# women missionaries...can they preach?



## matthew11v25 (Mar 29, 2005)

After seeing the "women preachers" thread I remembered that the denomination I am a member of (Christian Missionary Alliance) does not permit women to become Elders (or be ordained). The church I am a part of also does not permit women in the church to preach...except when women missionaries (or wives of...) return from the field and come to "share" in our church, which involves a sermon and sharing of experiences.

Is this common anywhere else? Churches that say women in the congregation must not preach, but allow women that are missionaries or wives of missionaries to "speak, share, preach, etc"?


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 29, 2005)

Matthew,

I am a CM&A guy too! 

In regards to evangelism, I believe women can and should share with and instruct unbelievers in the Word. It's an argument from silence, I know, but I don't think it would be right to withhold the gospel simply because there isn't a man around. If there is a man around, he should be doing the instucting.


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 29, 2005)

Is your cold medicine getting to you? :bigsmile:


----------



## matthew11v25 (Mar 29, 2005)

My point is that it seems odd that...women are not allowed to preach...except when returning from the mission field (say, during "missions month"). There are always men (elders) around in these situations.


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> No, it just seems it would hurt to be instucted...what is that anyway?



I was just kidding-- because you are easily entertained.


----------



## Archlute (Mar 29, 2005)

Matthew,

There are those of us who hold that preaching properly occurs only when an ordained minister, or man who is under the care of the presbytery with the goal of preparing for the ministry, and/or liscenced to preach, stands before the people of God and delivers a faithful message from the Scriptures for the salvation and sanctification of Christ's people. Any sort of sharing time is, by definition, excluded. Sharing could be done by letter, or in a more informal setting.

If a woman is combining a sermon along with her sharing, then she has definately intruded upon the minister's office and should be corrected. Of course, if things have reached that point in a church, then it is the session that needs the schooling more so than the missionary.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> If a woman is combining a sermon along with her sharing, then she has definately intruded upon the minister's office



This seems to be the case.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> No, it just seems it would hurt to be instucted...what is that anyway?



Instucted: Is that what happened to the top of your head Josh?


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Matthew,
> 
> There are those of us who hold that preaching properly occurs only when an ordained minister, or man who is under the care of the presbytery with the goal of preparing for the ministry, and/or liscenced to preach, stands before the people of God and delivers a faithful message from the Scriptures for the salvation and sanctification of Christ's people. Any sort of sharing time is, by definition, excluded. Sharing could be done by letter, or in a more informal setting.




I guess that would leave out many on here then. Does this include teaching? Or only preaching? What if the person under care is terrible and has no clue of what is the Words intention? Do letters at then end of a persons name make them a "chosen" vessel of God?


----------



## Archlute (Mar 30, 2005)

Dear Joseph,

Notice that I said "properly" occurs. There can be no doubt that there is much improper preaching that goes on in the church, but when defining any theological concept (including practical/pastoral theology - of which preaching is a subset) we must always seek to define our position by God's Word and not by current practices. If we fail to do this we substitute non-authoritative sources of revelation (i.e. common practice) for the authoritative revelation of the canonical Scriptures.

To answer your questions:
1. Teaching is not the same as preaching. There are different greek terms used for each, and the contexts wherein these are found highlight these distinctions. I'm sorry if I cannot elaborate as eloquently as some of my other brothers on the board at this time, but my midterms are limiting my response time. Even so, women are neither permitted to preach or teach (teach in a mixed setting). So, this is not really a relevant issue. As far as men go, as long as they are under the care and authority of the church, having been given permission, they are free to do so.

2. The purpose of allowing a man under care to preach is to test and develop his gifts, and to give him a chance to see if he still believes that he is called. Poor or uneven preaching is to be somewhat expected. Even so, the elders should correct and encourage the man to grow in this area, and to see that any doctrinal errors are instructed upon and not repeated.

3. No one that I know would say that "letters at the end of a person's name make them a 'chosen' vessel of God". There are many with Ph.D's who are not called to the preaching office, and others who are apostate scholars whose degree can confer them no grace at the judgment. Neither, however, do the Scriptures commend ignorance, but rather skill and diligence in teaching and preaching. Academic institutions are just a means of facilitating that learning. Presbyteries examine men based on their mastery of required content and ability to articulate and defend their views. A man may be ordained without a formal education if he possesses the knowledge requisite to minister, and exceptions are then made by the General Assembly at the recommendation of the presbytery.

To clarify the term "chosen vessel": 

All Christians are chosen vessels by virtue of their election in Christ, as illustrated in Romans 9: 20-23. 

In Acts 9:15 Paul was a chosen vessel in the sense of inheriting the apostolic office directly from the mouth of the Lord. This was not the standard pastoral office.

The vessel set apart for honorable use in 2 Tim. 2: 20-21, does indeed refer to the pastoral office. Notice, however, that Timothy was not asserting that he was chosen by his own accord. He was selected, instructed, and even gently reproved at times by a greater authority than himself, namely the apostle Paul. We, also read in the Pastoral Epistles that Timothy is to pass this teaching onto faithful men who can teach others also. So selection to office is shown as coming from within the church, and with approval of its leadership. A man may humbly assert a call, but he must also be recognized as possessing the ability and requisite character traits.

Your brother in Christ.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 31, 2005)

Adam:

I know the theological difference. I guess what i am saying is I have learned much from some who are not ordained. And I would NEVER trade that in just to follow an opinion of which I believe mirrors Romanism Heierarchy


----------



## Archlute (Mar 31, 2005)

Joseph,

Why do you believe that Presbyterian polity is a mirror of Roman heirarchy? There is really no similarity between representational and heirarchical forms of government, especially at the level of Roman Catholicism. 

Also, the ordaination of ministers is merely a setting apart of a man of recognized by the church as being qualified for office. Romish ordaination holds that a special spiritual gift is conferred by the laying on of the bishop's hands. The two are quite opposed.


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 31, 2005)

I still do not see much of a diference in application. 

Are you making a distinction between representational vs heierachal? I never heard of that. Perhaps my ignorance.

Isnt the laying of hands practiced in Presbyterian polity also?

Again, I have learned much from those who have not been formally ordained and will never discount that. And i understood what you said before as this being the rule. Also I am not discounting the office of preacher, teacher etc etc, I am not in agreement with the seminarian stamp of approval, and traditional understanding of ordination as being the correct application. God has raised up many who are not under a "form" of Christiandumb poility.

It appears this is stressed much more than Scripture intends compared to the priginal practice of the early church. 


In His Grace


Joseph


----------



## The Lamb (Mar 31, 2005)

Perhaps I am understnding wrongly Adam. This is what I believe:

Elders (pastors) of the church must meet primarily moral qualifications, not primarily academic qualifications (1Ti 3; Tit 1). 


And I believe the academics, and "traditional" perscribed method over emphasizes the latter. 


The empahsis seems to be more on ordanization than any other spiritual gifts.


Joseph


----------

