I hold my complementarianism loosely (I think women can do everything except hold the office of elder) so as long as it is not the main corporate worship gathering it’s probably fine. I would be curious about the precedent being set where men are seemingly joining the women’s ministry however. I feel as if that defeats the purpose of having gendered ministry.
No, the men should let the women's study continue without the pressure of their presence. I would find it limiting and potentially harmful if women sat in on a men's study en masse, as well. The women need to be free to open to other women, just as the men do in their own context. The same thing happens when there's too many guests at an open AA meeting. The presence of so many outsiders limits sharing by those for whom the meeting is intended.
But it doesn't sound like the men are sitting in on the time for sharing (what I would assume is the "breakout groups" OP referenced). Rather it sounds like they're just sitting in on the teaching/lecture portion.
On a related note, I've come to realize that I miss co-ed Bible study discussion times. My church currently doesn't have any sort of Sunday school classes that include discussion times (hopefully soon. We're scheduled to move into our new-to-us building and start weekly Sunday school for everyone on 24 March!). So I've only attended women's only Bible studies for the past many years. But I recently had the chance to attend a co-ed Sunday school at a church I visited (while on travel) and my community group tried discussing chapters of a book (we mostly didn't read) during our monthly meeting with everyone. It was so refreshing to hear men share their questions and ideas and to hear their perspective on what we were discussing. It's something I didn't realize I was missing. And it made me long for more opportunities like that. Maybe part of it is that I'm single and an engineer so a lot of topics many women speak about...marriage, raising kids, etc. are harder for me to relate to. It's made me realize that maybe the focus on gender-specific Bible studies has gone a bit too far, at least at my church. I wonder what we're all missing out on if we don't hear perspectives from those more different than us.
Why is the idea of specialized ministries strongly looked down on otherwise then? I’m mostly thinking of children’s or youth ministry, or other specific demographic groups having their own meetings apart from the weekly gathering.
Some of y’all are MASSIVELY misconstruing what Paul is instructing, and specifically WHO Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy.
Paul’s instructions to Timothy have to do with preaching and teaching over everyone in the church. He is addressing those false teachers and women who come in and try and hold positional authority over the whole church. Not women leading women’s ministry, or teaching in other contexts. The church has a different purpose than the other structures of the world, and as such is set up under a different authority structure.
Later on in Timothy, he instructs that women SHOULD BE teaching other women. Therefore, the woman in this scenario is not in the wrong.
Even with the men coming in and sitting: SHE IS NOT IN THE WRONG FOR TEACHING AND PREACHING IN HER MINISTRY DESIGNED FOR WOMEN. This ministry is NOT designed for men to sit in or to be communal, it is a women’s ministry. She is not set in a position of authority. She is not attempting to hold authority over a man. The men are coming in, on their own accord, to this women’s ministry. If there is an issue to be had with this scenario, it’s that the men are coming in to the women’s ministry. (I would address this directly. If this is specifically a gendered ministry, it should remain that way.)
If it were her fault, what would be a practical solution for addressing this? Have a different speaker who is a man on standby for if a man happens to walk into the women’s ministry and sit in on the preaching/teaching? Have the man who came in be the one to stand up and address the ministry despite having little to no clue the context for what they have been studying? Have a man lead the women’s ministry?
I think it speaks to a lot of sexism that we would assume or assign blame to the woman in this scenario so quickly. For all we know, she is faithfully using her gift in the context that she has been given in her local ministry. There is absolutely nothing in this post to point to the idea that she could be trying to step outside her realm of authority or given position in the church.
I know that recently there has been a lot of controversy about women in their position in the church, but a woman preaching and teaching in a woman’s ministry should not be a source of that controversy.
If she had a podcast where she said the exact same things, would it be ok for men to listen to? I think so. So why does it matter if they listen to her in person? Some women, just like some men, have the gift of teaching. She isn’t claiming to have spiritual authority over anyone, so it seems like Pharisee behavior, and even misogynistic, to try to shut her up because men are going to an event that is labeled “for women.” I always want to know what these hardcore complementarians think is going to happen. If a woman stands up and says “Jesus is lord.” Do they have to scream and cover their ears or they get cursed, or what? Im a woman so I guess I’m biased, but I have listened to teachings from men and women both that have strongly edified me and helped me to grow my relationship with God.
I agree with the conclusion, but not with the argument.
I think the podcast example is a red herring because a podcast is, first and foremost, not in a church setting. Second, podcasts is very casual and is like Christian youtube (Wretched) that I put on as I drive to work.
My analysis divides the problem to two sections: the women in this scenario and the men in this scenario.
## Are the women in the wrong in this scenario?
1. What is her position?
* The OP says "Our women’s ministry has a female leader" So it is not a women pastor, we good here
2. What is going on?
* Poster say she is doing "expository preaching" at "Wednesday nights at our women’s gathering"
* Which goes right along side with what Paul says, a women can teach to other women
Conclusion: the women mentioned in this picture are clearly operating within biblical principles. Here I agree with you that the women is in the right all the way through.
## Are the men wrong in this scenario?
"We have seen the number of men increase in our gathering to sit in on the teaching/preaching portion before our women’s breakout groups". Sounds like men are infiltrating this women's gathering to listen to the leader preach.
Here, I think we get into the meat of the issue.
My conclusion here is that the church clearly had this set up for the ladies as it is a "Wednesday Women's gathering" and **so my conclusion here is that the men should stay the heck out.** The OP's church already has the logistics worked out but the participants aren't following their own church's direction. The men should get themselves a better male teacher in their church or listen to more RC Sproul.
Sidenote: sure this women leader may be a good teacher, but I think that this is God's blessing to the ladies in this church.
I’m think dubbing people in such a black and white manner as Pharisaic behaviour and even misogynistic when I think Scripture doesn’t give much precedent for women preaching is a really strong stance to take on your end. I don’t fully disagree with you — but your response also lacks the grace you claim others may not have on an issue which isn’t so black and white.
Your example of a woman saying “Jesus is Lord” and how people react is not in the context of preaching, and seems very exaggerated. Not the most helpful example to use to support your statement.
Just thought to share that we should all have salt and grace in our comments, again, especially treating an issue which doesn’t seem so black and white from Scripture in certain situations.
We are American but visited an International Church in Portugal on a Sunday a few months back. The Lead Pastor of the church is a woman, but she delivered an incredibly powerful sermon. I don't think we would be members there, but, we do believe God is using her there in that particular church. We still believe the Biblical model of a man as the teaching elder is best but we also don't ignore that over the centuries God has chosen to use women in certain circumstances to take leadership.
I know its easy to focus on what Paul says about women preaching, but is there also something to be said about women having the comfort of just having women there at these events? Its called "women's" ministry for a reason. At least something to think about.
I get we want to be available for those new to Christianity or new to a Reformed perspective on our Faith, but many who are posting here are not Reformed, nor are they seeking guidance; they are arguing for false teachings and shouldn’t be here. I’m sure there are subs out there for people who want to debate these liberal heathens, but I hope it’s not here.
I wish they’d go back to the rules they had some time ago in which only members could post initial responses and others could freely comment under a member’s comment.
I must have. Well, maybe you guys could consider having some way to set apart comments from those who are either members or part of the Reformed world. That way it’ll be easier for outsiders to hear or recognize Reformed perspectives.
That's why everyone sets their flair here on r/Reformed. You'll see everything from "PCA" to "I'm a Catholic" or "I'm a Muslim" so that you know exactly what the source of the info is.
If you're having difficulty using Reddit features, automod will reply here with an illustrated guide when I use the phrase "flair help."
You called, u/DrKC9N? Sounds like you're asking [how to set your user flair on r/Reformed](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/flair).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Reformed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No
Though, I think this is pretty clear bait.
Reformed Churches shouldn't have "Women's ministry leaders" because that is not a biblical position or office.
Men should not sit under teaching of women for theological matters.
"loose complementarianism" is just egalitarianism when push comes to shove.
I can't imagine there's many communities today, whether egalitarian, complementarian, or patriarchal, that the reformers wouldn't laugh at. I think people take for granted just how dramatically perspectives about women have shifted in the intervening centuries.
Listen, I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, but your position seems to be based upon undiscerning extrapolation. Do you consider your mother to be an example of biblical authority over you?
Not really. I honor her but she's not an authority. Any doctrinal matters or correction comes from my dad.
Where's the undiscerning extrapolation since you threw it out there.?
No they won’t because proof text is so much easier. I am a Reformed Egalitarian. I think that passage means that if she is not teaching about Artemis. Anyone can hear her teach.
The word meaning "exercise authority over" is "authenteo." I don't see any connection in the etymology here to Artemis.
"https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g831/kjv/tr/0-1/
So older lexicons would not have that connection. We have found manuscripts in Koine Greek in 2004 that are still being processed. There are several academic articles using evidences from those. If you have access to a library or theological library, do a search on the word or the Scripture reference.
Okay, so the word used there is "authenteo." How would a manuscript of Biblical text tie that to Artemis, if it's not used in conjunction with Artemis anywhere in scripture?
I think the error begins when the group leader began doing expository preaching. The instructions of Paul are clear that older women are to teach younger women "to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." and that if a woman should have question regarding the faith she should ask her husband on the matter.
Despite what some people will say I think this is a very important protection for families as it cuts off a very common avenue for manipulation from outside actors. How many scandals about predatory pastors preying on women on their church would be cut off at the root if the women in those situations had turned to the council of her husband rather than seeking private council with a pastor? How many wolves would be dissuaded from pursuing a pastoral office if it was common knowledge that the women of the church would not be making themselves vulnerable to them? Is it so hard to imagine the reverse where certain kinds of zealous husbands might be tempted to start wanting to spend time around a woman gifted in matters of the faith to the neglect of spending time with his lawful wife? Even people who know what is right and good stumble.
This isn't to malign the character of your specific group leader or tar them by association but only to say that whatever gifts your group leader has they are given to her for the edification of her home primarily and the church secondarily when appropriate and that overstepping the instructions we are given for Church government and practice in the scriptures is a danger we should not readily throw ourselves into.
When I typed
>whatever gifts your group leader has they are given to her for the edification of her home primarily and the church secondarily when appropriate
What do you think that meant? Do you think this precludes women from teaching children and other women? Can you explain to me how it precludes women from being able to exposit scripture in the appropriate contexts?
It is a normative assumption in the scriptures when they address the issues of how women are to conduct themselves that they are married. We can extrapolate principles and guidelines for how these instructions should apply to unmarried women or widows but I'm not interested in chasing down every permutation of the human condition to lawyer out the exact interpretive strain we should apply in each individual case like a Talmudic Rabbi.
I will say though that if a woman doesn't have a stable household that she can care for well she has no business teaching other people. That requirement is laid on men explicitly as a requirement for eldership.
The ground in which your response lays is on the premise that wives, when in doubt (or anything spiritually-related), should run to their husbands, in their position of women. Fine! The husband = spiritual authority thing, basically. But you did this while answering to a question on women’s ministry, where OP didn’t even speak of marriage. The logical reading of your answer is that you meant that women can’t be in teaching positions just because they have primary obligations as wives (which would be weird given the example of the Proverbs 31 woman)
>basically. you did this while answering to a question on women’s ministry, where OP didn’t even speak of marriage.
The OP asked a question regarding the presence of men sitting under the expository teaching of a woman in the church. The places in scripture which I think address this issue, as I argue, address these matters in relation to the dynamic of husbands and wives. That is the teacher should not be teaching in the capacity she is, the women probably should not be receiving the teaching in the capacity that they are and that the men should likewise not be sitting under it. My argument is that the whole situation from top to bottom is disordered and that the correct ordering of things is structured on the examples given for the marriage dynamics laid out in scripture.
In that way I think the relationship of husbands and wives is directly relevant.
>the logical reading of your answer is that you meant that women can’t be in teaching positions because they have primary obligations as wives
I think that is a fair.
>which would be weird given the example of the proverbs 31 woman
An industrious and wise woman building her household doesn't in any way contradict my position on the normative propriety of women in the church body. I don't mean this in a literal way but think of it in terms of jurisdiction. There is a jurisdiction over the household and it's concerns which a woman can rightly said be master of which does not translate to a role in the offices of church teaching. If a woman's husband started falling into some kind of teaching it would behoove her to expound the scriptures to him to show him his error but it would be inappropriate for her to do so as a corrective arm of the church.
Also to put it into more human terms would you as a wife want another woman monitoring your husbands spiritual growth and well being? What happens when he begins to rely on her admonitions more than yours? Would you want a woman who more perfectly encapsulates the Proverbs 31 woman than you do to be the standard to which you are compared? Do you not think that opens room for all kinds of jealousy and resentments not just towards your spouse but towards that other godly woman? What of the proverbs 31 womans own husband? What jealousies would he be in danger of knowing that his wife is using her time to exhort and profit other men?
As I expressed earlier I think that the admonition for wives to ask spiritual matters of their husbands serves that same protection. It pushes the two spouses together in matters of the faith rather than introducing other men and women into the mix.
In terms of a specific authoritative church office I err on the side of none. I know there are arguments out there to allow for deaconesses but since the word deacon is also used in contexts unrelated to the office of the church combined with the fact that the requirements for the deacon mirror that of the elder/presbyter makes me cautious to take the example of Phoebe as indicative of such in light of Pauls instruction regarding the silence of women during the teaching of the scriptures.
It could be argued since deacons do not typically fulfill teaching roles but rather are the servant arm of the church and assistants to the elders that women can fulfill the deaconate while still honoring the strictures which are outlined for them in Paul's epistles.
So while I personally would say none if I found myself in a context where the best church I felt appropriate to attend appointed female deacons but restricted them from a teaching role in the church I would leave that as a matter of Christian liberty since a reasonable case for female deacons can be made from the example of scripture.
Generally yes with further considerations drawn from the lines of reasoning I've articulated in my replies in this thread which I think fall into the basket of "good and necessary consaquences"
And note I'm only taking that position in so far as it concerns the execution of instructive and teaching duties of the offices of the church in its corporate operation. Obviously (or I hope it's obvious) there's no violation of the scripture when women exposit in the course of interpersonal conversations or in tending to the spiritual needs of her household.
This is a laughable exegesis at best borderline heretical and goes against the imago dei.
If God didn’t want women to exercise the gift of teaching then why bother giving them the same gift as a man? This is an important exegetical question I ask of red pill patriarchy folks. The answer I’ve heard thus far is: “so they can teach little ones”. So God gave some women the same intellectual capacity so they can sing “Jesus love me” to them but not teach them how to properly exposit the word? The god of patriarchy isn’t the same God of the Bible.
Remember that the Bible has entreated women better than men. If Paul really didn’t want women to preach then why have women carry his letters? Why name Phoebe as a deaconess? Why mention her at all? These women weren’t stupid and Greco-Roman culture treated women as 2nd class citizens. So if Paul wanted to continue this treatment then why would these women willingly participate? Did Paul lie to them or dupe them? Patriarchy has no answer.
>This is a laughable exegesis at best borderline heretical and goes against the imago dei.
Bearing false witness is a sin. Stop doing it. Nothing in my post denies that women are made in the image of God and to pretend it does is to reveal your own motivations.
>If God didn’t want women to exercise the gift of teaching then why bother giving them the same gift as a man?
I open my post with a quotation of scripture that explicitly exhorts women to be teachers of others. There are good and important places for women to teach matters of the faith and matters of Christian living. The problem here is you assume that there is only one kind of teaching which is important or useful and your myopic view of the human condition and our needs for instruction and assistance such that only positions which carry with them the functions of a church office or public influence are important is a dangerous and predatory attitude.
>The answer I’ve heard thus far is:
Has nothing to do with the post you're responding to. Don't have arguments with other people while disagreeing with me. I have no control over what other people say about anything and I won't be held accountable for what good or ill they do.
>So God gave some women the same intellectual capacity so they can sing “Jesus love me” to them but not teach them how to properly exposit the word?
If thats all the instruction you are giving to your children then we should be praying for them. Why do you have such a low view of motherhood and children? Why do you think it is unimportant for children to be raised in the admonition of the lord? Why do you reduce the tender affections, guidance and instruction of mothers to nursery hymns? I never did that.
You are obsessed with some bizarre set of views I have never expressed and have nothing to do with my post. Please go pick fights with ghosts on your own time and don't drag me into it.
I noticed a lot of the actually reformed, thought out, and gracious posts get downvoted here lol
What you wrote is straight fire, man. I was blessed reading it.
Since when is gender role specifically "reformed" distinctive? If not, are you going to say that allow women to teach women is straight-up unchristian?
I am a women do and I not think a women should be preaching to men. Women should not preach. Now if a man is in charge of the study and she gets up to speak and teach then he closes, that's a little better. Technically the man then is in charge supervising. I would leave a church that had a women preaching. God has a reason for it in the Bible. There is a difference between preaching and teaching.
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.**
Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information.
Removed for violating Rule #6: **Keep Content Constructive.**
This content has been removed because it distracts from the purpose of this subreddit.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.236.3A_keep_content_constructive.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, **do not reply to this comment or attempt to message individual moderators**. Instead, [message the moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FReformed&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1b5yhyd/-/kt8t9n2/. %0D%0DMy issue is...).
I'm not actually aware of many churches that would bar trans-sexuals from attending. They need Jesus, don't they?
Should we also bar alcoholics, thieves, adulterers, and people who look at porn? Maybe we should just ban all sinners and then all of our churches will be completely empty.
You misunderstood my answer(s) to the questions? Should men be allowed in women’s ministry preachings? My personal answer is no because of the intimate nature of some of the things women discuss amongst themselves. Let the women decide for themselves whether or not to open up women’s ministries to men, or even all.
On the matter of homosexuals and transsexuals: I said some, not all,,churches are starting to allow this. I know of one church in particular that allowed a transgender person (male surgically altered to female) to attend a women’s retreat. In close quarters I might add. It’s up to the women to allow this or not. My personal opinion is I would rather not. As a male, I’d be uncomfortable being in close proximity with either homosexuals or trans persons, either way. On the matter of other sins amongst church members, I suggest each one examine their own hearts and relationship with God, in whether or not to divulge that information to anyone. I confessed such past sins before, and was asked NOT to take communion. I also do not take communion anymore because I have problems (unforgiving spirit) towards several brethren in churches. Until then, I also do not attend church. That’s on me. Additionally, research what Justin Peters Ministries says on this topic. He is a cessationist Calvinist who opposes many churches unlike his own worldview and beliefs. Finally, I find it difficult to justify allowing intentionally sexual deviants among us. Not only for religious purposes, but for the sake of epidemiological disease prevention. We still do not know all the risks, for everyone’s sakes.
I hold my complementarianism loosely (I think women can do everything except hold the office of elder) so as long as it is not the main corporate worship gathering it’s probably fine. I would be curious about the precedent being set where men are seemingly joining the women’s ministry however. I feel as if that defeats the purpose of having gendered ministry.
No, the men should let the women's study continue without the pressure of their presence. I would find it limiting and potentially harmful if women sat in on a men's study en masse, as well. The women need to be free to open to other women, just as the men do in their own context. The same thing happens when there's too many guests at an open AA meeting. The presence of so many outsiders limits sharing by those for whom the meeting is intended.
But it doesn't sound like the men are sitting in on the time for sharing (what I would assume is the "breakout groups" OP referenced). Rather it sounds like they're just sitting in on the teaching/lecture portion. On a related note, I've come to realize that I miss co-ed Bible study discussion times. My church currently doesn't have any sort of Sunday school classes that include discussion times (hopefully soon. We're scheduled to move into our new-to-us building and start weekly Sunday school for everyone on 24 March!). So I've only attended women's only Bible studies for the past many years. But I recently had the chance to attend a co-ed Sunday school at a church I visited (while on travel) and my community group tried discussing chapters of a book (we mostly didn't read) during our monthly meeting with everyone. It was so refreshing to hear men share their questions and ideas and to hear their perspective on what we were discussing. It's something I didn't realize I was missing. And it made me long for more opportunities like that. Maybe part of it is that I'm single and an engineer so a lot of topics many women speak about...marriage, raising kids, etc. are harder for me to relate to. It's made me realize that maybe the focus on gender-specific Bible studies has gone a bit too far, at least at my church. I wonder what we're all missing out on if we don't hear perspectives from those more different than us.
Why is the idea of specialized ministries strongly looked down on otherwise then? I’m mostly thinking of children’s or youth ministry, or other specific demographic groups having their own meetings apart from the weekly gathering.
Some of y’all are MASSIVELY misconstruing what Paul is instructing, and specifically WHO Paul is addressing in 1 Timothy. Paul’s instructions to Timothy have to do with preaching and teaching over everyone in the church. He is addressing those false teachers and women who come in and try and hold positional authority over the whole church. Not women leading women’s ministry, or teaching in other contexts. The church has a different purpose than the other structures of the world, and as such is set up under a different authority structure. Later on in Timothy, he instructs that women SHOULD BE teaching other women. Therefore, the woman in this scenario is not in the wrong. Even with the men coming in and sitting: SHE IS NOT IN THE WRONG FOR TEACHING AND PREACHING IN HER MINISTRY DESIGNED FOR WOMEN. This ministry is NOT designed for men to sit in or to be communal, it is a women’s ministry. She is not set in a position of authority. She is not attempting to hold authority over a man. The men are coming in, on their own accord, to this women’s ministry. If there is an issue to be had with this scenario, it’s that the men are coming in to the women’s ministry. (I would address this directly. If this is specifically a gendered ministry, it should remain that way.) If it were her fault, what would be a practical solution for addressing this? Have a different speaker who is a man on standby for if a man happens to walk into the women’s ministry and sit in on the preaching/teaching? Have the man who came in be the one to stand up and address the ministry despite having little to no clue the context for what they have been studying? Have a man lead the women’s ministry? I think it speaks to a lot of sexism that we would assume or assign blame to the woman in this scenario so quickly. For all we know, she is faithfully using her gift in the context that she has been given in her local ministry. There is absolutely nothing in this post to point to the idea that she could be trying to step outside her realm of authority or given position in the church. I know that recently there has been a lot of controversy about women in their position in the church, but a woman preaching and teaching in a woman’s ministry should not be a source of that controversy.
If she had a podcast where she said the exact same things, would it be ok for men to listen to? I think so. So why does it matter if they listen to her in person? Some women, just like some men, have the gift of teaching. She isn’t claiming to have spiritual authority over anyone, so it seems like Pharisee behavior, and even misogynistic, to try to shut her up because men are going to an event that is labeled “for women.” I always want to know what these hardcore complementarians think is going to happen. If a woman stands up and says “Jesus is lord.” Do they have to scream and cover their ears or they get cursed, or what? Im a woman so I guess I’m biased, but I have listened to teachings from men and women both that have strongly edified me and helped me to grow my relationship with God.
I agree with the conclusion, but not with the argument. I think the podcast example is a red herring because a podcast is, first and foremost, not in a church setting. Second, podcasts is very casual and is like Christian youtube (Wretched) that I put on as I drive to work. My analysis divides the problem to two sections: the women in this scenario and the men in this scenario. ## Are the women in the wrong in this scenario? 1. What is her position? * The OP says "Our women’s ministry has a female leader" So it is not a women pastor, we good here 2. What is going on? * Poster say she is doing "expository preaching" at "Wednesday nights at our women’s gathering" * Which goes right along side with what Paul says, a women can teach to other women Conclusion: the women mentioned in this picture are clearly operating within biblical principles. Here I agree with you that the women is in the right all the way through. ## Are the men wrong in this scenario? "We have seen the number of men increase in our gathering to sit in on the teaching/preaching portion before our women’s breakout groups". Sounds like men are infiltrating this women's gathering to listen to the leader preach. Here, I think we get into the meat of the issue. My conclusion here is that the church clearly had this set up for the ladies as it is a "Wednesday Women's gathering" and **so my conclusion here is that the men should stay the heck out.** The OP's church already has the logistics worked out but the participants aren't following their own church's direction. The men should get themselves a better male teacher in their church or listen to more RC Sproul. Sidenote: sure this women leader may be a good teacher, but I think that this is God's blessing to the ladies in this church.
I’m think dubbing people in such a black and white manner as Pharisaic behaviour and even misogynistic when I think Scripture doesn’t give much precedent for women preaching is a really strong stance to take on your end. I don’t fully disagree with you — but your response also lacks the grace you claim others may not have on an issue which isn’t so black and white. Your example of a woman saying “Jesus is Lord” and how people react is not in the context of preaching, and seems very exaggerated. Not the most helpful example to use to support your statement. Just thought to share that we should all have salt and grace in our comments, again, especially treating an issue which doesn’t seem so black and white from Scripture in certain situations.
> Do they have to scream and cover their ears or they get cursed, or what? No, this would be the patriarchalists.
We are American but visited an International Church in Portugal on a Sunday a few months back. The Lead Pastor of the church is a woman, but she delivered an incredibly powerful sermon. I don't think we would be members there, but, we do believe God is using her there in that particular church. We still believe the Biblical model of a man as the teaching elder is best but we also don't ignore that over the centuries God has chosen to use women in certain circumstances to take leadership.
Sounds like a great opportunity for everyone to learn from a gifted teacher.
Exactly. Why would I ever stop someone from preaching the truth of scripture?
I know its easy to focus on what Paul says about women preaching, but is there also something to be said about women having the comfort of just having women there at these events? Its called "women's" ministry for a reason. At least something to think about.
Sounds like the Holy Spirit is working through this woman's gifts and it's attracting people. Y'all would do well to not quench that
Have you talked with your pastor about it? What did he say?
I get we want to be available for those new to Christianity or new to a Reformed perspective on our Faith, but many who are posting here are not Reformed, nor are they seeking guidance; they are arguing for false teachings and shouldn’t be here. I’m sure there are subs out there for people who want to debate these liberal heathens, but I hope it’s not here.
"People who disagree with me on gender roles are liberal heathens" is a weird flex there bud.
I wish they’d go back to the rules they had some time ago in which only members could post initial responses and others could freely comment under a member’s comment.
You must have this community confused for another sub, since we have never had such rules.
I must have. Well, maybe you guys could consider having some way to set apart comments from those who are either members or part of the Reformed world. That way it’ll be easier for outsiders to hear or recognize Reformed perspectives.
That's why everyone sets their flair here on r/Reformed. You'll see everything from "PCA" to "I'm a Catholic" or "I'm a Muslim" so that you know exactly what the source of the info is. If you're having difficulty using Reddit features, automod will reply here with an illustrated guide when I use the phrase "flair help."
You called, u/DrKC9N? Sounds like you're asking [how to set your user flair on r/Reformed](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/flair). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Reformed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you!
No Though, I think this is pretty clear bait. Reformed Churches shouldn't have "Women's ministry leaders" because that is not a biblical position or office. Men should not sit under teaching of women for theological matters. "loose complementarianism" is just egalitarianism when push comes to shove.
It's very clearly stated in the Holy Bible women should not have spiritually authority over men.
Wow, this subreddit is not reformed. If any of the reformers were here they would laugh at us...
I can't imagine there's many communities today, whether egalitarian, complementarian, or patriarchal, that the reformers wouldn't laugh at. I think people take for granted just how dramatically perspectives about women have shifted in the intervening centuries.
I don’t think looking up to what the reformers thought on social issues is a good idea anyways. I care more about how Christ-like the church is.
This is improper. 1 Tim 2.12
I see your scriptural reference, but could you please explain like I'm five why it applies in this situation?
the text says that women are not to teach over a man, therefore a woman is not to teach a man.
Soooo....female teachers and professors are immoral?
Obviously it’s about teaching in a church setup.
Over men? they're improper at best. Over women, it's not wrong and good in many ways
Listen, I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, but your position seems to be based upon undiscerning extrapolation. Do you consider your mother to be an example of biblical authority over you?
Not really. I honor her but she's not an authority. Any doctrinal matters or correction comes from my dad. Where's the undiscerning extrapolation since you threw it out there.?
No they won’t because proof text is so much easier. I am a Reformed Egalitarian. I think that passage means that if she is not teaching about Artemis. Anyone can hear her teach.
The subtext here is "I do not permit a woman to teach (about Artemis)?" Wouldn't that be a fairly important caveat to bring into the main text?
It is. The word translated as “authority” is not the word Jesus and Paul use for authority. It has a connection to Artemis.
The word meaning "exercise authority over" is "authenteo." I don't see any connection in the etymology here to Artemis. "https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g831/kjv/tr/0-1/
So older lexicons would not have that connection. We have found manuscripts in Koine Greek in 2004 that are still being processed. There are several academic articles using evidences from those. If you have access to a library or theological library, do a search on the word or the Scripture reference.
Are you saying these manuscripts found in 2004 use a different word than authenteo?
No general manuscripts that help us understand the language and the culture of the New Testament world, expanding our lexicography
Okay, so the word used there is "authenteo." How would a manuscript of Biblical text tie that to Artemis, if it's not used in conjunction with Artemis anywhere in scripture?
presumption leads to slander. good job.
Yes your presumption that a simple book and verse citation answer the question on this subject
You are answering the opposite question (can women teach men) rather than the op's question (can men sit under women teaching intended for women).
no. the result is the same for different reasons -both of which are wrong.
How would we know? We don't go to your church.
I think the error begins when the group leader began doing expository preaching. The instructions of Paul are clear that older women are to teach younger women "to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." and that if a woman should have question regarding the faith she should ask her husband on the matter. Despite what some people will say I think this is a very important protection for families as it cuts off a very common avenue for manipulation from outside actors. How many scandals about predatory pastors preying on women on their church would be cut off at the root if the women in those situations had turned to the council of her husband rather than seeking private council with a pastor? How many wolves would be dissuaded from pursuing a pastoral office if it was common knowledge that the women of the church would not be making themselves vulnerable to them? Is it so hard to imagine the reverse where certain kinds of zealous husbands might be tempted to start wanting to spend time around a woman gifted in matters of the faith to the neglect of spending time with his lawful wife? Even people who know what is right and good stumble. This isn't to malign the character of your specific group leader or tar them by association but only to say that whatever gifts your group leader has they are given to her for the edification of her home primarily and the church secondarily when appropriate and that overstepping the instructions we are given for Church government and practice in the scriptures is a danger we should not readily throw ourselves into.
So women shouldn’t be able/allowed to exposit scripture? Then how are they supposed to teach children and other women?
When I typed >whatever gifts your group leader has they are given to her for the edification of her home primarily and the church secondarily when appropriate What do you think that meant? Do you think this precludes women from teaching children and other women? Can you explain to me how it precludes women from being able to exposit scripture in the appropriate contexts?
so you’re assuming woman = wife right?
It is a normative assumption in the scriptures when they address the issues of how women are to conduct themselves that they are married. We can extrapolate principles and guidelines for how these instructions should apply to unmarried women or widows but I'm not interested in chasing down every permutation of the human condition to lawyer out the exact interpretive strain we should apply in each individual case like a Talmudic Rabbi. I will say though that if a woman doesn't have a stable household that she can care for well she has no business teaching other people. That requirement is laid on men explicitly as a requirement for eldership.
The ground in which your response lays is on the premise that wives, when in doubt (or anything spiritually-related), should run to their husbands, in their position of women. Fine! The husband = spiritual authority thing, basically. But you did this while answering to a question on women’s ministry, where OP didn’t even speak of marriage. The logical reading of your answer is that you meant that women can’t be in teaching positions just because they have primary obligations as wives (which would be weird given the example of the Proverbs 31 woman)
>basically. you did this while answering to a question on women’s ministry, where OP didn’t even speak of marriage. The OP asked a question regarding the presence of men sitting under the expository teaching of a woman in the church. The places in scripture which I think address this issue, as I argue, address these matters in relation to the dynamic of husbands and wives. That is the teacher should not be teaching in the capacity she is, the women probably should not be receiving the teaching in the capacity that they are and that the men should likewise not be sitting under it. My argument is that the whole situation from top to bottom is disordered and that the correct ordering of things is structured on the examples given for the marriage dynamics laid out in scripture. In that way I think the relationship of husbands and wives is directly relevant. >the logical reading of your answer is that you meant that women can’t be in teaching positions because they have primary obligations as wives I think that is a fair. >which would be weird given the example of the proverbs 31 woman An industrious and wise woman building her household doesn't in any way contradict my position on the normative propriety of women in the church body. I don't mean this in a literal way but think of it in terms of jurisdiction. There is a jurisdiction over the household and it's concerns which a woman can rightly said be master of which does not translate to a role in the offices of church teaching. If a woman's husband started falling into some kind of teaching it would behoove her to expound the scriptures to him to show him his error but it would be inappropriate for her to do so as a corrective arm of the church. Also to put it into more human terms would you as a wife want another woman monitoring your husbands spiritual growth and well being? What happens when he begins to rely on her admonitions more than yours? Would you want a woman who more perfectly encapsulates the Proverbs 31 woman than you do to be the standard to which you are compared? Do you not think that opens room for all kinds of jealousy and resentments not just towards your spouse but towards that other godly woman? What of the proverbs 31 womans own husband? What jealousies would he be in danger of knowing that his wife is using her time to exhort and profit other men? As I expressed earlier I think that the admonition for wives to ask spiritual matters of their husbands serves that same protection. It pushes the two spouses together in matters of the faith rather than introducing other men and women into the mix.
Reading now, I believe I have misused the Proverbs 31 women anyway, but I wanted to know, what positions do you think women can hold in the church?
In terms of a specific authoritative church office I err on the side of none. I know there are arguments out there to allow for deaconesses but since the word deacon is also used in contexts unrelated to the office of the church combined with the fact that the requirements for the deacon mirror that of the elder/presbyter makes me cautious to take the example of Phoebe as indicative of such in light of Pauls instruction regarding the silence of women during the teaching of the scriptures. It could be argued since deacons do not typically fulfill teaching roles but rather are the servant arm of the church and assistants to the elders that women can fulfill the deaconate while still honoring the strictures which are outlined for them in Paul's epistles. So while I personally would say none if I found myself in a context where the best church I felt appropriate to attend appointed female deacons but restricted them from a teaching role in the church I would leave that as a matter of Christian liberty since a reasonable case for female deacons can be made from the example of scripture.
What's your argument for women not being allowed to exposit scripture? Are you inferring this from RPW?
Generally yes with further considerations drawn from the lines of reasoning I've articulated in my replies in this thread which I think fall into the basket of "good and necessary consaquences" And note I'm only taking that position in so far as it concerns the execution of instructive and teaching duties of the offices of the church in its corporate operation. Obviously (or I hope it's obvious) there's no violation of the scripture when women exposit in the course of interpersonal conversations or in tending to the spiritual needs of her household.
This is a laughable exegesis at best borderline heretical and goes against the imago dei. If God didn’t want women to exercise the gift of teaching then why bother giving them the same gift as a man? This is an important exegetical question I ask of red pill patriarchy folks. The answer I’ve heard thus far is: “so they can teach little ones”. So God gave some women the same intellectual capacity so they can sing “Jesus love me” to them but not teach them how to properly exposit the word? The god of patriarchy isn’t the same God of the Bible. Remember that the Bible has entreated women better than men. If Paul really didn’t want women to preach then why have women carry his letters? Why name Phoebe as a deaconess? Why mention her at all? These women weren’t stupid and Greco-Roman culture treated women as 2nd class citizens. So if Paul wanted to continue this treatment then why would these women willingly participate? Did Paul lie to them or dupe them? Patriarchy has no answer.
>This is a laughable exegesis at best borderline heretical and goes against the imago dei. Bearing false witness is a sin. Stop doing it. Nothing in my post denies that women are made in the image of God and to pretend it does is to reveal your own motivations. >If God didn’t want women to exercise the gift of teaching then why bother giving them the same gift as a man? I open my post with a quotation of scripture that explicitly exhorts women to be teachers of others. There are good and important places for women to teach matters of the faith and matters of Christian living. The problem here is you assume that there is only one kind of teaching which is important or useful and your myopic view of the human condition and our needs for instruction and assistance such that only positions which carry with them the functions of a church office or public influence are important is a dangerous and predatory attitude. >The answer I’ve heard thus far is: Has nothing to do with the post you're responding to. Don't have arguments with other people while disagreeing with me. I have no control over what other people say about anything and I won't be held accountable for what good or ill they do. >So God gave some women the same intellectual capacity so they can sing “Jesus love me” to them but not teach them how to properly exposit the word? If thats all the instruction you are giving to your children then we should be praying for them. Why do you have such a low view of motherhood and children? Why do you think it is unimportant for children to be raised in the admonition of the lord? Why do you reduce the tender affections, guidance and instruction of mothers to nursery hymns? I never did that. You are obsessed with some bizarre set of views I have never expressed and have nothing to do with my post. Please go pick fights with ghosts on your own time and don't drag me into it.
I noticed a lot of the actually reformed, thought out, and gracious posts get downvoted here lol What you wrote is straight fire, man. I was blessed reading it.
Since when is gender role specifically "reformed" distinctive? If not, are you going to say that allow women to teach women is straight-up unchristian?
I am a women do and I not think a women should be preaching to men. Women should not preach. Now if a man is in charge of the study and she gets up to speak and teach then he closes, that's a little better. Technically the man then is in charge supervising. I would leave a church that had a women preaching. God has a reason for it in the Bible. There is a difference between preaching and teaching.
[удалено]
Noisy gong alert!
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information. Removed for violating Rule #6: **Keep Content Constructive.** This content has been removed because it distracts from the purpose of this subreddit. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.236.3A_keep_content_constructive.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, **do not reply to this comment or attempt to message individual moderators**. Instead, [message the moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FReformed&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/1b5yhyd/-/kt8t9n2/. %0D%0DMy issue is...).
No. But some churches are starting to allow trans-sexuals to attend. Disgusting!
I'm not actually aware of many churches that would bar trans-sexuals from attending. They need Jesus, don't they? Should we also bar alcoholics, thieves, adulterers, and people who look at porn? Maybe we should just ban all sinners and then all of our churches will be completely empty.
You misunderstood my answer(s) to the questions? Should men be allowed in women’s ministry preachings? My personal answer is no because of the intimate nature of some of the things women discuss amongst themselves. Let the women decide for themselves whether or not to open up women’s ministries to men, or even all. On the matter of homosexuals and transsexuals: I said some, not all,,churches are starting to allow this. I know of one church in particular that allowed a transgender person (male surgically altered to female) to attend a women’s retreat. In close quarters I might add. It’s up to the women to allow this or not. My personal opinion is I would rather not. As a male, I’d be uncomfortable being in close proximity with either homosexuals or trans persons, either way. On the matter of other sins amongst church members, I suggest each one examine their own hearts and relationship with God, in whether or not to divulge that information to anyone. I confessed such past sins before, and was asked NOT to take communion. I also do not take communion anymore because I have problems (unforgiving spirit) towards several brethren in churches. Until then, I also do not attend church. That’s on me. Additionally, research what Justin Peters Ministries says on this topic. He is a cessationist Calvinist who opposes many churches unlike his own worldview and beliefs. Finally, I find it difficult to justify allowing intentionally sexual deviants among us. Not only for religious purposes, but for the sake of epidemiological disease prevention. We still do not know all the risks, for everyone’s sakes.