What is considered women teaching? Is posting studies taboo to you?

[Cassia]

I posted this on 'the other' forum and so far have only gotten one reply. I thought I might get more participation here.

I do a lot of home studies ... daily in fact. And I`m excited about some of the things I`m learning. So I share many of them. But I find that participation on forums brings negative feedback. (not about the content of the posts) I`m not a pastor just a Christian. In your opinion should these studies be published in women`s forums only

 

[MoreCoffee]

Paul says women ought to be silent in church.

 

[Cassia]

Paul says women ought to be silent in church.

What does he say about forums?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What does he say about forums?

Nothing. There was no bandwidth in his day.

 

[Cassia]

Nothing. There was no bandwidth in his day.

Can you answer the Op question then rather than bringing it offtopic please?

 

[psalms 91]

I have no problem with women teaching or preaching

 

[hedrick]

Paul says women ought to be silent in church.

He also says that when they prophesy in church they should cover their hair, so he can't mean they should never speak. From context he means they shouldn't talk disruptively.

The only passage that I think really does prohibit women from teaching is 1 Tim 2:16. If you believe in inerrancy, you'll probably believe accept that based on this women shouldn't have authority in the church. I doubt that what the OP is proposing is a problem there. In fact most groups that abide by 1 Tim 2:16 think it prohibits giving women formal authority in church, and don't restrict the kinds of activities that occur in Internet discussions.

If you don't accept inerrancy you'll understand that this reflects a later view than Paul's, which tries to represent him as being closer to the usual cultural views of gender roles than he actually was. As such I don't give it very high weight.

There's a third possible view of 1 Tim 2:16, which understands him as speaking of a woman being put in authority over her husband. The same Greek word can be translated "man" and "husband" or "woman" and "wife." If I accepted that 1 Tim 2:16 is actually by Paul, I would use the following argument: we know from other letters than Paul accepted female leaders in the Church. However we also know that he saw that husband as the "head" of the marriage (a metaphor that didn't have the implication of "boss" that it does in English). It's possible that for that reason he thought it was inappropriate to put a wife in authority over her husband. In this interpretation his use of the story of Adam and Eve is intended to illustrate a situation when the husband accepted something from his wife without exercising his proper role of verifying it. I don't believe the OP is proposing anything that would place her in authority over her husband.

 

[Cassia]

I also think that the silence when taken to the spiritual means that God speaks and not the church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I also think that the silence when taken to the spiritual means that God speaks and not the church.

Into the spiritual? I do not know what that means. Do you have a working definition?

 

[Cassia]

Into the spiritual? I do not know what that means. Do you have a working definition?

The analogies of the Bride and Bridegroom place the church in the female role. So what is said to women can be further said to the church. The example given is of marriage. What is given in shadow finds it's reality in the substance.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The analogies of the Bride and Bridegroom place the church in the female role. So what is said to women can be further said to the church. The example given is of marriage. What is given in shadow finds it's reality in the substance.

Yes, you are right that the church is cast as the bride of Christ but that is about the church as a community rather than being about individuals within the church. Paul tells women to be silent in church.

 

[Cassia]

I also think that the silence when taken to the spiritual means that God speaks and not the church.

This can be construed also as the pope's infallibilty being unscriptural but far be it from me to state that as fact.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This can be construed also as the pope's infallibilty being unscriptural but far be it from me to state that as fact.

You're not the pope so quoting yourself and asking if it has some implications about papal infallibility looks weird.

 

[Cassia]

Yes, you are right that the church is cast as the bride of Christ but that is about the church as a community rather than being about individuals within the church. Paul tells women to be silent in church.

Do you really think that forums are a church?

 

[Cassia]

I have no problem with women teaching or preaching

I don't think that as many now-adays do judging from the studies men have done that refute most if not all of the arguments against it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you really think that forums are a church?

no. Never said that I did. But Paul did say women were to be silent in church.

 

[Cassia]

He also says that when they prophesy in church they should cover their hair, so he can't mean they should never speak. From context he means they shouldn't talk disruptively.

The only passage that I think really does prohibit women from teaching is 1 Tim 2:16. If you believe in inerrancy, you'll probably believe accept that based on this women shouldn't have authority in the church. I doubt that what the OP is proposing is a problem there. In fact most groups that abide by 1 Tim 2:16 think it prohibits giving women formal authority in church, and don't restrict the kinds of activities that occur in Internet discussions.

If you don't accept inerrancy you'll understand that this reflects a later view than Paul's, which tries to represent him as being closer to the usual cultural views of gender roles than he actually was. As such I don't give it very high weight.

There's a third possible view of 1 Tim 2:16, which understands him as speaking of a woman being put in authority over her husband. The same Greek word can be translated "man" and "husband" or "woman" and "wife." If I accepted that 1 Tim 2:16 is actually by Paul, I would use the following argument: we know from other letters than Paul accepted female leaders in the Church. However we also know that he saw that husband as the "head" of the marriage (a metaphor that didn't have the implication of "boss" that it does in English). It's possible that for that reason he thought it was inappropriate to put a wife in authority over her husband. In this interpretation his use of the story of Adam and Eve is intended to illustrate a situation when the husband accepted something from his wife without exercising his proper role of verifying it. I don't believe the OP is proposing anything that would place her in authority over her husband.

The verse of Paul that refers to silence is also not a quote from old testament but is from rabitical law. Even Paul says "as the law says" That from the apostle so dead set against law.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't think that as many now-adays do judging from the studies men have done that refute most if not all of the arguments against it.

do you mean "refute" or "contradict" because refute implies a valid argument that overthrows one's opponent's position whereas contradiction does not imply that the argument is valid nor that it overthrows one's opponent's position but only that it is opposed to his/her argument.

 

[Cassia]

do you mean "refute" or "contradict" because refute implies a valid argument that overthrows one's opponent's position whereas contradiction does not imply that the argument is valid nor that it overthrows one's opponent's position but only that it is opposed to his/her argument.

I think that either side of the argument reflects on the person's stance to law and grace.

 

[MoreCoffee]

He also says that when they prophesy in church they should cover their hair, so he can't mean they should never speak. From context he means they shouldn't talk disruptively...

Yes, Paul probably means that women ought not disrupt corporate worship but that would be true of men also if his intention were only to write against disturbing orderly worship but since he singles out women for this rebuke it may have more meaning than your post suggests.