# Rick Warren on Women speaking in Church



## WrittenFromUtopia

Women and 1 Corinthians 14?


> Question: I was reading in 1 Corinthians 14:34 that women are not allowed to speak in the church. Whoa "“ what´s up with this!?
> 
> Answer: Historical perspective REALLY helps with this one. In that day, men and women sat on different sides of the church. For a woman to ask her husband a question she would have to shout it to the other side of the church or disrupt the church service by getting up and walking over to him. Apparently, this is exactly what was happening in the Corinthian church, and their worship services were becoming a zoo. Paul is saying, "Listen during the worship service, and talk about your questions on the way home."
> 
> "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ if God." 1 Cor. 11:3



Thoughts?


----------



## Casey

The feminist hermeneutic at work?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Oh yes and Paul thought homosexuality was abominable because of the culture he was living in. Chrstianity is about acceptance and not calling people to do anything that would cause them to be uncomfortable or counter-cultural...


> 1 Tim 2:11-15
> 1 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 *For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived , but the woman being deceived , fell into transgression.* 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
> NKJV


Must be one of those Garden culture things...


----------



## gwine

Please don't read me wrong, but it is interesting to note that Adam was next to Eve when she ate of the forbidden fruit.



> Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband *who was with her*, and he ate.



I wonder if he wasn't consider "deceived" what he was - besides covetous.


----------



## Casey

> I wonder if he wasn't consider "deceived" what he was - besides covetous.


I might be wrong, but I think it is that Eve was deceived into believing the lie; Adam, on the other hand, was not deceived but knew it wasn't true . . and nevertheless allowed his wife to rebel. Seems to me that his sin was greater than Eve's because he knew it was wrong.


----------



## gwine

Good thought, Casey.

But back to the original question. The problem with the answer is that there is nothing about a scriptural reason for the prohibition. If it were just a matter of culture then our modern day seating arrangement would alleviate the problem.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Good thought, Casey.
> 
> But back to the original question. The problem with the answer is that there is nothing about a scriptural reason for the prohibition. If it were just a matter of culture then our modern day seating arrangement would alleviate the problem.


That's a good point. I never thought about how dumb the answer really is. It's not that Paul doesn't want women to speak, it's just that they're too far away from their husbands and he doesn't recommend a new seating arrangement. I guess the husbands never wanted to ask their wives anything. Just those darn women shouting across the aisle.

The idea is kind of comical in Warren's answer: 

"Hey honey!! What's the pastor talking about?!!!"

Paul: "Hey you two, you're disrupting the service. Ask him when you two get home!"


----------



## Casey

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Good thought, Casey.
> 
> But back to the original question. The problem with the answer is that there is nothing about a scriptural reason for the prohibition. If it were just a matter of culture then our modern day seating arrangement would alleviate the problem.


I have studied enough of feminism to realize that feminists have an agenda. Their presupposition is that women must be equal to men in every respect (read: roles). They take this agenda to Scripture when they try to interpret it (that is, if they still consider it inspired). They merely try to find some sort of believable solution to a problem of their own creation (e.g., that the roles of men and women must be the same). And thus we have the "cultural situation"-interpretation that so many evangelical churches have fallen prey to, and now the ordination of women elders and ministers is a common thing. In opposition to this interpretation, clear as day, is Paul's _theological_ reasoning behind it (it is _not_ cultural). But, since truth is considered relative, if that cultural interpretation is sufficiently intellectual, it simply doesn't matter if it's right -- the feminist is more concerned with the agenda.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> Good thought, Casey.
> 
> But back to the original question. The problem with the answer is that there is nothing about a scriptural reason for the prohibition. If it were just a matter of culture then our modern day seating arrangement would alleviate the problem.



There is a clear prohibition:

I have heard this argument. Granted that the congregation was divided in this manner. The subject matter is gifts & prophesying. Prophesying brings about wisdom and questions. 

1 Corinthians 14:34 34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 

'just as the law also says'.

Obviously, there was confusion in the Corinthian church. The gifts were paramount. The woman were wanting to prophesy as well as the men. It wasn't that they had questions, they were trying to usurp Gods law and their husbands. The apostle here is rebuking them for missing the point. He tells the leadership; you know what Gods law says! And then he follows up with a sharp rebuke:

1 Corinthians 14:36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth?

In other words, are you God? Was it you who defines how things in church should work? Did not God say:

Genesis 3:16 16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." 

Keep to the law and yield; correct your wives. The gifts do not abrogate the law in regards to their submission to you; if they have a question, let them wait until they get home. If they feel the need to prophesy, it is not a desire that comes from God but the devil.

[Edited on 11-27-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> I have heard this argument. Granted that the congregation was divided in this manner. The subject matter is gifts & prophesying. Prophesying brings about wisdom and questions.
> 
> <snip> If they feel the need to prophesy, it is not a desire that comes from God but the devil.
> 
> [Edited on 11-27-2005 by Scott Bushey]



Amen

It is interesting that one of the marks of the modern day heretical charismatic 'church' is the plethora of WOMEN prophetesses. 

Once again, modern day proof of Solomon's words .."there is nothing new under the sun..." grrr...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Paul seems to presuppose a regulative principle throughout 1 Corinthians, in my opinion...



> If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.


----------



## non dignus

> Thoughts?




I heard once that the Corinthians sometimes only saw each other on church-days because of the long distances between them. Thus the women were catching up on gossip during the service.

By the way, the Corinthians tolerated that notorious case of adultery but couldn't abide with men and women sitting together?


----------



## Anton Bruckner

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> 
> Amen
> 
> It is interesting that one of the marks of the modern day heretical charismatic 'church' is the plethora of WOMEN prophetesses.
> 
> .


you got to give it to the charismatics. they have an extensive array of titles. Prophets, Apostles, Bishops, Evangelists etc. All you have to do is pick a name and give yourself.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> 
> I heard once that the Corinthians sometimes only saw each other on church-days because of the long distances between them. Thus the women were catching up on gossip during the service.


:bigsmile::bigsmile: I wonder if Joan Rivers was in that church.


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by Slippery_


:bigsmile::bigsmile: I wonder if Joan Rivers was in that church. [/quote]


----------



## tcalbrecht

*Not Rick Warren*

Just for truth in advertising purposes, the title of this thread is very deceptive. the author of that comment was someone named Tom Holladay, not Rick Warren. 

Can you tell whether Saddleback Church is complementarian or egalitarian from that quote?

I guess the RW bashers are still desperate.

[Edited on 11-28-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Just for truth in advertising purposes, the title of this thread is very deceptive. the author of that comment was someone named Tom Holladay, not Rick Warren.
> 
> Can you tell whether Saddleback Church is complementarian or egalitarian from that quote?
> 
> I guess the RW bashers are still desperate.
> 
> [Edited on 11-28-2005 by tcalbrecht]



FYI, Tom Holladay is one of the main teaching pastors at Saddleback. See the source:

http://www.pastors.com/pcom/teachers/tomholladay.asp

He teaches along WITH Kay Warren, foundational (new believers) curriculum at Saddleback. Observe, this church has handed a significant level of theological studies over to the pastor's wife.



Robin


----------



## Robin

*The Tabernacle*: Living In God's Presence
by Kay Warren

To many people, Old Testament traditions and regulations seem confusing and outdated. They struggle with seeing the relevant and rich content that is found within these books. One such place of confusion is the meaning and significance behind the Tabernacle. Many pass through these passages of scripture missing out on the many pearls of wisdom and insight into our wonderful Lord. In this *new* and *revised* version of the Tabernacle, Kay Warren explores the deep meaning and significance of the temporary dwelling place God instructed the Israelites to build Him. 

You will discover: 

The Purpose of the Tabernacle 
The Meaning behind every Element used in the Tabernacle 
The People of the Tabernacle 
The Significance of the Tabernacle Offerings 
The Symbolism of Future and Present Salvation 
and so much more"¦ 

http://www.pastors.com/pcom/teachers/kaywarren/kwSeries.asp


Hmmmm.... 

r.

[Edited on 11-28-2005 by Robin]


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Just for truth in advertising purposes, the title of this thread is very deceptive. the author of that comment was someone named Tom Holladay, not Rick Warren.
> 
> Can you tell whether Saddleback Church is complementarian or egalitarian from that quote?
> 
> I guess the RW bashers are still desperate.
> 
> [Edited on 11-28-2005 by tcalbrecht]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, Tom Holladay is one of the main teaching pastors at Saddleback. See the source:
> 
> http://www.pastors.com/pcom/teachers/tomholladay.asp
> 
> He teaches along WITH Kay Warren, foundational (new believers) curriculum at Saddleback. Observe, this church has handed a significant level of theological studies over to the pastor's wife.
> 
> 
> 
> Robin
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my question: Can you tell whether Saddleback Church is complementarian or egalitarian from that quote? Do you know whether Saddleback is complementarian or egalitarian?

I'm still not sure what the purpose was for you to share that quote. Wanting to think the best, but I'm hardpressed to think you don't have some vendetta against RW. Otherwise you would out there digging up all sorts of out of context quotes from all sorts of folks, both reformed and non-reformed. 

Or you would be giving RW and his fellow pastors the benefit of the doubt by reading their words in the *best* possible light rather than the *worst* as required by the 9th Commandment.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Hmmmm....
> 
> r.
> 
> [Edited on 11-28-2005 by Robin]



Now what is you problem with this one? That it was written by a woman? Or something specific in the content? Or are you reacting to the marketing blurb put out by the publisher? Or have you read the book and would like to share the contents?

Honestly, this nit-picking approach to RW appears obsessive.


----------



## Robin

Tom,

I don't mean this to be off the subject...but read the "hot off the press" issue of Modern Reformation magazine.

http://www.modernreformation.org/

Here is the best formulated address to "purpose" and questions of Evangelicalism's latest compromises. 

Finally, the Modern Reformation movement answers these questions directly.

Christianity is about The Promise not our purpose. The one True Religion is about Jesus' purpose and God's Promise -- not ours. 

Anyone who says differently is selling something.

The true Christian should be grieved and horrified to know of the judgment that awaits anyone who distorts God's Holy Word, especially in the face of ample warnings for them to repent.

Our God is a consuming fire. 

Selah.



R.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Robin,

Thanks for the comment, but my questions and comments remain unanswered. 

With a bit more digging we discover ...



> Question: What do you feel about women teaching in the church?
> 
> Answer: It's our belief that the Bible clearly teaches that only men should be the Senior Pastor and the leading elders in a church. We would not have a woman as our Senior Pastor, nor as one of our leading elders or teaching elders. We do believe that the Bible does not prohibit women from teaching in the church under the authority of the pastor and elders of that church. We believe that the phrase over a man" modifies the verb teach in the verse below. In other words, women can teach in a church, but not in a position of spiritual authority over a man. (By the way, I don't understand all of the reasons why God has set things up this way. But I do trust His word.)
> 
> I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Timothy 2:12 (NIV)
> 
> Woman Pastors



Does that statement appear complementarian or egalitarian?


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Tom,
> 
> I don't mean this to be off the subject...but read the "hot off the press" issue of Modern Reformation magazine.
> 
> http://www.modernreformation.org/





> Readers who have ventured into a bookstore sometime in the last five years may think that this issue is a not so subtle swipe at Rick Warren´s best-selling books The Purpose-Driven Church and The Purpose-Driven Life. While there are similarities of topic and one sidebar does use The Purpose-Driven Life as a starting point, this issue of MR is not focused on Pastor Warren or his books. Instead, we´re more concerned to state positively one of the unique perspectives emerging from the Reformation that is especially applicable to our current situation: the promise of God (the gospel) is the power that creates and sustains our Christian life. The best illustration of this point is the tall ship that sets sail on the ocean. The sails must be filled with wind in order for the ship to move and arrive at its intended destination. The promise of God is the wind that fills our sails in the pursuit of a life lived for the glory and enjoyment of God.



Since this is not an attack on RW, I wonder if he would seriously disagree with anything written in Modern Reformation about God's promises to His people.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Robin,
> 
> Thanks for the comment, but my questions and comments remain unanswered.
> 
> With a bit more digging we discover ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question: What do you feel about women teaching in the church?
> 
> Answer: It's our belief that the Bible clearly teaches that only men should be the Senior Pastor and the leading elders in a church. We would not have a woman as our Senior Pastor, nor as one of our leading elders or teaching elders. We do believe that the Bible does not prohibit women from teaching in the church under the authority of the pastor and elders of that church. We believe that the phrase over a man" modifies the verb teach in the verse below. In other words, women can teach in a church, but not in a position of spiritual authority over a man. (By the way, I don't understand all of the reasons why God has set things up this way. But I do trust His word.)
> 
> I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1 Timothy 2:12 (NIV)
> 
> Woman Pastors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that statement appear complementarian or egalitarian?
Click to expand...


Tom, 

Yes, indeed, this *portion* matches Scripture. But, as usual, the entire claim is confusing and contradicting. (typical at Saddleback)

I think the point is - Saddleback/RW regularly speak out of both sides of the mouth. As you can tell, Pastor Halladay makes this statement, then turns right around and promotes theological curriculum written by a woman (Kay Warren.) Btw, Kay's studies are sold to Pastors. So what IS that?

The confusing double-speak should serve as a warning about how false teachers operate.

I'm sure Kay Warren means well and loves the Lord, but she has NO business leading men (pastors) into the understanding of the Tabernacle, let alone selling subscriptions for it. For that matter, any pastor seeking guidance from a source like hers, is already sinning greviously, is faithless to God; betraying the trust of his flock.


r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Tom,
> 
> I don't mean this to be off the subject...but read the "hot off the press" issue of Modern Reformation magazine.
> 
> http://www.modernreformation.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Readers who have ventured into a bookstore sometime in the last five years may think that this issue is a not so subtle swipe at Rick Warren´s best-selling books The Purpose-Driven Church and The Purpose-Driven Life. While there are similarities of topic and one sidebar does use The Purpose-Driven Life as a starting point, this issue of MR is not focused on Pastor Warren or his books. Instead, we´re more concerned to state positively one of the unique perspectives emerging from the Reformation that is especially applicable to our current situation: the promise of God (the gospel) is the power that creates and sustains our Christian life. The best illustration of this point is the tall ship that sets sail on the ocean. The sails must be filled with wind in order for the ship to move and arrive at its intended destination. The promise of God is the wind that fills our sails in the pursuit of a life lived for the glory and enjoyment of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since this is not an attack on RW, I wonder if *he* would seriously disagree with anything written in Modern Reformation about God's promises to His people.
Click to expand...


That would depend on what Warren thinks he means by what he says.

There is word he has been seeking counsel from Horton.

??


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Tom,
> 
> Yes, indeed, this *portion* matches Scripture. But, as usual, the entire claim is confusing and contradicting. (typical at Saddleback)
> 
> *I think the point is - Saddleback/RW regularly speak out of both sides of the mouth*. As you can tell, Pastor Halladay makes this statement, then turns right around and promotes theological curriculum written by a woman (Kay Warren.) Btw, Kay's studies are sold to Pastors. So what IS that?
> 
> The confusing double-speak should serve as a warning about how false teachers operate.



Or perhaps you're not listening carefully enough, and merely reacting cuz of your predisposition to quickly bash All Things Warren (tm).




> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> I'm sure Kay Warren means well and loves the Lord, but she has NO business leading men (pastors) into the understanding of the Tabernacle, let alone selling subscriptions for it. For that matter, any pastor seeking guidance from a source like hers, is already sinning greviously, is faithless to God; betraying the trust of his flock.
> 
> 
> r.



So, In other words,, if we read these things in the best light rather than the worst light, things are not so bad. Mrs. Warren certainly has the right to write about Biblical thngs, just as Sharon Betters (wife of PCA pastor Chuck Betters) has to write about biblical things. Regarding a book she wrote, the publishers says, "Sharon Betters *draws readers to a passage from Isaiah* that carries God´s promise to provide treasures for his people in the very midst of darkness and trouble. Whether they´re suffering from recent or loss from the distant past, readers of Treasures in Darkness will see how they can experience God´s presence and love even during the darkest times."

BTW, I'm not trying to bash Sharon Betters or any other Christian woman who wrote about spiritual things. I merely pointing out the folly of blasting Mrs. Warren for similar behavior. 

Is it OK as long as the female keeps the writing "light and fluffy", or do they need a disclaimer on the label that warns men not to open the cover? Are non-ordained men permitted to write about deep spiritual things, or is that reserved for theologians? Do we need an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat for these works?


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> That would depend on what Warren thinks he means by what he says.
> 
> There is word he has been seeking counsel from Horton.
> 
> ??



Hmmm ... I assume you think that is a good thing? Is it possible for "anything good to come out of Nazareth?"


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> That would depend on what Warren thinks he means by what he says.
> 
> There is word he has been seeking counsel from Horton.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm ... I assume you think that is a good thing? Is it possible for "anything good to come out of Nazareth?"
Click to expand...


The entire church-growth industry has wreaked havoc on the Church; innoculated unbelievers to the true Gospel (if that is possible) and brought shame to the name of Christ. Countless "babes" in Christ have been betrayed and abused. It's not the first nor will be the last time in Church history these have occurred.

Yet, with God all things are possible.

With caution and hope, I know Hort will not sell-out. It could be a "Simon" thing (Acts 8)? But whole-heartedly, I hope not.

Romans 10:1-4 (a perfect application to Jews; Roman Catholic; CGM alike)

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For *Christ is the end of the law* for righteousness to everyone who believes.



r.


----------

