# Women's Ordination Time Line



## Scott (Oct 4, 2005)

This timeline describes the history of women's ordination in the church based upon research from General Assembly minutes of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and its predecessor denominations, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church of America.

See the long trail that preceded the GA's decision in 1963 to permit ordination of women.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 4, 2005)

I find it interesting that it started with women Praying aloud and Speaking in the church. Ei, yi, yi! In our current church the women are not permitted to even give praise testamony without her husband or father standing with her. In the case of single women the pastor accepts to stand on their behalf. But he makes certain that the congregation and visitors are aware of what is going on each time this happens.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I find it interesting that it started with women Praying aloud and Speaking in the church. Ei, yi, yi! In our current church the women are not permitted to even give praise testamony without her husband or father standing with her. In the case of single women the pastor accepts to stand on their behalf. But he makes certain that the congregation and visitors are aware of what is going on each time this happens.



Am I wrong to have a problem with the following occurring in my church?:

- Women involved in discussion during the 'sunday school' time of the church (we're all assembled together during this time, young children excluded)
- Women sharing how God has worked in their lives during our post-Lord's Supper discussion time
- Women leading the singing of the Psalms up front

Some of these things seem a little wrong to me, on some level. However, at the same time, I feel somewhat guilty for having that attitude. Am I in the wrong?


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 4, 2005)

*Yes they can*

Hi Utopia,

Let me begin by saying that I am totally against women's ordination to the pastorate and for women's headcovering (though I wouldn't break fellowship over the latter point). But, I don't think the position that women should be totally silent is either Biblical or actually practiced by any church.

The classic verses for women's silence, as I'm sure you know, are the following:

1) 1 Tim 2:11: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to excercise authority over a man; rather , she is to remain quiet." 

2) 1 Cor. 14:35 which reads: "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Seems pretty clear, right? Well, only if you like prooftexting. If Paul meant that women should never ever ever say anything anytime during worship he could never have written the following:

"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is the same as if her head were shaven." (1 Corinthians 11:4-5 ESV)

Paul is assuming that women will both prophesy and pray in the church service. If you go back to 1 Tim 2:11 Paul says women should learn quietly. It could be that he merely meant for women to be silent during the teaching part of the public worship, and not necessarily during other parts, like during the singing, the praising, the prayers, or the announcements (?). Whatever Paul may have meant regarding women's silence, it's clear that he expected them to participate vocally during public worship, as per 1 Corinthians 11:4-5.

In Christ,
Shawn


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> Hi Utopia,
> 
> 1)	1 Tim 2:11: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to excercise authority over a man; rather , she is to remain quiet."
> ...



Good stuff Shawn.

In response to the 1 Timothy 2:11 passage, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet":

Do you think that Paul, by saying, "remain quiet" was referring to teaching and ruling? In other words, he did not permit a woman to teach or rule in the church, so when it came to those offices, they were to remain silent as in refrain from holding such offices or responsibilities.

The same teaching and ruling dichotomy is shown in 1 Timothy 5:17, "œThe elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching."

By "œremain silent" could Paul be referring to those offices, rather than meaning women must be completely mute when entering the church?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 4, 2005)

I'm pretty much in with ya'll. But I've also seen women get out of hand. I believe there was one woman who was outspoken and had "revelations" that was banned from one of the colonies...she pretty much started a schism with those that followed (her name escapes me at this point).


----------



## Peter (Oct 4, 2005)

Hutchenson? Rhode Island?


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 5, 2005)

*Woman apostle?*

Hey Christopher,

I would tend to agree with your assessment. Though the Bible is clear that women are not allowed to authoritatively teach men (teaching other women is another story-Titus 2:1-5), it does not at all restrict them from participating in other church offices and duties. Just look up all the verse where Paul exhorts widows to minister to the needs of others in the church, and then try to argue that women should be mute. It just doesn't work. You might also look at the controversial figure of Junia, who, by the best accounts, seems to have been a female apostle (see Romans 16:7).

And as for Lady Flint's comment that some women "get out of hand", though its true that Paul seems to believe that the women of his time were especially susceptible to false teaching (2 Timothy 3:6,7), I don't think we can say the same in our own day. Speaking as an armchair sociologist, it seems to me that men and women are equally prone to error, exageration, and apostasy. If anything, by unbiblically limiting women's roles in the churches, and even by forcing them to keep silent (!), you may actually be compounding the potential problem of spiritual delusion. If women never speak, how can you know where they're at spiritually, what the questions of their hearts are, what their strengths and weakenesses are, and where they need to be ministered to most? If the Bible allows, and even expects, women to participate vocally in the churches, and they are silenced, then that can only contribute to an unhealthy spiritually life, so that on occasions when they do speak about spiritual things, its no surprise that it can tend to be distorted.

Cheers,
Shawn


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 5, 2005)

As much as I am against a woman speaking "from the pulpit" or as an adult Bible Study leader in a mixed setting...I have no problem with a woman discussing within a class as a student. 

I was part of a church for a time where this was not permitted. Here's the setting. Men on one side, women the other. Didn't help the women had young children sitting with them and the man leading would stand on the men's side. All questions and answers were from the men. The women could hear very little and learned very little. It was difficult for the men to repeat the entire lesson at home, so many times that did not happen. Particularly within an agrarian society. Also, at Sunday dinners, as soon as the meal was over, the men would resign to the parlor and the women cleaned up and sat in another room or the kitchen to talk...and usually not upon spiritual things. It killed me not being able to go sit with my husband amoung the men, as they were discussing spiritual things. As most of you have learned of me by now, I learn best from reading and discussion. Not from waiting for a bone to be tossed to me.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Hutchenson? Rhode Island?



Yes, Anne Hutchenson. (I had the Anne down...but her last name just wouldn't come to me)


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> I would tend to agree with your assessment. Though the Bible is clear that women are not allowed to authoritatively teach men (teaching other women is another story-Titus 2:1-5), it does not at all restrict them from participating in other church offices and duties. Just look up all the verse where Paul exhorts widows to minister to the needs of others in the church, and then try to argue that women should be mute. It just doesn't work.



I was actually advocating against the idea that woman are to be mute when in a church. I was suggesting that, by "remain silent", Paul was referring to the offices of Ruling and Teaching elders.



> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_You might also look at the controversial figure of Junia, who, by the best accounts, seems to have been a female apostle (see Romans 16:7).



That is speculation. By "best accounts" many have concluded that it is unlikely that Junia was a woman, but most likely, according to the other literature of the time that contained the name, that Junia was a man. But that just leaves you and I, for now in a state of, "Yeah huh" and Nah uh."


----------



## biblelighthouse (Oct 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I'm pretty much in with ya'll. But I've also seen women get out of hand. I believe there was one woman who was outspoken and had "revelations" that was banned from one of the colonies...she pretty much started a schism with those that followed (her name escapes me at this point).



Here is another interesting story in church history, concerning the "revelations" seen by a woman --- Margaret MacDonald may have played an important role in starting the scourge of dispensationalism:



> February - June, 1830
> Out of the spectacle of alleged latter-day Holy Spirit outpouring in Scotland and England, and the eschatological influence of de Lacunza's futurist/dispensationalism, emerged the very first documented evidence of a pre-tribulation rapture. This was first articulated in the form of a letter written by Margaret MacDonald, sister of James and George MacDonald of Port Glasgow. In March or April of 1830, after being ill and bed-ridden for about 18 months, Margaret claimed to have seen a series of visions of the coming of the Lord. She wrote down these visions and sent a copy to Edward Irving. A month later (June), Irving claimed in a private letter (NJ), that Margaret's visions had a huge impact on him. "the substance of Mary Campbell's and Margaret MacDonald's visions or revelations, given in their papers, carry to me a spiritual conviction and a spiritual reproof which I cannot express."
> 
> The outstanding feature of Margaret's visions was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on a elite group within the Church, combined with a secret rapture before the revealing of the Antichrist. She saw only these "Spirit filled" Christians "taken" to be with the Lord, while the rest of the Church without this experience would be left to be purged in the tribulation. Click here to read Margaret's letter describing her vision.



Source: http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/timeline/


----------



## SRoper (Oct 5, 2005)

"As much as I am against a woman ... as an adult Bible Study leader in a mixed setting..."

I was just going to ask about this. Our "young adult" group (really, it's open to anyone above college undergrad age) is undergoing some changes. Currently we work through a book of the Bible and discuss with an elder as the leader. We are thinking about changing it so that the elder teaches at the beginning, and then we split into smaller groups that are led by a facilitator. I suggested that the groups be segregated by gender, but others didn't like that idea. My primary reason was for the sake of unity and avoiding controversy about who would be qualified to be a facilitator. Just wondering what people thought about that.

[Edited on 5-Oct-2005 by SRoper]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 5, 2005)

If segregated by gender then there is no problem with a woman teaching. If not, then I see a problem. The young men in the class need (and must have) a man teaching them, not a woman.


----------

