Female Pastors & Bible Teachers

[Balugon]

Balugon~ Some human wrote every book of the Bible. I don't see you arguing the "authenticity" of Ezra's words or Jeremiah's. If we take the stance that we really shouldn't listen too closely to the things written in the Word by Paul, because, you know... He wrote about men being leaders and women not having authority over men... then how exactly does the rest of the Word fit in? Way too many of us have filters on the Word simply because we don't understand the passage. Does some of the things Paul wrote confuse me still? Yes. Especially that "women must remain silent in the church" passage, which I've heard 1,429,109 different interpretations of. But we must balance it out with the rest of the Word (even with the Old Testament), search and study the Scriptures and take passages into the context they were written in. I believe a lot of the Old Testament is cultural; rules and regulations written specifically for the Israelite tribes, but I do not believe the New Testament, after Jesus and the New Covenant, to be cultural at all. That's just me though. I've read nothing in the NT that I decide can be passed off based on culture or Paul writing "to a particular woman in a particular church." If he didn't want that same teaching to apply to the Church at large, he would not have included it in his writings.

So do you eat Jesus' body and drink his blood (John 6:53)? Because that would be pretty difficult considering he is still carrying his body around with him. And yet the Scripture says: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." Would you say you are unsaved then? Or perhaps one has to take the meaning in context and not take everything literally?

And what do you think about my post 88? Because it is definitely contradictory actions taken by Paul. Or what about this:

"36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, 'Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.' 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord." Acts 15:36-40

Paul and Barnabas were both chosen by God to go (Acts 13:2), so who was right? And clearly, if Paul was speaking and acting on behalf of God, he would have known the words to speak to Barnabas so that the disgreement would not have gotten sharp. So therefore Paul had to have been acting out of his own humanity here.

And we could also talk about the book of Ecclesiastes, and how it is written by the same author that wrote many of the proverbs. And yet do you hold all his words as equal truth? What about this passage of his:

"9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun." Ecc 9:9

And personally, I mean no offense. I don't expect anyone to do a 180 in here and change their opinion, because often people don't. But I think it becomes dangerous when people (not speaking specifically of you) choose to put their eyes so close to the Bible, that they miss the rest of the evidence that God may have put in the world around them (and sometimes even in other parts of the Bible) that raises questions with/contradicts the way they think. While all of the truth that is in the Bible will be found in God, not all of God will be found in the Bible, and so people shouldn't take individual Scriptures and simply make them doctrine, because they have no idea all the other issues that surround those singular scriptures.

 

[K9_Trainer]

I've read nothing in the NT that I decide can be passed off based on culture or Paul writing "to a particular woman in a particular church." If he didn't want that same teaching to apply to the Church at large, he would not have included it in his writings.

Thats ridiculous.

Paul had absolutely NO clue that his writings were to be canonized some day and live on 2000 years later.

He was writing letters TO specific Churches, TO specific people, and what he wrote was relevant to THEM at the time they were written. To suggest that Pauls letters weren't influenced by culture and the current events of the time is absurd.

Paul told women to be quiet in church in one of his letters because it was against roman law for a man to let "his woman" run amok. It wouldn't look good for Christianity as an early organization to be disobeying the law of the land. Paul didn't want that sort of reputation to be tagged on to Christianity. He didn't write that for it to be used to discriminate against women 2000 years later in a culture that views women as actual people instead of cattle.

 

[Deacon]

Thats ridiculous.

Paul had absolutely NO clue that his writings were to be canonized some day and live on 2000 years later.

He was writing letters TO specific Churches, TO specific people, and what he wrote was relevant to THEM at the time they were written. To suggest that Pauls letters weren't influenced by culture and the current events of the time is absurd.

Paul told women to be quiet in church in one of his letters because it was against roman law for a man to let "his woman" run amok. It wouldn't look good for Christianity as an early organization to be disobeying the law of the land. Paul didn't want that sort of reputation to be tagged on to Christianity. He didn't write that for it to be used to discriminate against women 2000 years later in a culture that views women as actual people instead of cattle.

I just developed a crush on your brain...

 

[dayhiker]

I think if one is in a patriarchal society like the early church was then men should be the teachers. But in a society where men and women are equal then the church also should regard them as equal in all things. The verses that teach about each ministering according to the gives given by the Holy Spirit apply.

 

[visualword]

I am enjoying the comments.

Just to clarify my earlier comment, I believe the bible from Genesis to Revelation. I also believe that some of the stories/passages in the bible are for us to learn principle from and not to imitate or take literally, while some of the scripture can be taken literally. God helps is in understanding the difference and true meaning and how it would apply to us today. That means God does speak to us outside of the bible.

He gives us inner meaning by way of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Tamara224]

I've read nothing in the NT that I decide can be passed off based on culture or Paul writing "to a particular woman in a particular church." If he didn't want that same teaching to apply to the Church at large, he would not have included it in his writings.

So, do you apply this "rule" to all of Paul's writings?

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? (1 Cor 5)

​

So, this wasn't about a particular man in a particular church?

I guess we need to put all men out of fellowship, then, since this applies to all men in all churches for all time.

That certainly settles the women in leadership question.



The thing that people seem to be forgetting about the 1 Timothy 2 passage is that Paul said "I do not permit..." He did not say "God does not permit." That right there should be enough to clue us in that it's not a universal law for all times. In 1 Corinthians 7:12 there's another instance of Paul issuing instructions that are from him and not from God.

Also, if you look at the Greek of 1 Tim 2:12, you'll see that it get's translated as "I do not permit", but it actually should say "I am not permitting" (imperfect present tense, I think?). Which suggests that it's a temporary measure.

One other thing.... Timothy was Paul's protege and Paul trained him before Timothy was put in charge of the church in Ephesus. If it were a universal rule that women were not allowed to teach or have authority over men, then wouldn't Timothy already know that rule? Wouldn't that have been something Timothy observed and learned from Paul in his training? Why would Paul need to issue this instruction, as if it were brand new? The very fact that Paul says "I am not permitting..." at this time suggests that it wasn't a universal rule that Paul was practicing in all the churches, but a time specific and place specific instruction contrary to what he usually did.



For some really deep discussion of Greek grammar, and why I believe there is textual evidence that Paul was talking about one specific woman, check out this article: Women In Ministry » Blog Archive » “A woman” in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 as an anaphoric reference

 

[DanuckInUSA]

Women have a role in leadership in the church. Leading other women. This is a very important role. It leads to strength of the women in submitting to the men of the church and causes the men to become men of God.

 

[hisbloodformysins]

OK, controversy time...

Disclaimer: I just want to preface this by reminding everyone to remain civil and to realise that (even if we might want to) we're probably not going to change someone's theological position with a single post.

So, my question is: what is everyone's stance on female pastors? Biblical or not? Also, what about female teachers at Bible College/Seminary? Is it the same? Or because its not a church does your position change?

FWIW I believe the Bible is clear that women should not be in authority over men in the church. But the reason I'm asking this is that I'm considering enrolling at a Bible College where I would be taught by a woman. I'm sure she's totally capable and knows the material etc. But I'm not sure if its theologically ok.
I really hope I don't sound sexist or misogynistic by even asking this. I just want to make sure I wouldn't be going against God's word. This area (gender roles) has been an area I've had a lot of trouble coming to terms with since I became a Christian (partly due to my upbringing).

Thanks,
JJ

I want to be a preacher/evangelist someday.

I think you can either put God in your tiny box or you can be open to all God has for you. It's your choice. I personally don't like to limit God and i'm glad that his annointing isn't limited to men's (and women's) limited understanding.

HB

 

[Sunset2009]

And personally, I mean no offense. I don't expect anyone to do a 180 in here and change their opinion, because often people don't. But I think it becomes dangerous when people (not speaking specifically of you) choose to put their eyes so close to the Bible, that they miss the rest of the evidence that God may have put in the world around them (and sometimes even in other parts of the Bible) that raises questions with/contradicts the way they think. While all of the truth that is in the Bible will be found in God, not all of God will be found in the Bible, and so people shouldn't take individual Scriptures and simply make them doctrine, because they have no idea all the other issues that surround those singular scriptures.

Thank you for proving my point. Scripture needs balanced and taken into context.

Thats ridiculous.

Paul had absolutely NO clue that his writings were to be canonized some day and live on 2000 years later.

He was writing letters TO specific Churches, TO specific people, and what he wrote was relevant to THEM at the time they were written. To suggest that Pauls letters weren't influenced by culture and the current events of the time is absurd.

Paul told women to be quiet in church in one of his letters because it was against roman law for a man to let "his woman" run amok. It wouldn't look good for Christianity as an early organization to be disobeying the law of the land. Paul didn't want that sort of reputation to be tagged on to Christianity. He didn't write that for it to be used to discriminate against women 2000 years later in a culture that views women as actual people instead of cattle.

I get what you're saying in this case, and that could very well be the reason Paul said that. However, this same "idea" of women not having authority over men in the church (always, always remember, in the Church) is still said in other places throughout Paul's letters and not because it was Roman law.

And there is a Scripture that Paul talks of slavery, which is cultural, so I shouldn't have said I find no cultural teachings in the NT. I guess I meant of any great magnitude, such as you would find the in OT. But slavery, as you know, lasted thousands of years after Paul. (Who did not condone a master beating his slave. Think of Joseph in Potiphar's house.) It was a fact of life then, and for a long while afterwards. Even Jesus mentioned it. But there are still men and women in the Church and there always will be, and that's why I don't think it's a purely cultural teaching.

So, do you apply this "rule" to all of Paul's writings?

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? (1 Cor 5)

​

So, this wasn't about a particular man in a particular church?

Sure it was, but here's my point: If, in the future, even in one of today's churches, a man were to sleep with his father's wife, the church should put the man out of fellowship. Was Paul writing to specific people, to specific churches? Yes. But he was writing to the New Testament Church. Which is what we are.

The thing that people seem to be forgetting about the 1 Timothy 2 passage is that Paul said "I do not permit..." He did not say "God does not permit." That right there should be enough to clue us in that it's not a universal law for all times. In 1 Corinthians 7:12 there's another instance of Paul issuing instructions that are from him and not from God.

Also, if you look at the Greek of 1 Tim 2:12, you'll see that it get's translated as "I do not permit", but it actually should say "I am not permitting" (imperfect present tense, I think?). Which suggests that it's a temporary measure.

I understand that Paul says "I do not permit..." However, Paul never specifies (like in 1 Cor 7) that it is a teaching solely from himself and not God, so maybe we shouldn't assume. Plus, if you read the verse right above that one, Paul writes, "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness." Not, "I do not permit a woman to not be quiet and submissive, etc." Since both verses are of the same nature, your argument isn't very strong.

One other thing.... Timothy was Paul's protege and Paul trained him before Timothy was put in charge of the church in Ephesus. If it were a universal rule that women were not allowed to teach or have authority over men, then wouldn't Timothy already know that rule? Wouldn't that have been something Timothy observed and learned from Paul in his training? Why would Paul need to issue this instruction, as if it were brand new? The very fact that Paul says "I am not permitting..." at this time suggests that it wasn't a universal rule that Paul was practicing in all the churches, but a time specific and place specific instruction contrary to what he usually did.

Okay. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul gives instructions on what overseers and deacons should look like. Shouldn't Timothy have already known this? In 1 Timothy 5, Paul talks about honoring widows. Shouldn't Timothy have already known this? Why would Paul need to issue this teaching as if it were brand new? He's just reinterating teachings to a student. If you want to go into a ministry, you're going to be re-told a lot of things you already know. That doesn't mean it's a brand new concept. But indeed, Paul writes, "I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God..." (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Spirit_Star]

I see no reason a woman should not be a pastor/minister etc or teach about the bible. The bible is very old and a bit outdated in that aspect. It was from a time where men were seen better then woman and above them so obviously the bible would relate to the time period that the authors lived in. Times have changed.

 

[K9_Trainer]

I get what you're saying in this case, and that could very well be the reason Paul said that. However, this same "idea" of women not having authority over men in the church (always, always remember, in the Church) is still said in other places throughout Paul's letters and not because it was Roman law.

And there is a Scripture that Paul talks of slavery, which is cultural, so I shouldn't have said I find no cultural teachings in the NT. I guess I meant of any great magnitude, such as you would find the in OT. But slavery, as you know, lasted thousands of years after Paul. (Who did not condone a master beating his slave. Think of Joseph in Potiphar's house.) It was a fact of life then, and for a long while afterwards. Even Jesus mentioned it. But there are still men and women in the Church and there always will be, and that's why I don't think it's a purely cultural teaching.

Slavery was indeed a fact of life for people living in that era.

But so was women being property. Thats not a fact of life any more. Why should verses that discriminate against women be treated any differently than the verses in the NT that permit slave keeping, give regulations on the purchase/trade of slaves and tell slaves to obey their masters?

The discrimination of women in the Bible is nothing BUT the result of cultural influence.

Look at it this way, what if a letter got put in the Bible that told a community that slave keeping was immoral and abolished by law of God? It would not be received well because, like you said, slave keeping was a fact of life at the time. The credibility of Christianity would have diminished. You can't just outright tell a group of people set in a specific paradigm that they are wrong and must change because God says so.

The situation with women is no different. Women were akin to cattle, a woman taking authority ANYWHERE would have probably gotten her killed. If she was not with a man, she was fair game to be raped and taken like slave. Women were inferior when the Bible was written, so it's only logical that there would be no verses about womens liberation beyond "Husbands love your wives" and "There is no male or female in God".

The fastest way to kill and ostracize a new organization is to take extreme positions against culture upon beginning. The same tactics were intentionally used when trying to integrate Pagans into Christianity. The birth of Christ was incorrectly placed during Paganism's Yule and Solstice celebration traditions. That wasn't an accident. Trying to convince your crowd to stop celebrating on a holiday ingrained in the culture and celebrate another day 4 months later won't work.

Whether Paul was intentionally being tactical is questionable. I do find it curious how he used a personal pronoun in his letter to Timothy instead of outright making a command. HE doesn't permit women to teach in a Church. He was telling Timothy how HE runs the show, not commanding how Timothy should do it according to God. IMO, that leaves room for women to preach IF the relevant culture and society is accepting.

 

[Tamara224]

Sure it was, but here's my point: If, in the future, even in one of today's churches, a man were to sleep with his father's wife, the church should put the man out of fellowship. Was Paul writing to specific people, to specific churches? Yes. But he was writing to the New Testament Church. Which is what we are.

And you completely sidestepped my point. Which is that there is definitely evidence of Paul stating specific things to specific people and specific situations in the specific churches at that time. We do not have to adopt every single thing he said as a universal law.

I understand that Paul says "I do not permit..." However, Paul never specifies (like in 1 Cor 7) that it is a teaching solely from himself and not God, so maybe we shouldn't assume. Plus, if you read the verse right above that one, Paul writes, "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness." Not, "I do not permit a woman to not be quiet and submissive, etc." Since both verses are of the same nature, your argument isn't very strong.

I'm not making any assumptions. I'm reading the text as it is. When Paul says "I do not permit..." instead of saying "it is not permitted" or "God does not permit" we have to give that meaning. If we believe that God inspired Paul to write that letter to Timothy, then we have to believe that the words he used have meaning. The obvious inference with Paul's use of "I" is that it was a directive coming from himself.

Also, remember that the tense should be "I am not permitting..." which is indicative that it was not a universal prohibition, but a temporary one.

Okay. In 1 Timothy 3, Paul gives instructions on what overseers and deacons should look like. Shouldn't Timothy have already known this? In 1 Timothy 5, Paul talks about honoring widows. Shouldn't Timothy have already known this? Why would Paul need to issue this teaching as if it were brand new? He's just reinterating teachings to a student. If you want to go into a ministry, you're going to be re-told a lot of things you already know. That doesn't mean it's a brand new concept. But indeed, Paul writes, "I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God..." (1 Tim 3:15)

Granted.

 

[welshman]

There are so many arguments and verses used by different people that I want to refute, it would take me too long to reply to every single one. So, just check out www.carm.org/women-in-ministry for all the answers you need when discussing the more vague, obscure verses and arguments for those who believe women can be pastors (have authority in church).

 

[Sri]

It is not wrong for a woman to be a youth pastor or women's pastor or children's pastor. There are places in the world where only women can minister and only permitted to talk to other women. How else are they going to get reached? Read my post. I don't agree with you.

 

[Stravinsk]

And you completely sidestepped my point. Which is that there is definitely evidence of Paul stating specific things to specific people and specific situations in the specific churches at that time. We do not have to adopt every single thing he said as a universal law.

Except when the *reason* given transends both the cultural, temporal and the fact that it was given to a specific church at a specific time - which I've already articulated in my previous post.

But that's the point you wish to completely ignore.

It really shouldn't be a surprise to you that many men and women will resist you in churches if you persist in disregarding what is plainly written in favour of what is not written but assumed by you.

I find in all this a bit of irony. Obviously you want to be a "spiritual leader" - but to do so means you must make lots of assumptions and disregard Scripture in the process. Meh. I won't say "good luck" - because I think you'll find nothing but alot of heartache and rejection because of it.

I also know you said you will not be debating with me any longer. Don't think that means I will not address your posts as I see fit.

 

[GQ Chris]

I've got some other points I'd like to clarify when I have more time folks.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

The Hellenistic branch of Christianity(Not so sure about the Jewish branch, since it already had set in stone leadership from the start thru Peter, James, and John) took what it could get which included slaves and women... because in church you were equal. My college professor told us that in one of the earliest versions of the bible 1 Cor 14:34-36 was an extrapolation, a footnote. Probably not written by Paul. I wonder why we have not addressed the issue of Paul/Psuedo-Paul here. In NT scholarship, there are only 7-8 books that are unanimously accepted as Paul of Tarsus. The other ones apparently were written in his name by later contemporaries. 1 Corinthians is one of the "authentics" but 1 14:34-36 is in direct contradiction to chapter 11.. to be honest, Christians had some leeway in going against the culture, they were getting killed for their faith after all.

 

[Andrew12]

As Myself and several others have posted already, The Bible, at least to us Christians, should be the authority and guide for our lives, whether it be day to day or general purpose. Paul wrote those letters to Timothy, as instructions not only for Timothy but for the church in general. We can debate our own opinions while twisting facts and scriptures to suit our arguments, but the crux of the matter is this:

What does the Bible say? I mean in black & white, not anyone's interpretation. not just one scripture, but what does it say?


Clearly God can & has used women for His works & purposes. Yes, women can sometimes reach subsets of people that men cannot. BUT according to the black & white of the scripture without any twisting, or interpretation, it says that God gave Men the responsibility of leadership over their households (wives & children...etc) and It records and sets the standards for being a Pastor/Preacher and deacon, and by those standards and those standards alone, a woman cannot fulfill those requirements. A woman cannot be the husband of one wife, not should she rule her household.


The final answer to whether a woman can have an important role in God's Work, the answer is absolutely Yes!

The Final answer to whether or not a woman can be a Pastor/Preacher or Deacon, the answer is clearly and absolutely No.





~God Bless~


Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Brother Andrew

 

[Sri]

women have been teachers for as long as I know. Everyone has been a teacher in their lifetime, weither what they taught was good or not. Lots of women have been great teachers and I have to disagree with you Phoebe was even a deacon whom paul commended in Romanns 16:1-7,13,15. I agree with you whole heartedly that it is man to be head over his household and for their to be order, but women can co-lead even if that includes some sort of pastoring or teaching.

 

[Sri]

1. The word deacon refers here to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways; similarly in Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8,12. the verse regarding teaching over men was regarding ephesian women during that time.
2. I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon[a][b] of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. 3 Greet Priscilla[c] and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.
3. the newly converts of the church they had become a nuisance, that is not to say everyone is always doing this it was time and situational
4. Fourth, the word "quiet" in verse 12 is hesuchia not sigao.
5. Hesuchia (used four times in the NT -- see notes below) means to be subdued, to be quiet and but not necessarily completely silent.1
   1. Hesuchia
      1. Acts 22:2, "And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet";
      2. 2 Thess. 3:12, "Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread."
   2. Sigao (used nine times in the NT -- see notes below) means absolute silence.2