Dani, RK, and everyone else. Offense seems to be taken at even the mention of the subject, no matter where it's mentioned today. That's why we have divisions. Not that I'm saying the divisions are good, but that the equality doesn't exist until we covent the roles of the opposite gender. It's not even a fair statement to say "If that passage were taken in a wooden, literal way, then there should be no women on this forum.". Not fair at all. It's just as true as it can be that every born again child of God has the commission to preach. Men and women alike: Mark 14:3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head. 14:4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made? 14:5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. 14:6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. 14:7: For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. 14:8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying. 14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. This woman preached the gospel of the soon coming crucifixion by her actions in her service to her Savior. And every child of God has that duty to preach the cross. 1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. But while we are on this side of Glory, serving in the individual church bodies, we are given an order of how we're to conduct ourselves. Why follow these scriptures? Because the scriptures are the only thing we should follow in everything we do. Sola Scriptura. Not man's traditions or personal take. As Gracie said; "the scriptures say what they mean and mean what they say". There's no room for supposition or scriptural revision. These verses speak of the conduct inside the congregation, not our actions out in the world so to speak. Again, I'm still working on my answer to the question on the main site.
Who is supposed to be offended? Who is taking any offense? Disagreement with one's position is not offense. Yes, the Scritpures say what they mean, and they mean what they say, but they do not always mean or say what we say they mean or say. Part of the art of hermeneutics... of rightly dividing the Word, is to understand the passage in the context of the original hearer. If one refuses to acknowledge that Paul was speaking to Timothy in a world in which insidious feminist gnositicism was preaching heresy, then you can't rightly divide the Word of Truth. If you say "keep silent," then that means that women should never, ever open their mouths in church. Period. That is not your understanding, or your practice. Accordingly, the issue is not "what does it say," but "what do I say that it says." Yes, we are given order, but you can't create the order you desire from the passages cited. Scripture also says "touch not, taste not, handle not." It also says that "Judas went out and hanged himself." It also says "Go and do thou likewise." It all depends on where you go with context.
It's pretty hard to offend me, so I can assure you I'm not offended I think my statement was completely fair. Here's the verse all by itself: v12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. It's obvious what Paul is saying here: 1) Women are not permitted to teach 2) Women are not permitted to be in authority over men (or a woman over a man) 3) Women must be quiet That's the meaning a completely literal, wooden interpretation of the verse results in. I used this forum as an example because we do allow women to teach and we do allow women a voice. That's 1) and 3) violated, but of course we don't take this portion of Scripture at it's completely literal face value. We qualify how it should be interpreted, and that's fine. If we didn't we'd end up with the absurdity above. I agree, but I would add 'particular to 1st-century Ephesus'. That sounds odd to me. Why would a woman be allowed to be in authority over men 'in the world' (by this you mean, e.g., teacher-student relationship?), but not 'in the congregation'? Paul's argument is from creation, which doesn't stop at the church doors.
Didn't mean it that way Kierkegaard. She has the same duty to preach (witness) to the folks out in the world as any man to anyone who is willing to listen... And neither do I think that it was only meant for the 1st century. That question as been answered by the way at http://parsonscorner.org/church-matters/
I know, this is a subject we genuinely disagree on, but I think that's fine: disagreements happen, and can be healthy. In case I've come across the wrong way: I don't think you or anyone else who holds your opinion believes that women are second-class (necessarily, I'm sure there is a minority that do but you aren't among them). I understand the argument from creation that lies at the foundation of such interpretations, and I don't think it would be unfair to summarize it as: God gave men and women different roles and responsibilities (equal in value, but different in purpose). I agree with that, but not to the extent it's taken. In the case of the answer you've provided, my thought would be that you've collected a number of related Scripture but your interpretation is fragmented for lack of considering the whole of Paul's argument / context. But there is a reason I don't attend KJV Baptist(?) churches, I would be chased out as a liberal or something aweful like that
Well, if I didn't feel like a second-class church member before reading that article, I certainly did after reading it. I know you didn't mean to evoke that response, but there it was, churning in my gut, and I let that simmer for a bit until I decided to formulate a response here, based upon how it made me feel versus what I know I know. Not for my own sake, but for the sake of other readers. I know all I'm going to get is "well that's what the Bible says" -- nevertheless, I felt like I had the responsibility of letting you know what feelings your response evoked in someone who has been a fellow believer and sister with a certain level of maturity after having walked with the Lord for 23 years. I cannot imagine how this must make less mature believers feel, never mind unbelieving ladies coming here for answers to the problem of being treated as "less than" pretty much all over the world simply by virtue of them being female. So we're supposed to study the Word and know it well enough to actually teach it -- and we can teach children (whose minds are yet unformed, therefore making this the greater teaching work and higher responsibility), as well as other women (because it seems they're actually our equals, while men are just theoretically our equals in some mysterious position called "in Christ" that nobody can fully explain) -- but we can only teach men if someone with an XY chromosome either won't or can't fill that job? Hmmm. No thanks then, I'll pass. ;~: Feeling second-class certainly wasn't a lasting or deep feeling, and definitely not a conviction, but that's only because I already know better deep down, as I've studied this subject matter for a long time now, and I've arrived at my own conclusions which I'm firm on. I'm not mad at you, because I know your heart and your sincerity and your conviction that you are truly honoring God's word, and I love you the same as ever, but I strongly urge you to actually consider the responses RK and Kierk have given you, and do some focused background studies, as taking their words to heart and considering a different approach may just lead to you alienating less female seekers down the road.
You suggest that the question has been answered with what? This? It says in 1 Timothy 2;11,12,13. That. …11.Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12.But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,but to be in silence. 13.For Adam was first formed,then Eve. ……. I know several women that preach, ((( and not trying to put you on the spot)) My question is ….Does it make it a sin? Shannon I would think a man would be required to "learn in silence" also. Nor do I think a man should usurp (take by force) authority over another man. I would believe that education would be the prevalent reasoning behind the role of teacher. Just as in societies not far removed from our present day, equality in education has always caused stark differences in the ability to teach and has nothing to do with spiritual equality at all. Viewing the limitations in education in place in the first centuries and equating them to spiritual equality is short sighted.
I have modified my post. The O.P. asked a question. The last church I attended for any amount of time the youth Pastor (male) was arrested on several different counts of sexual offenses with minors. This was a church that spoke about having personal accountability so that we could all feel safe. Only male pastors, deacons and elders. I don't think anyone there could have ever imagined this kind of horror.
Complementarian and egalitarian views are both held by respected, reasonable people who have nothing against women but both groups are simply trying to be faithful to the Scriptures. None of us want to violate the word of God. I try my best to apply the Golden Rule to debates. I give benefit of the doubt that Complementarians aren't trying to be cave men suppressing women. I assume egalitarians aren't hyper-feminists. Let's do our best to examine the Scriptures giving both sides the best spin we can.
Wait, let me do this the way I was taught growing up in church. Ahem.... "I believe the Bible, and so since you disagree with me, that means that you don't believe the Bible." ;D Did I do that right? ;.;.
Yeah. I'm hoping we can do better here (and I think as a group we usually do better here than other places). There are other places where one can get that treatment.
For me, I don't think that a preference for either complementarian or egalitarian view of men and women are required for an analysis of either 1 Cor 11(?) or the passage in 1 Timothy.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I agree. We don't want to bring either view as a presupposition to either passage.
Complementarian and egalitarian??? TrustGzus, how come you're using bigger words than RK??? Actually, the point is sort of mute because the practice of gender specific positions for the most part, is "quintessentially Baptistic classicistic doctrines" anyway. (See, I can use big words from time to time!) ;.;. What did I just say?
Sorry, Tim. I forget. Honestly, I forget that my taste in books and magazines is....um...different. Thanks for that reminder.