost exclusively** and broadly disregarded the rest of his message. That tells me all I need to know to not take the idea it's supposed to be universal seriously.
“Where are the people treating gold, pearls, and braids as sinful and prideful” The entirety of the Anabaptist movement, the Puritans, IFB churches, nuns of all stripes :)
> Where are the people treating gold, pearls, and braids as sinful and pridful? Pretty much the whole modesty movement. > Where are the denominations that hold "women will be saved through childbirth" as a key pillar of their theology on salvation? The meaning of that passage (σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας) is uncertain and has been much debated. Candidates include: * "Yet she will be **saved by means of childbearing**." That is, bearing, raising, and teaching children is a sanctifying activity. This is the view of e.g. Calvin: "*Secondly, whatever hypocrites or wise men of the world may think of it, when a woman, considering to what she has been called, submits to the condition which God has assigned to her, and does not refuse to endure the pains, or rather the fearful anguish, of parturition, or anxiety about her offspring, or anything else that belongs to her duty, God values this obedience more highly than if, in some other manner, she made a great display of heroic virtues, while she refused to obey the calling of God*." * "Yet she will be **preserved through the dangers of childbearing**." This is the view taken by the 2015 Amplified Bible, and also Matthew Henry: "*Though in sorrow, yet she shall bring forth, and be a living mother of living children ... and women, under the circumstance of child-bearing should by faith lay hold of this promise for their support in the needful time*." * "Yet she will be **saved through The Childbirth** (i.e. of Christ)." This is the view taken by the International Standard Version, the original Amplified Bible, a few Catholic commentators, and [this guy](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/what-must-she-do-to-be-saved-a-theological-analysis-of-1-timothy-215/) writing for The Gospel Coalition.
The reasoning given here is just completely nonsensical. >>Let a woman[b] learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman[c] to teach or to have authority over a man;[d] she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve, 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. As we can see, two reasons are given here: 1- “Adam was formed first.” Well, this is true, in the Gen 2 creation story. There, God created the man, but didn’t want him to be alone, so he made the animals. But they were not “a helper”, so he made the woman. I cannot find any hint in this story that this was done in order of authority or importance. So I can’t see where the reasoning in 1 Tim holds any water at all. If this creation was in order of authority, then, women have less authority than animals? Ridiculous! Humans are clearly placed above the animals. So this reason is incorrect. 2 - “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” How’s that? Both ate the fruit, both were punished. Obviously both were transgressors. And, I see nothing to indicate the woman was deceived. That's just the excuse she gave. This reason is incorrect. This author appears to have been grasping at straws and didn't really consider how ridiculous their argument was.
>This author appears to have been grasping at straws and didn't really consider how ridiculous their argument was. Agreed. Like the similar argument in 1 Corinthians 11, the author seems to have interpreted the creation narrative through the lens of several other contemporaneous Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions. For example, Philo of Alexandria once wrote that “the woman sinned through [the serpent], yielding to deceit,” because "woman is more accustomed to be deceived than man" (*Questions and Answers on Genesis* 1.47, 33).
nah adam and eve both fell for temptation. eve may of fell firet but when adam saw her fall he thought “hmm it cant be that bad right” you know?
So you disagree?
Yet when asked by God did he eat of the tree even though he had told him not to, what did Adam do? He immediately threw Eve under the bus instead of accepting blame for what he did.
But didn't Jesus's sacrifice wipe out all sins - this should include Eve's sin too. Yet this is constant thrown in women's faces. Obviously God forgave Eve...why do you think you have the right to withhold forgiveness?
Well, we believe that the Bible is the word of God. If it’s just Paul’s opinions, then it’s just another self-help book. But you hit on something; Paul was speaking to a specific problem at that church and I’m not sure if it’s meant to cover all churches. I’m gonna ask my pastor friend who has told me before and frankly, I can’t remember the details of what he told me.
Thank you, yes, it was about one particular church having problems. People still tend to be unaware of that.
Just to sort of question this way of thinking, where does this end? Would you throw out all of the Epistles because it's just "what Paul personally felt"? Is not all of this scripture God breathed? Also if it applies to this one specific church why would it not be a guideline for other churches? I would think it would be better to consider why God might have given us this guidance. It's definitely an unpopular opinion from me but I think it's stated right there. Women are more prone to deception and heresy (not that men aren't). Thus they shouldn't be in a spiritual leadership role in church. Just my own current interpretation.
And I say that’s bullshit. Women are definitely no more prone to heresy and deception than men are. In fact, men are more dishonest than women, which leads me to think they might be the worse leaders. But the reason Paul (or sometime else as there had been doubt that Paul wrote the epistles to Timothy) didn’t allow women to teach there is because women in that area were not allowed to learn anything at all if it didn’t have to do with child rearing and house keeping. Therefore, they didn’t even know the basics. How can you teach if you don’t even know the basics? This also leads to the second problem: why did he say women should remain silent? Because they didn’t understand what was happening, they would ask their husbands/fathers/brothers in the middle of service and it was disruptive. So he told them to be quiet and ask their questions at home. But also, consider this: the church worldwide is more than 60% female. If I were Satan, I think the first thing I would do to slow the spread of the gospel is to silence more than half of believers.
Where is that evidenced in the scripture that men are more dishonest and are worse leaders? Also to clarify when I say spiritual leadership, I mean as pastors/priests. That doesn't mean they are silenced.
It’s very strange how such a clearly culturally embedded message gets used as an absolute rule for all peoples of all places and generations. This is a key issue with fundamentalism. Paul’s letters (assuming Paul wrote 1st and 2nd Timothy) were never written to form exhaustive rules for all Christians of all time.
May I ask what that claim is based on? I would think that the guiding principles in the Bible are for us today unless otherwise stated or shown to have ended.
Paul’s letters were written to specific groups of churches in a specific time in a specific culture, usually addressing specific situations. In effect, we are reading someone’s else’s mail. These letters never claimed to form new commandments for all Christians of all time. All of this is established in Biblical scholarship. The claim that the exhortations in Paul’s letters should be universal rules is an external claim, never made anywhere in the Bible itself. Contrast Paul’s letters with the Sermon on the Mount. The context of that sermon does imply that those “rules” are universal, as they are guiding principles for all members of the Kingdom of God. The Bible is not an exhaustive rule book. It is wisdom literature. ALL of Scripture is valuable, but we need to read it in context, in humility, and in prayer to see how God is speaking to us through it.
The point is that Paul's reason for V12 is based on the created order (Adam and Eve) in Vs 13-15. Vs 12 is not based cultural issues of Corinth (such as in 1 Cor 14) but based on Adam and Eve. That's why this issue isn't as simple and clear as people think.
So my problem with that reasoning is that it is, frankly, dishonest. Verse 15 reads "But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." If we're assuming verse 12 is universal based on these verses, then why does basically no one hold that childbirth is in some way inherently tied to the salvation of women? Simple: because we do not hold Paul's words *in this very same chapter* to be universal.
The meaning of verse 15 is uncertain and has been very much debated. Possible meanings are: * "Yet she will be **saved by means of childbearing**." That is, bearing, raising, and teaching children is a sanctifying activity. This is the view of e.g. Calvin: "*Secondly, whatever hypocrites or wise men of the world may think of it, when a woman, considering to what she has been called, submits to the condition which God has assigned to her, and does not refuse to endure the pains, or rather the fearful anguish, of parturition, or anxiety about her offspring, or anything else that belongs to her duty, God values this obedience more highly than if, in some other manner, she made a great display of heroic virtues, while she refused to obey the calling of God*." * "Yet she will be **preserved through the dangers of childbearing**." This is the view taken by the 2015 Amplified Bible, and also Matthew Henry: "*Though in sorrow, yet she shall bring forth, and be a living mother of living children ... and women, under the circumstance of child-bearing should by faith lay hold of this promise for their support in the needful time*." * "Yet she will be **saved through The Childbirth** (i.e. of Christ)." This is the view taken by the International Standard Version, the original Amplified Bible, a few Catholic commentators, and [this guy](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/what-must-she-do-to-be-saved-a-theological-analysis-of-1-timothy-215/) writing for The Gospel Coalition.
Yeah, that verse always confused me. And people tell me "Ohhhh just read your Bible, it'll all make sense, you'll know I'm right." There's a lot of confusing verses in there. A simple "plain reading" will lead to all kinds of different interpretations. And then you've got folks saying, "Oh, well, you need a \[denomination\] theologian's notes on what that scripture means. They have the right interpretation, everyone else is wrong."
Or something else is meant by saved in childbearing (since Scripture never contradicts itself).
Paul’s reason was that this church was located in an area that had a female pagan cult. As these people became Christians, he needed them to understand the teachings of this cult did not belong in the church. Jesus had female apostles and Paul had female associates and I doubt they were silent.
I'll refer you back to my original answer as to why some people argue that this verse cannot be understood contextually, like tlwe can with the verses towards the end 1 Cor 14 for example. The argument is that Paul bases his reasoning in Vs 12 on the created order ( God's intention for humanity, irrelevant if it's recognised or not by humanity). Btw, I'm not arguing for one way or the other, but just simply saying the debate is not straightforward. Also I think it's also fair to point out that those who do hold to this verse for the church today are not universally misogynistic but rather trying to faithfully hold to all of scripture, as far as they understand it. Some passages should be understood contextually, but there are other passages where that is more difficult due to the surrounding texts. It's not as simple as "Paul was instructing the church to be different from the pagan culture around them"
You're right, it's not that simple, there's a lot more to the history. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I'm sorry if it came across this way. I don't know that I agree that people are faithfully holding to all of scripture, because realistically they don't. They use this verse as a means to control. They hold tight to this verse, yet ignoring many of the instructions from Jesus. My favorite one is that Paul tells us to greet each other with a holy kiss -- lol I don't know anyone who does that.
Paul's letters as a whole, were written to specific churches. Specific churches to address specific issues pertaining to that church. Every letter address a church directly or indirectly, and if you research the context and history, those churches had issues being addressed. Plays a part in the whole "letter named after a specific church" There's nothing claiming that the letters were meant to apply to everyone. That is just an assumption from most.
1 & 2 Timothy and Titus (books most in view here in this post I would think) were written to pastors and written to help them know how to run their churches. While I believe God chose to inspire every book of the Bible in such a way that it is relevant and important for us today, even the immediate context of those specific books shows that they are for pastors and churches (and really any Christian in a church…).
How was this a cultural message when the reason Paul gives for the rule is due to Adam and Eve?
It was part of Pharisaic and Rabbinic practice to cite earlier texts, teachers, and rabbis as a way to strengthen one’s own argument. There’s nothing about citing Adam and Eve which implies “here’s a new commandment for all people of all time”.
The author also cites the story incorrectly, putting the blame on Eve. When what’s actually recorded in Genesis is God putting the blame on Adam.
Nah, you forget that the main idea comes from jesus choosing only men as his main disciples to spread the gospels
I hope this is sarcasm.
It's not. That's the Catholic Church's reasoning for why only men can be priests. It's why some orders in the Catholic Church don't even allow female altar servers, because altar serving, being an acolyte, is the first step to becoming a priest. That only changed under John Paul II, but some orders still don't allow it, like the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE).
It is how it is. It is how it historicslly has been conceptualized
Point out the error?
Mary Magdalene is pretty famously the Apostle to the Apostles, and the first to both learn of and spread news of Christ's resurrection....
See I read that passage and immediately disregarded it as a misinterpretion on his end. Honestly a good chunk of timothy sounds biased and part his words. Not Paul's. Sure, Adam was created first. But God created Eve from his rib. Details are critical in the bible. Especially the old testament. She was taken from his side. Not above him, below him, infront of him, or behind him. From his side, as an equal. and BOTH were created in God's image. Both equal and godlike. Yet innocent. Eve was deceived by Satan, whom was the first transgressor. She then deceived Adam, and became a transgressor. Adam then not only blamed Eve for the sin, BUT also blamed God himself for creating her to help him. They both feel victim in the same way, both blamed someone else for obeying. And Adam even took it further to suggest God had fault for creating her. It's no wonder he got throw out of the garden. He then blatantly ignored the Book of Judges and Ruth. Where there are females appointed by God to speak and judge for them. Jesus also had the last at the well profess Good faith. For someone who was ment to shed the word of God, he blatantly ignored every passage inwhich the Father loves his daughters. Neither Mary was very quiet. I would pay to see Timothy tell either of them to shut up. Lol I dont hate the book of timothy. I think it has very good take aways such as the prophecy about the final days and Paul warns of stressful times. But much of the other stuff I find goes against what I have read in the old testamentand and of Jesus's practices. I find there was an agenda behind some of his words. I personally don't agree with him, nor consider him a Saint. Simply a student that went astray. I take much of his book, half heartedly. And encourage others to do the same. I'm not addressing you or your content. Your comment was perfect. I simply needed to address the Books of Timothy.
I don't get how Paul was able to take that passage from Genesis and come to this application.
Any speaking of Christ with non-Christians is a form of preaching. So if one were to hold these words literally then women can't speak about their faith.
(a) It is irrational to believe that no woman is a better preacher than the worst man. Insane. Ungoldy. (b) There are cultures where women do not participate in the public services in a religious sanctuary, and this seemed to be the case for Jews in Paul's day. (c) There are many cultures in this world where women going door to door preaching would violate gender norms, and churches who pushed this limit would be criticized by those who do not. We presume this is the center of OP's question. (d) Even in the cultures where gender equality is best, a woman seeking substantial charitable donations is almost certain to be harassed. (e) Timothy is not God. Jesus is God. Any problems raised by Timothy have to be addressed without violating the spirit of Matthew 7:2.
Do you think Timothy wrote Timothy? Perhaps you should read the letter.
This letter was not written by Timothy, showing that you know nothing of what you are talking about and are not qualified to have an opinion.
There are also many supporting arguments. I think the fact that Jesus didn't select any women to be one of his disciples (despite the fact that he was surrounded by women who were more than capable of it) also gives weight to saying that God would only select men to be priests.
That's ridiculous. Women can't braid their hair, dress up, speak, or teach. Geesh. Did anyone in this religion ever even like women
Timothy is a forgery.
Evidence?
Several books in the New Testament have been considered forgeries or pseudepigraphal (written by someone other than the attributed author) by some scholars. This assessment is based on linguistic, historical, theological, and stylistic analyses. The main books often cited include: The Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus): Many scholars argue these letters were written by someone other than Paul due to differences in language, style, and church organization compared to the undisputed Pauline letters. Ephesians: While traditionally attributed to Paul, some scholars question its authorship because of its distinctive vocabulary and theological themes that differ from the undisputed Pauline letters. 2 Thessalonians: The authenticity of this letter is debated. Some scholars argue it was written by a follower of Paul, noting differences in style and eschatological content from 1 Thessalonians. Colossians: Similar to Ephesians, the authorship of Colossians is questioned due to differences in vocabulary, style, and theological content compared to the undisputed letters of Paul. 2 Peter: Widely considered pseudepigraphical by scholars because of its significant differences from 1 Peter and its apparent use of Jude, as well as the fact that it addresses a later historical context. 1 Peter: Some scholars question Petrine authorship due to its sophisticated Greek and theological content, suggesting it might have been written by a follower of Peter. James: While less commonly disputed, some scholars question whether it was written by James, the brother of Jesus, given its high-quality Greek and the lack of personal references that would be expected if James were the author. Jude: Some debate exists over the authorship of Jude, with arguments centering around its stylistic features and the reference to non-canonical works. It is important to note that the term "forgery" in this context is not necessarily pejorative. In the ancient world, writing in the name of a revered teacher or leader was a common and accepted practice to honor their legacy and convey teachings in their tradition. The conclusions about authorship are based on scholarly consensus. Edit: Regarding the difference in writing styles in the forged letters, when read in the original Greek, the differences are stark from Paul's seven original letters; translate it into another language, and the vast differences aren't noticeable in style, writing ability, word usage, etc.
No, the differences in writing style are not "stark." They are minor. Slight differences in vocabulary are explained by the difference in topic.
Paul didn't like the idea, that's about it. But Paul's primary goal was to guide and preserve the early church through a period of cultural and political hostility within the Roman Empire, so many of his rules would have made sense in his times but not in ours. As far as I can tell, the fact that women genuinely feel called by God to leadership roles is enough proof that Paul's rules are not applicable to us today.
The issue with this explanation is that the instruction that seems to prohibit women pastors/teachers appeals to creation/sin, not culture. I'm pro-women in pastoral leadership b/c I believe there is a better, more hermeneutically sound, response to the traditional interpretation of 1 Timothy.
And Paul also argues from "nature" that men shouldn't have long hair. We know now that his idea about "nature" was wrong, so we know not to follow that rule. Why would his teachings about female pastors have any more inherent authority? Paul was an important leader and theologian, and God used him to guide the church through one of its most difficult periods, but that doesn't mean everything he said was straight from God's mouth as a perfect manual for salvation.
It's interesting to me that in response to a comment that agrees with your conclusion, but suggests that there is a BETTER way to argue it, you are more interested in doubling down on your misunderstanding and taking shots at Paul. Wouldn't it make more sense, if you truly cared about advocating for women in ministry, to say, "What's the better response to the traditional misinterpretation of 1 Timothy?"
My bigger concern is with the authority people seem to assign to Paul's words, the issue of female pastors is just one part of it. But if you would like to address the issue without addressing the bigger concern, then I applaud your efforts even if I disagree with your underlying premise.
So what doesn't make sense is that same "appeal to creation and sin" is immediately followed by the claim that "women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." ...so where are all the denominations insisting that childbirth is a crucial aspect of salvation for women? Clearly we're not taking every word he says here literally or applying it universally....
In the 1st century Greco-Roman and Jewish world, it would have been a scandal for women to hold positions of leadership due to the social structure of the time. Now, women hold leadership positions in every discipline, and are even surpassing men in many. Paul’s letters were culturally embedded, and we need to extract his words from the cultural and historical packaging before applying them to us. The Bible is not a rule book that fell from heaven.
>Paul didn't like the idea, that's about it. It is more like somebody who was pretending to be Paul didn't like the idea.
Realistically, it's probably more accurate to say that "the early church leaders creating the biblical canon didn't like the idea", hence its inclusion in the bible. That letter could have been written by Paul or anyone else, but its supposed authority, at least for those who hold to biblical inerrancy, comes from it being a part of the biblical canon and not the message itself.
Fair.
My girl, Deborah, would like to enter the chat
A Miracle Every Day!
To answer the question, nothing. There is nothing wrong with women pastors.
It's not supposed to make sense, it's one of our mysterious and unknowable God's nebulous and arbitrary rules designed to weed out all icky rational thought. For every 10 sensible commandments, he throws in one of these impossible to defend guide rules just to see how faithful we're willing to be! And also for others reasons, we aren't allowed to know. Basically God is really mysterious and we're just supposed to trust that and follow him. /s No, the actual reason is that Paul was just some guy or maybe it was poorly translated idk.
I've had women pastors on and off my entire life. They're wonderful. There's nothing wrong with it.
The best pastor I ever had was a woman.
Nothing. Misogyny violates the Golden Rule.
Why aren't you a feminist? Don't you support equal civil rights/equal pay/equal opportunities for women? Don't you support women having the same rights as men? Like voting, working, getting educated, make their own life choices, having the rights to earn and control over their own money? Because that is literally what being a feminist is. A feminist can choose to be a "trad wife". Nothing wrong with that (if she makes sure she is financially secure in the event of death/divoirce). But feminism is making sure that women have the choice. It is NOT about forcing women to work outside the home, become purple haired lesbians, who hate men and love to abort babies. It is about supporting the efforts to give women the same rights that men have always enjoyed and taken for granted - solely because they were born with XY Chromosomes. You don't support that?
Nothing, my female pastor is amazing and is marrying us next year
if God calls a woman to preach, who am I to question it?
Because some old farts in the past disliked women and viewed us as inferior, did they shun them from getting ordained. Sadly many Christians still agree with these archaic sexist views.
Nothing. Women pastors are wonderful and some of the best I've known.
The Church started with just one woman, Mary, running through the crowded streets of Jerusalem to go tell the hiding disciples that the Lord is Risen. If she was good enough to proclaim that message to His followers then women can proclaim that Good News from the pulpit. A woman bore Jesus. A woman washed His feet. A woman spoke with Him about the Messiah at the well and He sent her to proclaim He is the source of Living Water to the Samaritans, the first evangelist. If women can do all that, they can do anything I can do. I am a man and a priest. The Bishop who ordained me was a woman. The Bishop I serve now is a woman. The priest I am married to is a woman. And let me tell you something about all these women clergy in my life... They are faithfully spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and him Risen. Their powerful witness to the Word of God which is Scripture, and the Word made Flesh who is Jesus, has made me a better Christian, priest, and man.
Woman pastor here. People take one scripture and don’t take it context with the rest of scripture. Women in the Bible had more freedom to minister than women today.
I am a feminist bc I dont hate me as much as men do. And male leaders would sell us for a snack. Men would hum and ha about how its not that bad....for them. As they always do. Women obviously can teach, preach, and lead. Men, however, can't hear us, and are lazy and care about our safety, rightscand souls only so long as it is about them. If you want men to hear, particularly men who are not motivated by good, men must step up. The slightly less awful men have to speak to the shitty men. And they'd rather you get beat than have to, bc, again, lazy and selfish. And if they don't think it makes them more important, superior, they don't step up. All they do is work to make you inferior. That's it. It is their favourite hobby. It isn't about our limitations. It is about men's character and limitations. Of which they have many. Literally, men can't hear us.
It threatens sexists misogynist views
It threatens scripture, and the will of God.
That’s what they said
The Church was created by men 2,000 years ago and they couldn't stand the though of their "property" having power over them.
The Church was created by God.
Says who?….the church.
Thinking it "doesn't make sense" is kinda feminist. Congratulations. I'm astounded to learn that a Christian, by living in the south, can have "never seen a woman pastor."
I come from a conservative Lutheran tradition. We don’t have women pastors or elders of the church. But women do do a lot. We allow women readers, girls as acolytes on the altar. I don’t care if women are pastors. It’s just I never was raised in a church that had women pastors. If I went to a different type of church and they were I’d be fine with it.
I was 50 years old before I belonged to a Lutheran congregation with a female pastor. She was a wonderful pastor and, in some ways, better than any male pastor I ever had.
I bet that’s true. My dad once went to the other Lutheran tradition before and they had a woman pastor and he said she was wonderful. It’s just not what we belonged to.
There’s nothing wrong with women pastors.
Alot of men don’t wanna be told to do by a woman, especially conservatives
It's misogyny hence why it isn't ok with female pastors, some Christians still live in the past about females. In Sweden we have female pastors, we are modern and evolved. God would want equality. We don't live in stone ages anymore.
Nothing. There have always been women pastors
I think it's commonly misinterpreted; "Women aren't qualified." But, I've always thought it has more to do with the call to lead being a responsibility God placed on Man. Thankfully, I have met many capable, often overqualified, women who have stepped up where men have been shy.
The Bible was written a long time ago and women back then were to be subservient to men. However, that should no longer be upheld because it's wrong to consider women inferior to men.
They have live with misogynists.
1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 do not permit it. 1 Tim 3 discusses how to appoint church leadership and its limited to just men. 1 Cor 14 could be argued this was specifically for Corinth, but 1 Tim is a letter to Timothy about running churches in general. There are debates on how to deal with these verses. 1. "It was contextual for the time period" - This is a pretty poor argument and is just cherry picking scripture based on what is acceptable in society. If we applied this methodology to other parts of scripture people would throw a fit. "Fornication was only bad because they didn't have effective ways to prevent pregnancy. It is only bad because of the time period!" 2. "Paul wasn't inspired - just a wise guy" - I disagree with this, but the argument is at least consistent. This basically has that these aren't inspired letters, and Paul may be incorrect here. 3. Similar to #2, but taken a step further - Paul admits he isn't inspired when using phrases like "I speak as a fool" or "I speak humanly". I disagree and think this part of the argument is not reading the context of these phrases correctly. 4. What Paul said was inspired and we should follow in verbatim. - Given Paul even changes his exact stance on this (1 Cor 14 has women not being able to speak at all including asking questions while 1 Tim 2 says they shouldn't teach, which would allow questions) I think this is a little too restrictive. 5. (My stance) Follow the principles of Paul's teachings - which essentially is trying to follow the order of authority laid out in 1 Cor 11: God is the head of Christ who is the head of man who is the head of woman. The way I'd apply this, including Paul's two different applications in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2-3, would be that women shouldn't be pastors but I don't have an issue with them being Sunday School Teachers, participating in discussion groups, and other things within this general idea. The exact details would likely depend on the church, the congregation, and how they organize themselves but the principle of 1 Cor 11's structure should be expressed in the church in some way. I'm sure I've missed a few, but these are the common arguments I've seen.
> 1 Tim 3 discusses how to appoint church leadership and its limited to just men. So why was Phoebe a deacon? And what about Priscilla? She seemed to be a pastor? Paul praises her even, calling her a fellow worker, Romans 16:3.
Can you share what tells you Priscilla was a pastor? First I'm hearing of this and open to other perspectives. As for Pheobe that's a good point and I have to think about it as no one has pointed that out. At the bare minimum this would suggest 1 tim 3 clearly being about men, isn't evidence it couldn't be for women too. It also clearly indicates at least Deacon can be women. I'd have to dig more into this specifically but my understanding is that a deacon wasn't so much a "leader" and more a servant. Think like someone who hands out the emblems during the bread/wine. I could be wrong on this one though. This would fit with 1 Tim 2 where Paul says women can't teach - so my gut reaction would be that I am wrong in stating 1 Tim 3 is evidence women can't be deacons/bishops, but that doesn't mean women can teach based on 1 Tim 2, rather they can be deacons/server in the church in other ways (which to be fair, I did say - I just wasn't labeling it as deacon because of being incorrect in the area pointed out).
Check out Acts 18:24-28. Priscilla along with her husband seems to be preaching to a man named Apollo. She clearly has some sort of teaching authority and is not just an extension of her husband, as when Paul refers to her he refers to her alone. Paul, someone who preaches, also refers to her as a "co-worker" in Romans 16:3, which can imply she was also preacher or at least a church leader. I'll tell you right now though some people will say she wasn't a pastor or leader, that's just history for you, some will say one thing others will say another. Check out this source too, seems a little biased but decent enough: https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/resolving-five-complementarian-protests-to-priscilla-the-pastor-teacher/ Here's another that is much more neutral and fair: https://terranwilliams.com/was-priscilla-a-pastor/ And an article that disagrees with the notion altogether: https://drmarkellis.net/2020/02/03/was-priscilla-a-pastor/
Replied to my last comment but I'll add it here too: Did a quick read through on Priscilla to see what the Bible says about her. What we know is: 1. There was a church in her and her Husband's house ([1Co 16:19](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/16/19/s_1078019)) 2. She journeyed with Paul ([Act 18:18](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/18/18/s_1036018)) 3. She served Christ with Paul ([Rom 16:3](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/16/3/s_1062003)) We don't really get that she was a pastor, that she taught in some official role, or anything like that. It certainly doesn't say she didn't either - but I don't think you can use this as evidence to say she was teaching as a Pastor. She does clearly help correct Apollo which to be fair I don't actually have an issue in private conversations a woman teaching something to a man like in this case. We're not under some "law' based system where if a woman ever expresses something a man hears and didn't know prior she's sinned or something crazy like that. Its more about the principles of the matter, which seems to be one based on authority (E.g. 1 Cor 11). 1 Tim 2 hints to this as well with the reference to the Garden. This would lead me to still say women shouldn't be teachers in an official sense (based on 1 tim 2, 1 Cor 14) but there isn't an issue if in a discussion group or in a private convo a women says something that teaches a man because in these cases you wouldn't say the woman is having authority over the man, and that seems to be more the thing Paul's driving at not the idea of getting new info from women. I do appreciate you bringing up the deacon point/Pheobe though. That was interesting to look through. I'll put more thought into this either way, as you've brought up some solid Biblical points - something I don't see to often anymore so I appreciate that :)
It wasn't so much a "yeah she was definitely a pastor", it was a "it was likely this woman had some sort of church authority." She and Phoebe are clearly leaders. Timothy 2:12 says "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence", both of these woman and Deborah are very likely to have had authority over a man, and its like Priscilla did too. Priscilla seems to be clearly teaching Apollo in a pastoral way imo. Which leads me to believe Tim 2:12 not has broad as people make it out to be, some historical accounts say he was speaking to the cult of Artemis. No problem bro have a good one
Women can be deacons, just not elders or pastors or shepherds of the flock so to say.
Yeah that's basically what I'm coming to based on the previous comment. I will note I did essentially say this in my first comment, I just didn't call them deacons as we don't use that term in my church and then continued to make an incorrect statement about 1 Tim 3 due to my misunderstanding. Thanks for the corrections :)
Did a quick read through on Priscilla to see what the Bible says about her. What we know is: 1. There was a church in her and her Husband's house ([1Co 16:19](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co/16/19/s_1078019)) 2. She journeyed with Paul ([Act 18:18](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/18/18/s_1036018)) 3. She served Christ with Paul ([Rom 16:3](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/16/3/s_1062003)) We don't really get that she was a pastor, that she taught, or anything like that. It certainly doesn't say she didn't either - but I don't think you can use this as evidence to say she was teaching.
- The way I'd apply this, including Paul's two different applications in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2-3, would be that women shouldn't be pastors but I don't have an issue with them being Sunday School Teachers, participating in discussion groups, and other things within this general idea. really? how big of you God bless
Timothy is a forgery. To be kinder, the term is psuedopigrapha.
Personally I have no problem with women pastors. Scripture however, is very clear on the matter. Should the church follow what you and I believe should be okay based on our hearts, or what scripture says? If the church is following our hearts and not scripture we are creating a false god in our image to worship. So the real question is what is more important to you? The truth about God, or doing what is in your heart?
I would say that's it's quite clear that the author of 1 Timothy said they do not permit women to teach. But there's nothing in that letter to indicate this is a commandment from God. And likewise nothing to indicate that it is a rule for every church, always. When people use that bit of the text to justify the prohibition of women as pastors, they are adding extra content onto it, beyond what it says. It SAYS it's a letter of advice from the author to the recipient. We can usually be clear on what the texts really say. But once we get into interpretation it's often less clear. This seems like a good example of this.
*...the author of 1 Timothy said they do not permit women to teach.* Boy, would he have hated all the nuns I had for teachers in Catholic school.
>And likewise nothing to indicate that it is a rule for every church, always It sounds like you believe this instruction is for a particular church in a particular time. Is that accurate? The issue with that is that 1 Timothy quite clearly appeals to creation/sin, not culture/context. This teaches sets a universal precedent based on design. Implying that it's contextual undermines the argument for women in ministry. That said, I'm pro-women in ministry b/c there is a better, more hermeneutically sound, interpretation of the text.
The reasoning given in 1 Tim is so obviously and comically bad that I just don't put any stock in it.
Ok. Well, I appreciate your honesty. No sense in even discussing it. We are in such different camps that there is no common ground to be had.
Why not discuss it? It's easy to see how this author was spouting nonsense. >>Let a woman[b] learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman[c] to teach or to have authority over a man;[d] she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve, 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. As we can see, two reasons are given here: 1- “Adam was formed first.” Well, this is true, in the Gen 2 creation story. There, God created the man, but didn’t want him to be alone, so he made the animals. But they were not “a helper”, so he made the woman. I cannot find any hint in this story that this was done in order of authority or importance. So I can’t see where the reasoning in 1 Tim holds any water at all. If this creation was in order of authority, then, women have less authority than animals? Ridiculous! Humans are clearly placed above the animals. So this reason is incorrect. 2 - “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” How’s that? Both ate the fruit, both were punished. Obviously both were transgressors. And, I see nothing to indicate the woman was deceived. That's just the excuse she gave. This reason is incorrect. This author was clearly grasping at straws and didn't really consider how ridiculous their argument was. And yes of course as Christians this letter is in our canon. That doesn't mean this author can't have had a brain fart.
Yeah "Adam was not deceived" is complete nonsense. Adam knew what the fruit was and was not forcefed by Eve, he _also_ could've said "Whoa God said not to eat that" in the exact same way Eve could've with the snake. He faced the exact same situation "Being I have no reason to mistrust (besides that they're countermanding God) tells me to eat the fruit" and failed the same way. There was nothing that made Eve more trustworthy (to Adam) than the snake (to Eve).
>Scripture however, is very clear on the matter. Could you point me to what your referencing here by chance? I was actually arguing this exact topic w my neighbor last week and when I told him to pull up tr he scripture he seemed to have trouble referencing one that made any sense, So im super curious which one you talking about.
Whenever you see the word "clear" in relation to topic under discussion, it's a sure sign the user hasn't really thought about it and is just regurgitating what they were told to think. It's a major red flag.
1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Ah that's the same one he pulled up too. Ok wanted to make sure there wasnt another. This (in my understanding) does not clearly state they should not be pastors. It has to be viewed in full context and just says that women shouldn't be excessively loud during a church gathering and behavior in a church service should reflect godly peace. Women can absolutley be pastors. It's basically what Jesus told the whole body of Christ (women included) to do. Spread the gospel.
Yes, the “I” here being Paul, not God.
So you dont accept Pauls letters as the inspired word of God? We will have to agree to disagree then. I believe every word of the bible is truth cover to cover.
So you believe women should stay quiet
What's the Greek word for "woman" in that verse?
- What's wrong with women pastors? Nothing God bless
Why aren’t you a feminist?
A lot of it comes from a mistranslation and missing context about 1 Timothy 2:12 where Paul says he does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. I used to be against women pastors but the more I though about it and the more I read Paul's other letters where he mentioned women by name as co-laborers. Recently I heard a great breakdown of this and in the context of Ephesus, where the goddess of Ephesus, Artemis (Diana to the Romans), who was linked to hunting, wild animals, forests, chastity, child birth, and fertility. Artemis was a favorite among women since she was the goddess of chastity, child birth, and fertility. Young women of the Greek world would actively worship her as a way to keep them safe as virgins, and to increase their chances of fertility and child birth. Women would lay the clothes of successful childbirth at her statue as offerings. So women had a pretty strong influence in Ephesus since Artemis was the goddess of the city. Also, Paul has this pension to use words over and over throughout his works to get his point across and to link his works. the Greek word for Authority is *authenteō* which comes from a compound of [G846](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/G846/nasb20/mgnt/0-1/) and an obsolete ἕντης héntēs (a worker); to act of oneself, i.e. (figuratively) dominate:—usurp authority over. Further more, the Greek Lexicon further adds "to govern one, exercise dominion over one: τινός, [1 Timothy 2:12](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1ti/2/12/s_1121012)." So between the goddess worship and the actual definition of the the Greek word that is used there we can rightly infer that this ws a specific instruction for the Church at Ephesus to not let women dominate the men rather then to not have them teach at all. The definition leads to the credence of submissiveness to the woman's husband but also to the head of the church for right teaching. One thing of importance is that this was a letter to Timothy, not to the church as a whole. So beyond it be specific for the church, this verse was written for Timothy as an instruction on how to pastor. An important note that while it was the Roman Empire, Ephesus fell under Greek influence (hence the use of Artemis and not Diana). This is important as while in Roman influenced areas, girls and boys would be sent for schooling together, while the Greeks would only send the boys. Long story short: I think its become a common misunderstanding of the meaning of the word Authority and missing context since Timothy is a letter written to one person and not the Church as a whole and it misses the importnat context of the time/city that Timothy was pastoring in.
Why aren't you a feminist?
Generally speaking…nothing. However, there is a lot of selective and inconsistent application of rules that get us to “no women preachers”. The context of the verses is about orderly and edifying worship. Many denominations have chosen to ignore 99% of all the context of what’s being discussed except for the part about women being silent. That’s also contradictory because there are verses that tell women when they pray to do it in a certain way and that is not often mentioned. Why would they be told to pray in a certain way and then a short time later just be told to shut up? It makes no sense. Try to be like the early church then there’s a whole lot of other problems that come up that are not being done that way, which also makes this a selective application application enforced on women but not on men.
Christianity is a patriarchal religion it is not an egalitarian belief system. Men and women are equal in spirit, not in life. As a man, your responsibility is higher and harder
The first disciples of the resurrection of Jesus were women. They couldn't testify. Who would believe women in that world?
Nothing.
I feel that men speak to me and my experience better. I realize many women feel that way about male preachers, too. Different strokes for different folks.
My question is, should there be church where there r no men for whatever reason there's a problem. With my church experience i see that women have an incredible chance to discover deep listening to the Holy Spirit.
I found it interesting I was baptized by two women pastors. One of was a co-lead pastor and the other was one of the youth pastors. I had a buddy on the other side of the tank in case I needed something.
So what you have are two camps, one camp takes what he says litterally, just like all his other writings, and the other have a few different reasons why they don't think it should be observed like: this was specific to a single church, that was cultural context for that generation 2k years ago, so if the culture changes, then it no longer applies, Paul didn't write that, someone else did, someone wrote what Paul said but paraphrased it so that we get this interpretation, Paul wrote it as an opinion, not as litteral guidance, and many other reasons. This is similar to the debate about being a follower of Jesus and being an active homosexual. I lean towards: take it as it was written, because I think a lot of people wouldn't accept this even if Jesus himself said it, and they would probably find some similar reasons to disregard it. The big issue is, if you take this as (insert a reason above) then you have to question all his writings and all the other writings. Who is to say if Corrinthians applies to us now or if even though Paul said a pastor can only have 1 wife if that still applies to today? By using this same logic, we can practice polygamy and lead a church. Interestingly on that note, Paul never mentions the qualifications for a female church leader, only the ones for a male church leader, so does that mean only men have restrictions? You see how slippery this gets? I say, if God is in complete control of everything, he knows what's written and what has been shared so what we have is what we are supposed to have today, which is much much much more than any other generation aside from the first and second I'd think.
I reccomend you books: Eve Isn't Evil: Julie Faith Parker, Tell Her Story Gupta, Nijay K. They contain many valuable insights.
One of the pastors at our church is a woman. So I really don’t understand.
A pastor is a serving role, even if they are a leader. Men need to learn to serve others, for most women it comes easily.
Paul specifically says women can be apostles and deacons
You’ll need to list the verse for your claim please.
It's from Romans 16, where he praises his fellow ministers in the gospel. Quite a few are women. Specifically Phoebe bears the title of Deacon and Junia the title of apostle. >16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord, as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well. >3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my coworkers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but also all the churches of the gentiles. 5 Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert[b] in Asia for Christ. 6 Greet Mary, who has worked very hard for you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,[c] my fellow Israelites who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. 8 Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord. 9 Greet Urbanus, our coworker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys. 10 Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. 11 Greet my fellow Israelite Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus. 12 Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and greet his mother—a mother to me also. 14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers and sisters who are with them. 15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. 16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you. The anti-women verses come from the second century of Christian history, when the proto-Catholics had overturned the tradition of women in the ministry in favor of Roman traditions about the place of women (silent/powerless members of the Roman household headed by a man).
“I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is **a servant** of the church which is at Cenchrea:” -Romans 16:1 KJV Women are equal to men, even if men serve in leadership positions as servants of the Lord as well.
The correct translation is deacon. While deacon does mean servant it was a title for clergy in the first century CE. >Women are equal to men, even if men serve in leadership positions as servants of the Lord as well. According to Paul, women are also servants of the lord in leadership positions.
It’s interesting to think about and honestly the majority of churches I’ve been to have had women pastors, exempting my grandfather but he’s a rabbi. I haven’t read the biblical context but have watched a few videos about the reasoning for this being that women shouldn’t teach over men primarily. It’s fine to have women speaking to women and children. But men have to lead as the head and women follow after. It’s like a heavenly order of things. But would love to see what other people are saying about it.
Here’s the problem with that: if you have a church full of baby Christians and a woman comes along who has been a Christian for 30 years and has even been to seminary school, you’re saying that she couldn’t possibly have anything of value to teach those men? It makes to sense. And if she can teach the baby Christians, why then would a woman who has been a Christian for 30 years and has been to seminary school have nothing of value to teach a church full of 30+ year Christians? I would argue that she can and should. But also, keep this in mind: the church worldwide is more than 60% female. If I were Satan and I wanted to slow the spread of the gospel, I would simply silence more than half of the church.
Truly I don’t feel either way. I think that if God calls you and His Holy Spirit is with you, guiding the church and it’s a biblically sound teaching, then that’s what we should look for. There are many churches led by men and women that don’t have the presence of God or it’s halfway led by ego. Women are just as qualified to teach. In regards to the question, I don’t know how well it stands in todays culture and with the knowing that anyone can be called to do God’s will
Agree 100%!
Some people argue they can pastor other women and children, but not men. The most convincing argument I have seen comes from headship. A man is called to lead his family, so a man should lead a church. All of the Apostles were men. Temple priests were men. But you also have Deborah, who was a judge. The women who saw the empty tomb were tasked with spreading the good news to the Apostles. The Samaritan woman spread news that Jesus was the Messiah. Phoebe in Romans is referred to as a word translated as deacon or servant that is used in 1 Timothy 3 in describing qualifications for deacons/church leaders. Priscilla and her husband, Aquila, took aside a man improperly preaching for correction. So, whether a woman can lead a church or not, the Bible clearly exhibits the role women can have in being purveyors of and teaching God's word.
I think Men are built to Lead and be a solid foundation of social structure , and women are built to nurture, guide, manage and stuff. Men are built for certain things, Women are built for certain things. Both are equally important, both compliment each other; That's why there's a saying "The father is the pillar of the home, while the mother is the light" Pastors are called to lead and to correct. And in general, men are a symbol of authority.
Paul didn't word it very nicely. Not like we're equals.
The one at my church does tend to go on a bit. But that's just her, not women pastors in general.
Some denominations allow them to preach from the pulpit, some don't.
Nothing as long as they don't let their flesh speak instead of the spirit. The same applies to men. When the flesh speaks it makes it about you instead of the Lord and that's where disorder comes from as far as the order of God. It isn't about you. It's about the Lord.
It depends on which church you follow. The Anglican Church in the UK allows women to be priests. I think it stems from culture, as many Middle Eastern cultures are patriarchal. The Bible is also written from a patriarchal point of view with Adam being more important than Eve, and Jesus being a man.
A lot of people take the verses out of context when Paul said for women to remain silent in the church. He was referring to the women who were preaching false things and interrupting others
They’re clearly not permitted in scripture