Women in Leadship Roles

[Nechasin]

I didn’t know whether to ask this in the Sacred Scripture forum or here, so if it needs to be moved, go ahead and move it.

It was recently brought to my attention that 1 Cor14:34-35

34 women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
35 But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

and 1 Tim 2:11-15

11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. 4 She must be quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

seem to prohibit women in leadership roles in the church. Yet, I see many protestant churches that have women as the pastor of church or in other very prominent leadership roles. We also see abuses of this in the Catholic Church. What am I missing in these two verses that people who seem to be more educated than me know?

 

[manualman]

One possibility is context. Christianity was rather radical break with Jewish culture of the time. The women in the gospel played a far more prominent role than was typical. From the Blessed Mother’s chiding of Jesus to help at Cana, Jesus’ proclmation about Mary Magdalen choosing listening over serving as the higher call, to Veronica, to being the first to find the empty tomb, these were uncharacteristic. Paul MIGHT just have been trying to prevent the ‘woman’ issue from dominating the public discourse on christianity. Because of the culture he, for a time, asked women to avoid distracting from the central message of Christ.

This is why Jesus left us teachers to interpret the Scriptures. Clearly it doesn’t mean what you might think at first blush since our history contains women as Doctors of the Church!

 

[Beautiful]

What am I missing in these two verses that people who seem to be more educated than me know?

I have to laugh because I just read this.

From the book newly published in 2007 – The Apostles by Pope Benedict XVI
Part III chapter 22

The Apostle accepts as normal the fact that woman can “prophesy” in the Christian community. That is speak openly under the influence of the Spirit, as long as it is for the edification of the community and don in a dignified manner.

Thus, the following well-know exhortation: “Women should keep silence in the Churches is instead to be considered relative. Let us leave to the exegetes the consequent, much discussed problem of the relationship between the first phrase — women can prophesy in Churches — and the other — they are not permitted to speak: that is, the relationship between these two apparently contradictory instructions. This is not for discussion here.

Please forgive me if my laughter offends anyone. I mean no harm.
Obviously Pope BenedictXVI would rather not touch that one. I really love Pope Benedict and this book. I recommend it.

 

[ROBAUTEN]

Sts. Teresa, Catherine and Therese are Doctors (teachers) of the Church but I do not think they came to that status by preaching or teaching at Mass (speaking in church) or by having any authority over ordained priests. By their wisdom, holiness, teachings and writings they were still able to become teachers and even influence popes. I think there is something that transcends the 1st century culture in Paul’s advice - especially when he bases it upon the relationship between Adam and Eve.

 

[Peregrino]

Dominic Crossan points out that Paul’s exhortation against women teaching or having authority indicates that they were teachers and in positions of authority, contrary to what the Church would have us believe.

 

[YADA]

Dominic Crossan points out that Paul’s exhortation against women teaching or having authority indicates that they were teachers and in positions of authority, contrary to what the Church would have us believe.

And Dominic Crossan is one of the Jesus Seminar folks who would reduce the size of scripture by reducing the sayings of Jesus * and who dis-allow the Virgin Birth and the resurrection [hallucinations brought on by the traume of the crucufixtion or some such]…

I take the teaching authority of the Church over this one time priest turned protestant Jesus Seminar guru… while he may get some things correct much of what he says is pure invention … I do not desire to take the time to discern which is which… just my HO and :twocents:*

 

[deb1]

Paul was speaking to the Christians in the Greek culture. Greeks kept their married women very repressed. Often these women were not allowed to leave their home except for very special occasions. When these women were allowed the freedom to attend Christian meetings, they didn’t know how to act. No one should disrupt a meeting, man or woman, that would be chaos. The fact that he is saying that women should learn at all was probably revolutionary for this type of culture.

Paul was also very concerned at the image that Christians presented to the world. That is why he advises men to cut their hair like the surronding cultures and women to cover themselves.

For Christian women this might have been a safety concern. Prostitutes were allowed freedom, not respectable married women. SO, the increased freedom that Christian women were allowed might have endangered some of them, or at least caused gossip about them.

 

[manualman]

Dominic Crossan points out that Paul’s exhortation against women teaching or having authority indicates that they were teachers and in positions of authority, contrary to what the Church would have us believe.

LOL, I guess in 500 years if the writing of a bishop today condemning the falsehoods asserted as truth in the DiVinci Code books is found it will be used as evidence that Jesus really WAS married to Mary Magdalene! LOL!!!

In reality, the ONLY references found in history to women receiving holy orders is the reaction against its oddity on the unusual occassions in which it was attempted (which it surely did since most other religions of the day had priestesses). For Mr. Crossan to have any sort of point at all, he’d need an example of an early father who observed such a thing and DIDN’T object strenuously to it. That he hasn’t found one is rather telling.

 

[SyCarl]

LOL, I guess in 500 years if the writing of a bishop today condemning the falsehoods asserted as truth in the DiVinci Code books is found it will be used as evidence that Jesus really WAS married to Mary Magdalene! LOL!!!

In reality, the ONLY references found in history to women receiving holy orders is the reaction against its oddity on the unusual occassions in which it was attempted (which it surely did since most other religions of the day had priestesses). For Mr. Crossan to have any sort of point at all, he’d need an example of an early father who observed such a thing and DIDN’T object strenuously to it. That he hasn’t found one is rather telling.

Canon 15 from the Council of Chalcedon.

15

No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny. If after receiving ordination and spending some time in the ministry she despises God’s grace and gets married, such a person is to be anathematised along with her spouse.

piar.hu/councils/ecum04.htm

 

[manualman]

Roundly covered in other threads. Conclusion: modern definition of deacon different than ancient definition.

Yes, there have been deaconesses. Yes, they were “ordained.” No, at no time were they considered to have received the sacrament/mystery of Holy Orders.

Keep trying though.

 

[SyCarl]

Roundly covered in other threads. Conclusion: modern definition of deacon different than ancient definition.

Yes, there have been deaconesses. Yes, they were “ordained.” No, at no time were they considered to have received the sacrament/mystery of Holy Orders.

Keep trying though.

Can you cite an authoritative source on the ancient definition of deacon and how it differed from the biblical office? It seems too convenient to just define away the problem by saying it doesn’t say what we think so it must say something else.

 

[manualman]

Do a search. It was in the eastern forum some time ago. Fr. Ambrose was enjoying tweaking the latins over the semantics, but finally admitted that the deaconesses in question were not recipients of the mystery.