woman evanglist

greenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread

To whom it may concer. I would like to find out if you have woman evanglist in the minstry at your church or if you belive in woman in the minstry and if so where would I be able to find a sermon.

THANK YOU EVANGLIST: HELEN LOTT

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

Answers

Helen,

While we do believe that there are many viable ministries for women within are churches, we also believe that the Scriptures expressly forbid women from serving in some areas......some of those areas being Preacher or Evangelist, Elder, or teacher of adult males. This is based on several scriptures, notably I Tim. 2:12-15; I Tim 3:2,12; and Titus 1:6.

As far as finding sermons on-line, there are a multitude of them out there. Do a web search on "sermons" or "preaching helps" and you'll find a ton of them. Just don't accept all that you find as "gospel", if you search the Scriptures, you'll find that many of them are nothing more than spiritual trash............but you can find some good illustrations in them on occasion.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001


Helen,

There is no "we" around here (except for E.Lee I guess), you will find posters in this forum from all theological persuasions...

But I think I speak for most when I say that I would not persuade any person, male or female, to consider becoming an evangelist before first gaining at least some mastery of the english language.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

If by "evangelist" you mean the "eastern" meaning of the person who gives the sermons on Sunday morning, then I would stand with my brethren and say that it was Scripturally inappropriate. However if by "evangelist" you mean that you are going out and spreading the Good News among the unsaved, then I am all for that and I see several instances in Scripture (Priscilla notably) where women have done that, as I think to some extent it is every Christian's job.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

There are two reasons given in I Timothy 2 for women not allowed to teach (which you are supposed to do when you preach) or have authority over a man (and there is quite a bit of authority that goes with the territory of evangelist).

Many claim the prohibition against women is cultural. SInce Paul gave us two reasons for the prohibition we can safely assume that if his reasons have changed then the prohibition has changed. What were the reasons? 1. Woman was created for man from man, and 2. It was the woman who was deceived at the Fall. These reasons, whether you like them or not, have not changed. Therefore, like it or not, neither has the prohibition.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001


John,

I believe that the fact she is looking for sermons tells you what she means by evangelist.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001



Hi Helen,

Try Sermon Central or my site at: Pastor's Helper

(2 Tim 4:2) Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001


(Noting that those instructions were given to a male evangelist ...)

-- Anonymous, November 23, 2001

Hi John,

You wrote: (Noting that those instructions were given to a male evangelist ...)

Noting also that these words were written to Timothy, does that mean they only apply to him?

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001


From your perspective, John, male evangelist would be a redundant phrase, would it not?

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

Here's a question I posed to my non-instramentalist brother here in Indiana, when the discussion on women's ministry came up at a ministers meeting (yes, attended by all men). Here's two situations:

1. A woman is standing at the front of the auditorium on a Wednesday night, teaching a mixed class (men and women) from the Bible, and teaching on Bible things.

2. A woman is seated in the Wednesday Bible class, with an elder at the front of the auditorium, teaching a mixed class (men and women) from the Bible, and teadhing on Bible things. The elder asks for input from the audience, and the woman shares some insights about the passage being studied.

Is there a difference? The woman is certainly teaching, she is just not THE teacher. There are men (and at least one elder) in the room, and if they listen to her, are they not learning from her.

This is not a question of authority, since the elder asked for input, but a question on the "women teaching men" concept.

Is it just the appearance of teaching, which would "outlaw" a woman from standing at the front of the auditorium, assuming a "teaching positon?"

When I posed this to my non-instrument brother evangelist, he said it was something he struggled with, but had no answer for.

Any ideas or thoughts?

And no, this is not just a question for the non/anti-intrumentalists out there, but something we struggle with in ALL our congregations, to one degree or another.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001



The difference is one of authority. In the first situation you have the woman in charge of the class and in the second the input is going thru the teacher.

Regardless of the reasons or how we think about it, the command is that they are not to teach or have authority. They can/are to teach other women. There were female prophets in the early Church, women prayed in the early Church and the issue of authority is never brought up in the Scriptures. Some would have women completely silent, but this goes against what we see in the NT.

I get a chuckle out of those who say that women should not lead singing or sing a special for that is teaching. Read George Faull's article on women prophecying, it was always thru singing that they did so, and this had God's blessing. Singing is not teaching - it is singing.

Anyway, although you said the issue in not one of authority, that is exactly what the issue is.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001


So, it is alright for a woman to teach men, so long as she doesn't take the physical position of authority, or take the authority from the men/leaders/elders in the congregation.

For instance, a woman might be at the head of the room, teaching, provided an elder or other man was there with her?

Once church we served at had some folks who, when Kathy wanted to sing a special, would have been much happier had I or another man stood next to her on the platform ... and she was NEVER to stand behind the pulpit, as if the furniture itself gave authority.

So if a woman sings, it is not for teaching through edification, through her singing?

Yeah -- a lot of quesitons here, but it's interesting that you link the teaching and authority issues together. I have always thought of them as two distinct issues, though they could be linked together.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001


Duane: No, it wouldn't be redundant in the looser sense of the word, someone who spreads the good news. But in the sense of the word that most in the east seem to use it, yes, it would be a bit redundant.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

The Greek word andros in 1 Timothy 2:12, translated "man," may also be translated "husband." A wife, then, is not to instruct or rule over her husband. This does not rule out a teaching ministry for women, but in the case of married women, that ministry comes under the protection and direction of their respective husbands (Acts 18:26). In other words, a woman should give careful consideration to her husband's leadership in the teaching responsibilities she assumes within the church, not because of essential inferiority or inadequate intellectual faculties for reasoning and decision making but as a means of avoiding confusion and maintaining orderliness. The N.T. clearly shows that women played a prominent role in the development of the church in the first century. This obviously included prophecy and prayer (1 Cor. 11:5), teaching (Titus 2:4, 5), personal instruction (Acts 18:26), testimony (John 4:28, 29), and hospitality (Acts 12:12).

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001

Darrell,

If a woman gives input, as stated in your example, she is not teaching in the sense she is leading the lesson nor the authoritaive figure in the class. If she, or anyone else, gives bad input it is the responsibility of the teacher to correct, or if good input, to then make application. The authority rests upon the teacher either way you look at it.

And edification may come in many different forms. The Scriptures do not say a woman cannot edify. Singing is singing and teaching is teaching. Like so many other things, if Kathy standing behind a pulpit while singing is a stumbling block, dont do it and teach later. Different people have different ideas, some good some bad, some just plain weird.

Barry's point about andros (aner) is one I'll have to look at. The word means "man" but given the context may be "husband." This context would seem to allow either. Anthropos woud not have been used for that is generic man so we're stuck with aner, so is it husband or man? Interesting study material. I do not necessarily agree with your application, Barry, but thanks for pointing it out. It is worth thinking about.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 2001



Scott,

A little more food for thought on "andros"...............Was Timothy married? The Bible makes no mention of it as far as I can tell. Would it have been necessary for Paul to mention this in the context of "husband" if the addressee of the letter wasn't married?

If "husband" was meant by Paul, then this is only another "cultural" thing like the verses preceding it...............except that Paul takes time to explain this one, while he doesn't on the earlier comments. Why would Paul take the time to explain one cultural issue, and leave the other one "up in the air"?

I think "man" is the better translation, as that easily explains Paul's "shift in the gears".

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001


Mark,

I do not have the tools I'd like here at home to study this a little more carefully. I do not think husband is the intended meaning, but I do think the slant Barry puts on it is an interesting one because I've never heard it before.

I doubt Timothy's marrital status would have any sway over what Paul is saying. He is telling Timothy how to manage the Church, who is to do what, and how they're to do it, etc. Since the whole congregation is being discussed, Timothy's own status would not matter.

Off hand, without hardly any study, I would say that aner should be translated "man" for that is more consistent with the rest of Scripture. But "husband" can be a proper translation if the context warrents it. It's kind of like the word gunaikos in 3:11. The word means "women" but if the context warrents it may be accurately translated as "wives." I do not believe it does, but there are many who do.

Like I said before, it's an interesting point that I will enjoy studying.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001


BTW Mark,

What do you think is only cultural about the verses preceeding verse 12?

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001


I just "love" Mark W.'s patronizing, don't you? Duane hit it on the mark in his response, though he was needlessly sarcastic at the end.

John Wilson obviously has it correct on this issue as he remains true to Scripture. Nevertheless, I would remind him that there does exist a special gift of evangelism, otherwise Ephesians 4 would not make any sense.

Scott, good ol' boy, you are quite confused on this whole matter. Thanks to your Campbellian bias you do not discern the difference between "evangelist" and "elder-pastor-bishop". This is quite obvious from your remarks.

Darrell, I appreciate your insight! Nevertheless, I would remind you that "church buildings" were not THE premier teaching areas in early Christendom. As a matter of fact, church buildings didn't even exist. Some teaching was done in synagogues and most of it was done in private homes - does that change your hypothetical situation any? Maybe...

You bunch of Talibans (ha, ha, ha). JUST JOKING, OK! Boy, you guys really know how to split hairs don't you? The speculative nature of the arguments rivals that of pre-tribulationism and charismania, if it were not for the sad legalism that prevails.

Barry, you got that right! A bit sophisticated but right - "andros" or no "andros". I read Paul as saying, "I do not allow women to speak with the authority of an elder", else we have Paul contradicting Paul elsewhere in the NT. We must oppose the feminist agenda on solid scriptural ground, not on a biased and false interpretation of I Timothy 2. Let's view that facts before us:

1. Women often played a public role in the early "ecclesia", attested to by Paul himself. 2.That they even prophesied in public gatherings of the church is clearly evident in Paul's and Luke's writings. 3.Women also were actively involved in bringing others to Christ, even to the point of teaching men the more perfect way. 4. Women were not allowed to be elders-pastors-overseers. 5. Married women were to be subject to their husbands and husbands were admonished to love their wives as Christ loves the church (split hairs over that one why don't you) 6. We Campbellites need to rid ourselves of a ton of cultural baggage that clouds our understanding of the context of I Timothy 2., i.e. "church", church-buildings, pulpits, designated church services, professional clergy mentality vs. priesthood of all believers, the "minister" or "evangelist" vs. a plurality of ministers and ministries, eldership as a "church board", etc. Once we do that, we need to place ourselves within the context of the passage, namely how the church must conduct public gatherings within a particular cultural setting: the Jewish synagogue. That early converts were mostly Jews is no mystery. Paul made it a point to start new churches among these clusters of Jewish people in dispersion.

To anyone familiar with Jewish custom can easily grasp what Paul is saying:

"I do not allow women to engage in unseemly behavior that is unbecoming of their Christian witness by giving the impression that they have been commissioned to exercise a form of matriarchy in the Body of Christ" - or something to that effect.

I know some of you will just enjoy pull that one apart - maybe that's why I included it so that you'll have something to argue about, since you have so much fun splitting hairs. Some of my thoughts,

Phil W

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001


Philip;

I agree with you that there is a gift of evangelism; that wasn't the point I was getting at. Even still however, I think that even if a woman has this gift it still does not nullify the NT teaching that a woman is not to have authority over a man.

I've been in a church or two where a few powerful women (and wimpy leaders) have lead to a matriarchy. Man oh man, what a screwed up church that leads to! Women, take note: There is far more power in the quiet, gentle spirit Paul speaks of than in trying to usurp power that isn't theirs.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001


Philip -- my use of church building was to bring the question into the 20th century, as certainly that was not the norm when Paul wrote his instructions to Timothy and the Church.

It seems to me that the authority issue becomes one of "assumed" authority or "perceived" authority, and that, so long as a woman is not in a position of perceived authority, it is okay for her to teach men.

The concept of the modern-day preacher (pastor in the defined sense of the word) is not a biblical one, but one that people today (for for a number of years) understand, and enjoy. That being said, for a woman to "take the pulpit" to preach would be a position of perceived authority ... even if the elders of that congregation gave her permission and asked her to do the preaching.

But, what about a congregation where the preaching was just that, and in no way saw himself as THE pastor ... and where the congregation saw the preacher as just that and not THE pastor. If the elders of that congregation gave a woman permission to preach, then she wouldn't be usurping authority, would she?

Not that this is the most expedient thing to do, by a long shot. But, if the "teach a man" and the authority issue are intertwinned, then once the authority issue was settled (by the elders giving their permisison) then would it be okay for a woman to preach a sermon?

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001


John,

AMEN to your last paragraph..........been there, done that, & brought back the T-Shirt!!

Scott,

Some of the cultural things are found in vs 9, some of the dress items mentioned there could be considered proper today - like braided hair..........who cares about that today. The Idea of modesty is still appropriate, but times have changed. I don't see it as wrong for a lady to get dressed up for church.....as long as her motives are not to draw attention to herself and away from the message of God.

For instance, Paul elsewhere tells women to keep their heads covered in public....Why? Culture! We don't do that here anymore, but in that day & culture, most women you saw on the street with an uncovered head were prostitutes. Even though it was no sin before God to have an uncovered head, it was not appropriate for women to give outsiders the idea that the church of Christ was full of prostitutes - just like the Pagan temples were. Likewise today, dressing like a "hoochy-koochy" girl is inappropriate for the Christian woman as it gives the same impression that the uncovered head in the 1st Century did.

Phil,

"Patronizing"????

How do you spell that????

:~)

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001


Darrel,

I agreee with this statement,

"It seems to me that the authority issue becomes one of "assumed" authority or "perceived" authority, and that, so long as a woman is not in a position of perceived authority, it is okay for her to teach men"

If we are ever going to overcome this "hot potato" of women in ministry, we MUST include cultural considerations as they are rather implicit in Paul's writings. The Gospel is designed by God to be universal in scope.Therefore, what is culturally inappropriate in one context may not be so in another.

If we take into account that Paul's letters are of the narrative genre, than we are able to discern that there are certain definite principles that can be gleaned from the text without doing violence to the NT. However, when we try to import every dot and every "t", we arrive at a twisted form of Christianity that is like a square peg in a round hole - it "don't fit" if you know what I mean. But just to set the record straight in regard to where I stand, I would like to enumerate the following:

1. The general overriding principle in the Word is male leadership, both in the home and in the Church of Jesus Christ. Men must step up to the plate and assume their responsibility as spiritual leaders - something that doesn't come naturally for many of us. 2. Even when tempted to take control do to male incompetence, women must abstain at all times from usurping that role that is given to men, unless they want to answer God someday for their disobedience to His Word. 3. Women are naturally given a supportive role in the Bible. Even in the perfect world of Adam and Eve! Paul says very clearly that it was Eve's disobedience that put us in the mess we are in today. 4. Throughout the NT, women in ministry were almost always in a supportive role - even Philip's prophesying daughters! They supported their father's ministry of evangelism. 5. While I believe that God has called women to serve in many capacities in the church, including evangelism and home Bible studies, I do not believe that they have been give the role of "leadership" (I prefer "headship") in the home or in the Church. THERE ARE NO FEMALE ELDERS. Of course there are wives of elders but no "elderesses".

I feel that I have stated my case clearly, but if anyone should have any other questions, please go to "Men of Strength for Women of God" by Lagard Smith.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001


Philip -- I agree that the Bible teaches the "maleness" of the eldership. But my last question remains:

Can a woman assume the pulpit, at the direction of the elders? Assuming that she is not THE pastor of the congregation ... and assumign that she is only the person doing the preaching, and not serving as a preacher/elder, or preaching elder.

Yes, in today's society, the person in the pulpit is seen as THE pastor by many .. even in our congregations. I know that Brother Danny Gabbard would never use or accept the officail title of THE pastor of the congregation where he serves, and that he would teach against that concept. But I'm fairly certain that there is, or at least were, people in his current congregation who saw him in that light, at least until he taught them different. Even at that, visitors would "see" Danny as THE pastor, again, until they were taught differently. I say all this to show that in today's congregations, it is certainly not expedient to allow a woman to preach.

But my question goes past the expediency point. Can a woman preach to a congregation, provided she is doing so under the authority of the elders? My bride says no, since the elders don't have the authority to allow her to preach, as she would be teaching men. But, that means there is a separation between the "teaching men' issue and the "usurping/exercising authority" issue, which some on this thread say can't be seperated.

Do I make sense?

-- Anonymous, November 25, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ