Is it OK for women to preach?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Obviously option 1, though of course if the condition in option 3 applies, it's a huge plus. That seems to apply to the vast majority of women who have preached at my church too thankfully.

I'm the opposite of Bushie in that I would never join a church that did not allow this. Ever.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Bible is clear enough that even in Old Testament times that women could be prophets, so it makes no sense that they would later be banned from preaching.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The Bible is clear enough that even in Old Testament times that women could be prophets, so it makes no sense that they would later be banned from preaching.

It's from a misinterpretation of Paul's writings applying them to all time, which is equivalent to someone 2000 years in the future reading the archives determining that every resident of Bakersfield, CA is a troll.

[DC Al Fine]

I would say no. Prophets have a different role than preachers. I think women deacons are acceptable though.

[opebo]

No.  I also don't like it when they nag.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, of course.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm going to go out on a limb (and upset my own church) when I say yes.

[memphis]

Paul was pretty clear that he thought women should shut the fudge up. Doesn't hurt my feeling any.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Paul was pretty clear that he thought women should shut the fudge up. Doesn't hurt my feeling any.

No, he was saying that women should study and become educated and that only educated people should have leadership roles. At the time that did not include women.

[The Mikado]

It's not like there weren't prominent women lay preachers for pretty much the entirety of Christianity, even at the times they couldn't be clergy.  Nathan's brought up Margery Kempe here before, but she's worth pointing out, and anyone who's ever read a history book by E. P. Thompson has had the name Joanna Southcott drilled into his brain.

Many women had to rely on claims of personal revelations/divine visitations in order to get legitimacy as a way of circumventing the Church (or, after the Reformation, churches) hierarchy.  The local priest might be respectable, but Jenny the spinning maid saw the Virgin appear with her own eyes.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

The local priest might be respectable, but Jenny the spinning maid saw the Virgin appear with her own eyes.

This is one of the best sentences I've read on this forum.

Mad female mystics are a hill I'll gladly at the very least get grievously wounded on.

[DemPGH]

I really don't know why not. Same DNA, same brain, closely comparable number of neurons. In fact, women may make better preachers than men because women tend to excel at empathy, generally more so than men.

In the early Bronze Age, however, men sought to control both knowledge and society, and religion was essentially all of their self-granted authority. So any prescriptions against women in religion stand on these grounds, IMO.

[memphis]

Paul was pretty clear that he thought women should shut the fudge up. Doesn't hurt my feeling any.

No, he was saying that women should study and become educated and that only educated people should have leadership roles. At the time that did not include women.

If he wanted to say what you just said he would have said that. Applying modern gernder egalistarianistm to a 1st century Middle Eastern guy is pretty silly. Here's what Paul said.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If 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."[1 Cor. 14:34–35]


A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."[1 Tim. 2:11-12]

Now I permit a woman neither to teach nor exercise authority over a man, but let her be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived [when he sinned]; but the woman, having [first] been thoroughly deceived, became [involved] in the transgression [of Adam], and she will be saved by the Child-bearing [i.e., the bearing of Jesus Christ], if they abide in faith, and love and sanctification with self-restraint."[1 Tim. 2:12–15]

[useful idiot]

Paul was pretty clear that he thought women should shut the fudge up. Doesn't hurt my feeling any.

No, he was saying that women should study and become educated and that only educated people should have leadership roles. At the time that did not include women.

If he wanted to say what you just said he would have said that. Applying modern gernder egalistarianistm to a 1st century Middle Eastern guy is pretty silly. Here's what Paul said.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If 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."[1 Cor. 14:34–35]


A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."[1 Tim. 2:11-12]

Now I permit a woman neither to teach nor exercise authority over a man, but let her be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived [when he sinned]; but the woman, having [first] been thoroughly deceived, became [involved] in the transgression [of Adam], and she will be saved by the Child-bearing [i.e., the bearing of Jesus Christ], if they abide in faith, and love and sanctification with self-restraint."[1 Tim. 2:12–15]

That verse from 1 Corinthians is most likely a later interpolation in the text. Even if not, Paul writes of women speaking in church several chapters earlier, going to show that you can't necessarily take it at face value and make it normative for the church at all times. If he wrote it then it was almost certainly addressing a specific problem in Corinth. An appeal to the Law at this point would be fairly uncharacteristic of Paul anyway.

The second two quotes are the same passage, nice how you tried to pass them off as two instances. Submission is something Paul, and the rest of the NT, commends to all Christians, not just women, including those in authority. We are all under some authority to which we should submit, including the governmental authority placed above us that we see a few verses earlier in 1 Tim 2. From the Christian perspective submission isn't a bad thing. But getting to the point, the words used for man and woman can also mean husband and wife, and the verb translated either "have," "assume," or "usurp" has almost violent implications. What seems to be the case is that there were women in the church causing division and trying to take authority from church leaders without the proper education or qualifications.

Leaving aside questions about Pauline authorship of the Pastoral letters, we'll assume it's Paul for the sake of argument. What Paul is addressing is a specific problem, which must be read in light of general principles. In Galatians 3:28 Paul gives us the general principle: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Therefore gender role distinction might be necessary in a certain cultural setting, in order to further the work of the church, but it's not the ideal.

We see in Romans 16 that women did hold prominent positions in the early church, such as the deacon Phoebe and Junia, a woman Paul refers to as an apostle (probably a missionary). Priscilla taught a man, Apollos, alongside her husband. This shows that in instances where division wasn't being caused by women, they were fully able to conduct ministry on the basis of their giftedness for it.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I'm going to go out on a limb (and upset my own church) when I say yes.

Wait your church is not OK with this? That makes no sense considering it was founded by a woman.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm going to go out on a limb (and upset my own church) when I say yes.

Wait your church is not OK with this? That makes no sense considering it was founded by a woman.

Actually, it was co-founded by one.  According to Guide, the weekly magazine that the Junior and Teen Sabbath school lessons are published in, refers to Ellen White as the "nineteenth-century inspired writer and church co-founder."  And here are some articles about this topic:

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1995/April/the-rise-and-fall-of-adventist-women-in-leadership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology#Other_doctrinal_issues

I am certainly much more of a Progressive Adventist, as I disagree with my church on this (and many other issues, the most important of which being the Mark of the Beast).  That's also why I could never be in Adventist clergy or a Sabbath school teacher: any church would form an angry mob and drive me out with torches and pitchforks for believing some of the things I believe.

[dead0man]

Sure, but not if the congregation doesn't want it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I am certainly much more of a Progressive Adventist, as I disagree with my church on this (and many other issues, the most important of which being the Mark of the Beast).  That's also why I could never be in Adventist clergy or a Sabbath school teacher: any church would form an angry mob and drive me out with torches and pitchforks for believing some of the things I believe.

Perhaps you should consider the Seventh Day Baptists.  They're Sabbatarian, but they aren't Adventist (and predate Ellen White) and are like traditional Baptists (of the non-Southern Baptist variety) in that they leave most doctrinal issues to individual believers to decide, so unless you consider the investigative judgement or some other distinctive feature of Adventist theology important to you, they might be a better fit for your beliefs.

[hillbilly32]

No Woman should never be allowed to preach. If my church the Southern Baptist church allows this in my local area I will consider leaving the church but I am not saying I will.

[Incipimus iterum]

Yes, of course.

[useful idiot]

No Woman should never be allowed to preach. If my church the Southern Baptist church allows this in my local area I will consider leaving the church but I am not saying I will.

Alright this is silly. First of all, if you're a Southern Baptist, you should know there is no such thing as "the Southern Baptist church," let alone one that allows or disallows certain congregational practices in "areas".

The largest SBC state agencies in Virginia and Texas, accounting for about 7,000 Southern Baptist churches, both institutionally affirm women in all areas of ministry, in defiance of the wrong position of the national organization. However, like the national convention, they are voluntary organizations with which a church can choose to affiliate. Nobody can dictate what a local congregation's policy on women is or whom it calls as its pastor.

[7,052,770]

Yes, of course.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Yes, of course.

Then why are you Catholic?

[patrick1]

Yes, of course.

Then why are you Catholic?

I don't think you have a depth or nuanced view of actual Catholic beliefs and doctrine. The priesthood is not by any means considered to be the sole expression of a Catholic life. There are plenty of roles and examples of women leading communities as examples of Christ.  The laity also are supposed to live and preach.

Check out Chapters IV and V for concepts on this and universal calls to holiness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_Gentium

Now of course you and Harry for that matter are open to disagree on matters of ordination,  but it is not as simplistic as you are making it out to be- as usual.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Yes, of course.

Then why are you Catholic?

I don't think you have a depth or nuanced view of actual Catholic beliefs and doctrine. The priesthood is not by any means considered to be the sole expression of a Catholic life. There are plenty of roles and examples of women leading communities as examples of Christ.  The laity also are supposed to live and preach.

Check out Chapters IV and V for concepts on this and universal calls to holiness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_Gentium

Now of course you and Harry for that matter are open to disagree on matters of ordination,  but it is not as simplistic as you are making it out to be- as usual.

I am aware of a lot of that. However that does not change the fact that because of this the leadership and hierarchy will be all male, and it becomes a literal patriarchy (I say literal because the term is quite abused by radical feminists, but it really applies here.) I'm not going to make the fallacy of arguing this is also the reason for the church's rather backwards positions on reproductive health and sexuality as I know that plenty of women hold the same positions, but it's a fundamental problem.

A girl giving a sermon at my church once mentioned how when she was near finishing high school she asked in her childhood church (Protestant but quite conservative) about how she could take any type of leadership roles after college. They basically told her "No you can't be a pastor of any type because you're a woman. But you can assist with a role in the children's ministry." Now I'm sure whoever said that was quite polite and well-meaning and all, but she took it pretty harshly and frankly who could blame her? If this happened in a normal job when inquiring about promotions there'd be a lawsuit coming. It's so blatantly unfair that I can't adhere to any type of standard that tolerates it, and thus I would never voluntarily affiliate with any organization even in the loosest sense possible that endorses the position under any circumstances.