Women in Ministry

[charlie]

Here's the article.
I must say I've never heard it put that way before.

[Lost Highway]

:eatingpopcorn:

[Cliftyman]

This is meat... not milk.  Good stuff.  :D

[tidbit]

Oy vey!

:doh:

[charlie]

My initial thoughts...

Why haven't we heard this before? Is it balderdash?

Literalists who rest their case against women ministers on these two verses won't budge, I'm sure.

Liberators who want to use this "new information" to bolster their claim, however, can't simply throw this on the pile of reasons why women should preach. After all, they've been saying all along that this verse, taken quite literally, is still either merely cultural, situational and specific to Corinth, not as broad sweeping as the historical church has made out, or a mistranslation, or some combination. Now to come along and say, "Furthermore, Paul was only quoting the Corinthians here, and then incredulously chastising them for coming up with such an idea." this only unsays all that was said in how the verse was treated before.

Either Paul was quoting the Corinthians, or this verse has to be handled in the old way (i.e. literally, but with consideration with respect to its application). It can't be both.

His handwaving argument at the end about dismissing the impact of the Timothy passage is pretty scary Greek to me. I would never have shot down that verse so quickly if he hadn't been so thorough in eliminating the literalism of the Corinthian passage.

I think one thing that would make this article better would be to actually cite the other instances in which Paul quotes others and then refutes them. I can think of a couple, but I don't know if any of them are in 1 Corinthians. (The Titus comment about the Cretans comes to mind)

[Cliftyman]

Heres something I posted on this exact subject in another thread, I look at it in a literalist way...

------------------------------------------

I have studied this very deeply because I'm one of those folks who believes in a non-contradicting bible.

You can take all these verses about women and say Paul was a chauvanistic pig, he was turning Timothy into one and everything else was cultural... but I just don't think thats how it is.

Paul is after all the same person that wrote about Phoebe and he also wrote Galatians chapter 3.....

You have two references in the bible that talk about women being silent and that is all (that I know of)...

26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. 29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. 39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.1 Corinthians 14

1 Cor 14:34 demands absolute silence... sigao can be used for "holding ones peace" but v. 34 says "they are not allowed to speak"... but then we come to the weird part... Paul says "as the law says".  What law?  A social law of that time?  As far as I know I know of no mosaical law that says women couldn't speak .. as far as the Church no mosaical law or phariseetical law would even have any bearing on the Church because it was a body formed after Christ came, right?  And then the most unusual part of 1 Cor 14 is the last part... Paul speaks a sarcastic comment... "Did the word of God originate with you?".  Did he say this because of a Corinthian mindset... or did he say it in reference to the comments he had made directly before?  Some say he says this last comment because the Corinthians were silencing women due to a manmade law and he is saying if someone has a gift allow them to use it.  Others say he makes these end statements because the Corinthians weren't following his directives and he was upset so he used sarcastic language.  This is one of the most vague statements in the bible that I know of.  We have to remember the context too... the context was orderly tongue speaking and orderly prophesying... can we truly apply this outside of its context to teaching, praying and other things?  I'm afraid if we apply this verse outside of its context (tongues and prophecy) we have to apply it everywhere do to him saying "women must keep silent in the Church"... the Church is the assembly... so that would mean they couldn't speak anytime the Church assembled.. yet we have evidences of them doing just that in the Bible!

8I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. 9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.1 Timothy 2

This verse has been abused so much its ridiculous.  The only thing Paul doesn't permit a woman to do here is teach or "have authority" over man.  "Have authority" is not some vague term... authenteo is very explicit...

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one

Very harsh isn't it?  I'm glad Paul doesn't permit the above.. hopefully it goes without saying a man shouldn't do the above either.  

Now the big question is does Paul not permit them to teach... or to exercise authenteo teaching over man?  Because once again in the bible we have evidences of women teaching men.

Then we have the question of is this a teaching of Paul or of Christ.  I am absolutely sure that Paul had his personal style and traditions.. he was no more perfect than we are.  He said "I" do not permit a woman to teach... not "Christ tells us", the "command of God" is, or you should know I am "speaking the words of God"... Paul uses this in other writings.. he doesn't use it here.  He says "I".  And Paul absolutely says things in his letters that are from his own teachings... he told Timothy to take wine for a stomach ailment... does that mean its a command of God to all of us to take wine if we have an upset stomach?  Of course not!

The above is it as far as I know that forbid women in any way exclusively...  

The other women forbidding traditions are inferences.  "Women can't be deacons because the book of Titus and the book of Timothy state qualifications with regard to men".  Does it ever deny women that role?  Phoebe was a diakonos without a doubt.  I do understand that diakonos has been translated deacon, ministry, minister and servant... but the English translation is not the ultimate truth... the Greek is.  Should diakonos ever have been interpreted as a non-descriptive title?  If the translators would have translated it descriptively it would have simply read servant or servantship everywhere it appeared.  Its my own personal opinion that the KJV was translated with a heavy influence from the catholic church with clergy/laity relationship in the backs of the scholars mind... otherwise we would have never got "office of deacon" when the word "office" is totally unwarranted in the Greek.

We need to realize something as well.  Historical its always been the norm for men to write in the masculine... its only been in the past twenty years that people have made a fuss over gender distinctions...  Does you own job qualifications possibly have wording that says "he" or "chairman", etc.

Perhaps Paul wasn't quite as politically correct as we are today... I sure hope he wasn't.

--------------------------------

The reasoning behind me originally posting all this on that thread is I believe someone who uses 1 Cor 14:34 and the Timothy passage to silence women in matters of teaching and other positions of authority is generally condemning themselves... from my study it seems to indicate complete silence instead of quietening down... so why do they not keep their women from singing, or even speaking in the assembly...  Don't really want to comment on that.. but I was just giving the background on why I posted the above.[/color]

[tidbit]

Regarding the article, here's the first thing I want to know:

Is this Stephen Goda guy the first person ever in the history of Christianity to reach this conclusion?

If not, who else supports this theory?

If he is the first guy to interpret I Corinthians 14 that way, then that speaks for itself......



[LORD, have mercy!]

[Cliftyman]

Maybe plenty of people use this intrepretation... they just do it outside of the radar of institutionalism...

I think the points are very valid... if it doesn't convince it should at least make people think twice about studying what they've been taught.

I've found very few people re-examine their beliefs they were taught since childhood or since they joined a particular tradition.. they just accept.

If you don't believe Goda has it right, or if anything I mentioned may be right.. how do you think it should be intrepreted Tidbit?

What are the commonly held intrepretations... why are they held?

1. Women can sing and speak in the assembly but they cannot teach or participate in roles which are deemed authoritative.

2. Women can sing and speak in the assembly, they can pray aloud and prophesy in the assembly but they cannot teach, be a deacon, elder or a preacher.

3. Women cannot speak, sing, or have any role in the Church save personal study and instructing those younger than them (but you can't do that if you can't speak?!)

4. Women can do anything men can do.

5. Women can do anything men can do as long as they don't Lord it over the men (and men should act towards them likewise).

... I'm sure thats not even have the intrepretations on these two verses...

Which one of the above is biblical?  This isn't an easy issue... we shouldn't act flippant towards it because it involves taking freedoms from one entire group. (and when theres only two in the group.. males and females... that means one entire side is left out! )

[boringoldguy]

My first reaction was that this was like the old Superman comics where they had Bizarro-Superman and everything was backwards.   No,  Paul didn't say this - the Corinthians said it.  Paul told them they were full of beans.  

Seems to me that if he had wanted to say "Women can do anything in services that men can do"  it would have been easy enough to say so.

If the Holy Spirit really made the Scriptures that obscure,  then I'm afraid we are going to need that Pope after all.

[Skip]

I'm glad that I'm about to take off on a long weekend trip, and will "miss" this discussion.
I haven't read the article, but if Charlie's description of the first argument - basically reconstructing Scripture in another form - then we need another Straw Man from Tidbit.
The best I can do is the Blues guy... :blues:

[Cliftyman]

Some interesting verses to add to discussion...

Acts 1:14
They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

seems to me it would be an inference to contend that women didn't speak with everyone else in this group

Acts 2:18
Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

For Peter to say this and then for Paul to come along and say "women can speak in the assembly"... well it just doesn't make sense to me... For a woman to be silent in the assembly (the Church) it would certainly mean they'd have to quit prophesying.. and praying.. and singing and speaking... right?

Phillipians 4
2I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. 3Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

How do you contend at Paul's side for the gospel if you can't even speak... now I realize that Paul early said women can't speak in the Church (the assembly of saints).. so is this saying they could speak outside of the Church assembly but not in it??

I just noticed these after doing a search in the NT for the words "women" and "woman".

1 Timothy 2, and 1 Cor 14 were the only two passages I could find which even implied women didn't have some priveleges men have...

[tidbit]

You know, I'm just about done with all of this . . . balderdash.

You guys who want women to have 'equal rights' in the church--go for it!  What do I care?

[Cliftyman]

Tidbit.. instead of getting frustrated... look at the facts... 1 Cor 14 and 1 Timothy 2... just don't create a compelling enough picture to tell us that women should "be silent"....  The passages are hard to understand and if taken strictly literally mean that women just have to shutup once and for all never to open their mouth again.  Do you see anyone practicing these verses literally... or do you just see them half-way using them to fit their needs (their needs which involves keeping women out of any of their plans).

I've noticed a disturbing trend here when women are brought up... instead of having a thoughtful dialogue, walls are thrown up and befuddling arguments are used.

I was shocked at the response a while back to my question of women serving communion... such a simple, servile task... yet it was met with vehement defiance...

Here someone is trying to better understand passages... for a noble cause of allowing women to speak, in prayer, in prophecy, in teaching.. in ways to help the Church....

And the same response comes up.  Pray for discernment regarding these Spirits... would Christ want 1/2 of his Church to be in chains or have we mis-intrepreted these verses for over 1800 years in institutionalized religion?

You asked who shared the view of this guy... perhaps you only have a set of binoculars to view the landscape with.. and they have gender freedom denying institutional tradition written all over them...

care to see how the hills and valleys look through a different set of glasses?

[tidbit]

The passages are hard to understand and if taken strictly literally mean that women just have to shutup once and for all never to open their mouth again.  Do you see anyone practicing these verses literally... or do you just see them half-way using them to fit their needs

The fact that a rule is observed unevenly doesn't mean we don't have to observe it at all.

You asked who shared the view of this guy... perhaps you only have a set of binoculars to view the landscape with.. and they have gender freedom denying institutional tradition written all over them...

I didn't ask whether anyone agrees with this guy.  I asked whether anyone has ever interpretted I Cor. 14:34 et seq. that way--backwards.  Go; find me someone who agrees with this . . . person.  Anyone.  Just one.  Shouldn't be too hard.


And for everyone else, I think it's fair to point out that Stephen Gola is not a member of the churches of Christ, at least as far as I can tell.[/color]

[ConnieLard]

:shrug:

[Cliftyman]

:shrug:

I have to reflect what Connie said about this..

And for everyone else, I think it's fair to point out that Stephen Gola is not a member of the churches of Christ, at least as far as I can tell.

so what?[/color]

[Cliftyman]

From Gola's website..

I have not mentioned any denominational affiliation on purpose because I love them all. The Lord has taken me across almost every denominational line to love and minister. Therefore, I have a great love for the ENTIRE Body of Christ not just one of His members. I chose not to get involved in the ongoing fight where each member (denomination) is trying to dismember and destroy the other parts of the body. Rather, I've chosen to encourage, uplift and restore EVERY member to their full potential till we ALL come into the full measure of the stature of the Son of God.

Amen to that....[/color]

[seekr]

If the Holy Spirit really made the Scriptures that obscure,  then I'm afraid we are going to need that Pope after all.

Hey you just helped me with a point I have been saying over and over. The scriptures in many ways are obscure, even to the Pope. This is why we seek God and rely on His Spirit to teach us. Sounds to me like this is what the writer is doing.

If it doesn't fit into most of our boxes then it is more likely to be what it really is. I found this article very interesting.

seekr[/color]

[boringoldguy]

I must say this approach has a certain appeal -  if you don't like what a passage in the Bible says,  just claim the author was being sarcastic and actually meant the opposite.

[tidbit]

From Gola's website..

I have not mentioned any denominational affiliation on purpose because I love them all. The Lord has taken me across almost every denominational line to love and minister. Therefore, I have a great love for the ENTIRE Body of Christ not just one of His members. I chose not to get involved in the ongoing fight where each member (denomination) is trying to dismember and destroy the other parts of the body. Rather, I've chosen to encourage, uplift and restore EVERY member to their full potential till we ALL come into the full measure of the stature of the Son of God.

Amen to that....

In other words, it would hurt his book sales for him to associate with any particular denomination.  There's not much money in writing books that affirm the plain language of the Bible.  

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who agrees with Stephen Gola's interpretation.  Can you find one person who interpreted scriptures as follows:

Paul:  [Now let me address the issue of women remaining silent in the churches.  In your letter to me, you wrote the following:]  "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."  What?!?  Are you crazy?  Haven't you heard one word I've said?  Women can do anything and everything a man can do!

Find me someone else who interpreted the scriptures this way.[/color]

[seekr]

Find me someone else who interpreted the scriptures this way.

maybe God. But why not ask Him yourself? He will answer when we empty ourselves of preconceived notions and truly seek Him. Too farfetched?

seekr[/color]

[seekr]

Actually though there are instances of Paul's sarcasm which I have heard before. In 1Cor11:19--"No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." Now that is sarcastic.

Maybe Paul needed emoticons back then so we could get what he was saying better. I think he was just like us and God used him the same as He does some of us today. We tend to paint the picture we want of how he probably was. God wanted the humanity to show. So if we look through God's eyes instead of our own, we will get it.

seekr

[mike]

I come down on the opposite side of this issue than tidbit does, but I'm still not sure I buy all of Gola's exegesis here.

Yet, I have known for years that Paul quoted the Corinthians' correspondence in multiple places in I Cor., only to refute or elaborate about their statements. Multiple authors have written about this -- it is not new with Gola. Some of these passages are obviously  Paul quoting what they say, and not  what he means. Others are not so obvious.

For example, look at I Cor.:

1:12
3:4
6:12
6:13
10:23
14:22
14:26
?4:8,10?
?7:1?
?11:3-10?
?11:19?
?14:33-35?

Mike

[Bro. Terry]

I just read the article, and I'm not saying that I agree or disagree 100%, but he really does make some good points. I think we should pray about it, GOD will never steer us wrong.

[marc]

I've heard this explanation before too.  I'm not sure it's right though; it doesn't seem to flow naturally.

It is evident, though, that if the passage means absolute silence, then Paul openly contradicts himself, so there must be something else going on.  It certainly seems dangerous to base a major theological tenet (silence of women) on a passage in a book that doesn't seem to consistantly apply this tenet.

[James Rondon]

I didn't ask whether anyone agrees with this guy.  I asked whether anyone has ever interpretted I Cor. 14:34 et seq. that way--backwards.  Go; find me someone who agrees with this . . . person.  Anyone.  Just one.  Shouldn't be too hard.

Actually, I have held a similar position regarding "e" for a few years now. There are a few plausible explanations for the 1st Corinthians 14 passage, and as far as I can tell, this is one of them.

There are others, besides myself and Stephen Gola, who have also advanced this possible interpretation. Robert H. Rowland is one such individual (by the way, I think it's fair to point out that he is a member of the "Church of Christ" church...).

[Mere Nick]

Years ago I had my walls up against what the campus preacher from the COC was telling me regarding some things such as baptism and the like.  My mind was all made up and it was tough to get me to consider the possibility that I could be wrong about some things I had always believed.

Now it appears that there are others that have those very same kinds of walls.  I guess we all have them about certain things.

[boringoldguy]

Well,  if we are to interpret 1st Corinthians as a series of Corinthian propositions followed by Pauline refutations, then I expect that I will no longer see "All things are lawful"  put forth as a justification for everything from divorce to aberrant sexual behavior to instrumental music.

[Dennis]

Well,  if we are to interpret 1st Corinthians as a series of Corinthian propositions followed by Pauline refutations, then I expect that I will no longer see "All things are lawful"  put forth as a justification for everything from divorce to aberrant sexual behavior to instrumental music.

Good point.  

I think we have long misused or misunderstood Paul's "all things are lawful" comment.  Indeed the first time he uses it, it is a prelude to Paul's discussion of why Christians should not engage in sexual immorality. (1 Cor. 6:12 et seq.) I don't think anyone here would argue Paul was teaching immorality was "lawful" just not "expedient."

[Cliftyman]

I don't even know if Gola had to go to so much trouble....

34Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. 35If they have any questions to ask, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.[h]

   36Do you think that the knowledge of God's word begins and ends with you Corinthians? Well, you are mistaken! 37If you claim to be a prophet or think you are very spiritual, you should recognize that what I am saying is a command from the Lord himself. 38But if you do not recognize this, you will not be recognized.

   39So, dear brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and don't forbid speaking in tongues. 40But be sure that everything is done properly and in order.

If Paul wasn't refuting v. 34-35 with v. 36-38 this passage makes absolutely no sense to me.  If Paul wasn't refuting the notion that women must be absolutely silent... then why did he say brothers and sisters be eager to prophesy and don't forbid speaking in tongues?  Two gifts which require verbal communication? huh, huh, huh!  :announcement:

And for the millionth time... what law says?[/color]

[boringoldguy]

I don't know much about this fellow Gola,  but on the web I found some reviews of his book.

He seems also to have concluded that God was just pulling Malachi's leg when He said "I hate divorce."   According to the reviews I read,  God actually likes divorce if it makes people happy.

I think I'd be pretty careful with this "Holy Spirit as smart-alec" hermenuetic.

[Cliftyman]

hmmm character defamation... nice tactic to try and make Gola's thoughts on this seem irrelevant.

How about we focus on what he wrote about women in the ministry and his thoughts on 1 Cor 14:34, and 1 Timothy 2 instead of his other writings....

You know just because someone was wrong on one thing doesn't mean they can't be right on others (should the early Church have not listened to Peter because he denied Christ? )

BTW if it makes you feel better I agree with you on Malachi... it seems pretty clear to me that God hates divorce... I don't know what Gola was talking about on that subject but we should actually read his book instead of a review before drawing conclusions... shouldn't we?

[seekr]

Mostly to me this writing gives us a cause to not always accept things just because it has been the way we have always looked at them. There is nothing wrong in seeking what God would reveal about any scriptures.

For years I bought what everyone else had told me until God knocked the structures out from under me and retaught me what His truth was. I wait on Him for what He would show me about His word. Whenever I hear anything new I take it all with a grain of salt anyway. Mostly the key to understand the word is to understand that the foundation of it all is love. Then things tie together.

seekr

[admin]

Actually, I waited a long time before I put this article up. I also wondered if anyone else had ever held this view. So I actually called a Freed-Hardeman graduate with a Masters Degree in New Testament Greek. He said that he had heard that theory/view before and that it was as good as any. He said they discussed that view during his masters program and even during his undergrad stuff.

I was a Bible major at Freed and don't remember discussing it. But we discussed quite a few. It could be that I overlooked it.

But it is definitely a view that is not new.

[WileyClarkson]

I don't know much about his other book and probably won't take the time to look.  However, his views on women in ministry are not new and most of what he wrote can be found among many different commentator's views who support women in ministry.  It is an excellent article and diserves to be studied.  I have said some of the exact same things over the last several years on this forum.  Whether any of us fully agrees or disagrees is immaterial until it has been studied.  I did see some points that I want to study more in depth before commenting on and I am pretty well versed in most views regarding gender.  However, on the surface, he didn't say anything I really disagree with, especialy in regards to references to Greek translation.

I don't know if he is a part of the RM or not.  Doesn't really matter.  What concerns me is that many in the RM (CoC in particular but also the CC/CoC, iCC, and the even the DoC as strange as that may sound) have decided we no longer need to study new views with an OPEN mind rather than a CLOSED mind.  The RM was built on the idea of looking a Scripture interpretation with unbiased minds in order to have a more thorough and better understanding of Scripture and, in the process, come closer to 1st Century Christianity.  When we found the old understanding to be wrong and the new to be more accurate, we moved to the new.   "Show me I'm wrong and I'll change my views!"  If you haven't heard a preacher say something to that order over the years, then you haven't been in the RM churches, especially the CoC, very long. Heard it too many times but it is never said with conviction because it is always said from a position of "I know I'm right and I will not change" position.  Thank God Alex Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and many others were able to study with open minds for time period they lived in, which seems to be alot more than some of us are capable of doing now.  The warnings by some on this article are an example of what we seem to no longer believe when studying Scripture.  It seems to me that we really need to keep open minds and study it rather than just bash it and the writer after just reading it one time because it doesn't jive with the views on gender that one has held for many years.