Women Pastors?

[W2L]

The kingdom of Christ will not need or have pastors. So your point is moot.

The kingdom of Christ is more than some future event, its something we seek now by being separate from the world, and putting faith in God is all things, and by being humble and walking in love. I'm about tired of this discussion. Its making me ill.

 

[DawnStar]

All I have to say is that if the kingdom of Christ is now then it has been in terrible disarray for centuries.

 

[Cearbhall]

I also think we need less teachers not more.

You may think that there should be fewer teachers, but the current requirements in various denominations are not based on that. That's not relevant to their interests. Most are desperately looking for more leadership.

Woman are commanded to teach other woman. That should be sufficient.

Not everyone accepts this without question. Male pastors teach women all the time.

 

[timewerx]

My beliefs about it haven't changed since I was Christian. I was certainly never taught to believe that I would be subject to my husband. I'm not an uneducated child bride. That's just a strange cultural thing that persists in some regions of the world. It's no surprise to me that it made it into the Bible. I'd be shocked if it hadn't. But it's not relevant to Christianity where I live, and it's certainly not relevant to me.

I am wondering which country is this?

I've been to many Christian churches in different countries, Western, Third World. You bet, one Sunday, it will be preached and the pastor would be quoting Paul's verses on how a wife must submit to the husband.

Of course, the pastor would be preaching the topic in the most delicate manner to avoid offending women, especially, their wives!

 

[Cearbhall]

I am wondering which country is this?

USA.

I'm well aware that there are Christian communities within the United States that still believe in some sort of gendered hierarchy, such as Amish, Mormon, and Kingston Clan...but the point I was trying to make is that it's not a universal or fundamental Christian belief. The idea is as foreign to me as hijabs. It's more cultural than religious, and it's not part of my culture. It does not go without saying that Paul's words apply to Christians today, much less other women like myself who are considering ministry leadership roles outside of Christianity.

 

[timewerx]

USA.

I'm well aware that there are Christian communities within the United States that still believe in some sort of gendered hierarchy, such as Amish, Mormon, and Kingston Clan...but the point I was trying to make is that it's not a universal or fundamental Christian belief. It does not go without saying that Paul's words apply to Christians today, much less other women like myself who are considering ministry leadership roles outside of Christianity.

That is surprising. It was a Christian church somewhere in LA where I used to attend when I visited my relatives there. It was probably Baptist or Pentecostal/Evangelical.

I really am suspicious of Apostle Paul. This isn't just his teaching I have problems with, like the thing about obeying our parents....What if the parents are following false teachers, are we to obey them, if they are telling us to join them in their faith?

It's actually the case with my parents and they keep quoting Paul's teachings to force me to obey them. Of course, I don't have the nerve to tell them otherwise.

 

[Rhamiel]

Jesus choose 12 men to be Apostles

even though there was Mary Magdalene and the Blessed Virgin Mary who could have been Apostles
IF Jesus wanted women to have that role

I guess some people just think they are wiser then every Christian group for the first 1700 years of Christianity

2 Timothy 4:3
For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears

 

[Paulie079]

My personal stance on this subject is that God's design for the church was for it to be governed by elders/overseers (which would include pastors), and that those elders/overseers be men. This comes primarily from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. There are a lot of misconceptions or misunderstandings about having church leadership operate this way, but it flows out of a theological view of gender called complementarianism, which basically states that God created men and women equal in worth and dignity, but distinct in their roles. God's design for the church as we see it in the New Testament is that men would serve in the office of elder/overseer and that women would serve alongside men in every other role/function. To speak about it more in practice, the church I attend adheres to this, and we actually just recently had a meeting with all of the team leaders (about 15 of us) a few weeks ago. A comment was made at the end of the meeting by one of the women that there were a lot more women than men in the room and how that was a really cool thing, and that was echoed by the pastors. And the same woman also commented that there is no feeling of belittlement or oppression in the church and that the women really do feel encouraged and empowered to serve and lead. I believe this is the way it should be and the way that God intended it.

The kingdom of Christ will not need or have pastors. So your point is moot.

It's easy to judge the intent of posts (my initial judgment was that this was just a short response to shut W2L down), but I am trying not to. I will say, though, that what W2L seemed to mean in his post was that, when having this conversation, it applies to the church/the kingdom of God and not to secular society as a whole, which is what Cearbhall seemed to be referring to when she said "Not in my country." So his distinction was correct. And theologically speaking, the kingdom of God is considered to exist both in the present and in the future. It exists in the present in that people are giving their lives to Christ everyday and God's kingdom exists on earth in the hearts and fellowship of His followers as it also exists in the "not yet" or future sense (which you are referring to). But because it exists now, we obviously do need pastors/shepherds, and I would say it is even a stretch to say that they won't exist in heaven. I see where that idea comes from, I just don't think that can be definitively biblically stated.

 

[CCHIPSS]

Ok I am going to take a chance and be brutally honest.

Please read this. Many of the cults were found when women heavily influenced the church.

http://www.bible.ca/tongues-women-usurp.htm

I believe when a woman are the head of the church, it will eventually become Pentecostal and Charismatic. Women places heavy importance on feeling God. So when they are the leader, the church will be all about feelings. So having new prophets and prophetess (way after and outside the bible) are important to them. Speaking in unknown tongues, spirit manifestations and new prophecies become the focus.

For example when these prophetess say that after marriage sex is still sinful, the cult followers believe her. What these new prophetess say is just as good, or more so than the words in the bible. So no married couple has sex at all.

Has there ever been any true and faithful christian church found by women leadership?

I love my sisters in Christ, but I don't think they should be the head pastor. Once again the ladies can do many things in churches. And yes they can preach to men. However they must not be the head of churches. And their "new opinions", especially if they sound like Pentecostal or Charismatic and talking a lot about feelings and emotions, must be double checked very carefully with the word of God. Else the church cannot differentiate a false message from Satan, pretending to be from God, and be led astray.

 

[Cearbhall]

My personal stance on this subject is that God's design for the church was for it to be governed by elders/overseers (which would include pastors), and that those elders/overseers be men. This comes primarily from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. There are a lot of misconceptions or misunderstandings about having church leadership operate this way, but it flows out of a theological view of gender called complementarianism, which basically states that God created men and women equal in worth and dignity, but distinct in their roles.

A natural consequence of an economy and way of life that was based on manual labor and brute force. It comes down to how much a person believes the Bible was influenced by the human condition. I don't blame anyone for looking at these verses and genuinely thinking "Well, if that's what God said, then I guess that's how it should be..." But I personally think that's just a failure to think critically about the source of the information.

 

[Paulie079]

A natural consequence of an economy and way of life that was based on manual labor and brute force. It comes down to how much a person believes the Bible was influenced by the human condition. I don't blame anyone for looking at these verses and genuinely thinking "Well, if that's what God said, then I guess that's how it should be..." But I personally think that's just a failure to think critically about the source of the information.

That's a fair critique. I would say that it's hard to write a post that covers all the potential rabbit trails in one post. I am definitely not opposed to critical thinking (and not that you were necessarily saying that I am) and prefer it when it comes to everything the Bible says. It's possible that I haven't thought it entirely through, and it's also entirely possible that I'm wrong. I would say there are other disputable theological subjects that I am a lot more sure of than I am this one. That being said, I see how this design of God's functions in such a way that promotes human flourishing and joy, which is what the purpose of biblical guidelines is for Christians in the first place. People have different ways of going about interpreting the Bible, and for me personally, I would rather get to heaven and say that I attempted to follow Scripture to the best of my understanding of what it said rather than get there and find out God really did mean what He said while I did something different. I don't think that mindset is mutually exclusive of critical thinking either.

 

[timewerx]

A natural consequence of an economy and way of life that was based on manual labor and brute force. It comes down to how much a person believes the Bible was influenced by the human condition. I don't blame anyone for looking at these verses and genuinely thinking "Well, if that's what God said, then I guess that's how it should be..." But I personally think that's just a failure to think critically about the source of the information.

Someone's been thinking!

Yes, the Jewish culture is quite patriarchal unlike the Romans or the "heathens" at that time. It would be considered a taboo or "unJewish", heathen thing to treat women in the same regard as men.

The Jewish orthodoxy is synonymous with Pharisee. Apostle Paul used to be a Pharisee.

Jesus does not sympathize with the Pharisee, even failed to observe Jewish customs on treating women who is not your wife and actually exalted one woman above them all. It would seem Jesus does not look at the gender if a person met His approval.

It's also one thing to have Paul "filling in the blanks" with what he knew as a Pharisee (and he never denied being one btw)

And another thing about the credibility of the scribes. Christ held the scribes and Pharisees with the same regard (Matthew 5:20)

Christ warned us about the Pharisees that we might fall for their false teachings

It's really some twisted irony that the Bible is actually warning its readers not to trust everything that is written on it!

It may indeed be that God wants His followers to be shrewd (use critical thinking) instead of believing everything blindly.

 

[Paulie079]

It's really some twisted irony that the Bible is actually warning its readers not to trust everything that is written on it!

Spoiler

The Bible never says that.

 

[Rhamiel]

It's really some twisted irony that the Bible is actually warning its readers not to trust everything that is written on it!

you think the Jesus is telling us not to listen to Paul?
I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly


you say that having women leaders would have been something the Jews at that time would have not been able to accept?
you seem to ignore how quickly that the Church became majority Gentile
with the spread of Christianity to Roman Britain and Gaul (ancient France) these places would not have been held back by the backwardness of Hebrew culture
these places had pagan roman priestesses and druid wise women
IF this was something that Christianity could compromise on, it surely would have been done by those brave gentile Christians

eating pork was also seen as horrible by the Jews, but the gentile Christians got over that really quick

not having priestesses is not some thing made up by the Pharisees
it is something that God fearing Christians have had from the time Christ choose the Apostles until the 1800's

 

[Cearbhall]

That's a fair critique. I would say that it's hard to write a post that covers all the potential rabbit trails in one post. I am definitely not opposed to critical thinking (and not that you were necessarily saying that I am)

Not at all. It's clear that you've thought about it and support it for a reason. I'm speaking of those who seem to have no awareness of history and culture, or even worse, the men who smugly support it because it gives them power that they know they would personally never earn through merit.

 

[Paulie079]

Not at all. It's clear that you've thought about it and support it for a reason. I'm speaking of those who seem to have no awareness of history and culture, or even worse, the men who smugly support it because it gives them power that they know they would personally never earn through merit.

Yeah, that is when the whole thing becomes perverted. Which...it too often has.

 

[timewerx]

The Bible never says that.

Matthew 24:26
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold,he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

The way between Jerusalem and Damascus (the one that Paul took) is a desert.

Acts 22:6-9
6 “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.



Paul is basically saying "I saw Jesus out in the desert".

Remember, earlier, Jesus said, "if anyone tells you he is out in the desert, do not go out"

If Jesus is telling you not to go out for a particular person, it's very obvious you should not believe that person as well.


So how did that major contradiction got into the Bible?

Remember Jesus held the same low regards for the Pharisees and Scribes in term of righteousness....They will make mistakes. That's how those contradictions got together.

Don't just take things in plain sight. Look deeper.

Proverbs 14:15
The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.

 

[Paulie079]

Matthew 24:26
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold,he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

The way between Jerusalem and Damascus (the one that Paul took) is a desert.

Acts 22:6-9
6 “About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, ‘Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?’8 “‘Who are you, Lord?’ I asked.
“ ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,’ he replied. 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.



Paul is basically saying "I saw Jesus out in the desert".

Remember, earlier, Jesus said, "if anyone tells you he is out in the desert, do not go out"

If Jesus is telling you not to go out for a particular person, it's very obvious you should not believe that person as well.


So how did that major contradiction got into the Bible?

Remember Jesus held the same low regards for the Pharisees and Scribes in term of righteousness....They will make mistakes. That's how those contradictions got together.

Don't just take things in plain sight. Look deeper.

Proverbs 14:15
The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.

That is a majorly ambiguous passage to use to cast doubt on half of the New Testament, and an even more ambiguous application of it--in the very least a maaaaajor stretch. The problem with your theory is that after Paul's encounter with Jesus, he was an entirely changed person. A man responsible for imprisoning and slaughtering Christians became one of the greatest missionaries of the faith basically overnight. He was no longer a Pharisee after that encounter, and his writings prove it.

Like I said, nowhere does the Bible say that anyone should doubt the things written in it.

 

[SnowyMacie]

That is a majorly ambiguous passage to use to cast doubt on half of the New Testament, and an even more ambiguous application of it--in the very least a maaaaajor stretch. The problem with your theory is that after Paul's encounter with Jesus, he was an entirely changed person. A man responsible for imprisoning and slaughtering Christians became one of the greatest missionaries of the faith basically overnight. He was no longer a Pharisee after that encounter, and his writings prove it.

Like I said, nowhere does the Bible say that anyone should doubt the things written in it.

It does say that Paul can be confusing.

2 Peter 3:16 "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,as they do the other Scriptures to their own destruction."

 

[Paulie079]

It does say that Paul can be confusing.

2 Peter 3:16 "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,as they do the other Scriptures to their own destruction."

But "hard to understand" is very different than "doubtful."