Should Women be Allowed to Pastor Churches?

[Galilee63]

Never.

This type of thing deeply offends our Blessed Holy Trinity in my relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ Holy Spirit, God The Most High and in Most Holy Mother Mary I say this.

Read Gods Holy Word and you will see there are female helpers of Gods of our Lord Jesus Christs however God chose His Priests Prophets and Religious most of them and those serving Him on His Altars in His Holy Church Temple to be "male" and our Lord Jesus Christ "celibate" and of course "Male" with our Lords Holy Disciples told to leave families and serve God in Him then Disciples in Jesus to Priests to be male and celibate with Nuns/Sisters/Saints celibate. Most were male and celibate.

 

[Radagast]

I agree with everything you said here except the bit about Junia. The earliest manuscripts we have say Junia.

Actually, every manuscript I'm aware of says Ἰουνιᾶν, which is in the accusative case (object of the verb "to greet"). That is the accusative form of both the feminine name Junia and the masculine name Junias. True, they can be distinguished with accents, but accents are not part of the original text, or of any of the oldest manuscripts.

Church tradition is also a little equivocal on Junia/Junias (though leaning to the feminine). Origen, for example, thought that Junias was a man.

Now, if I had to bet, I think she probably was a woman (and probably the wife of Andronicus). But if she's the best argument for female clergy, then you're not going to convince too many people. It's the kind of thing that looks convincing once you already believe in female clergy, but it's not the kind of argument one should lead with.

In the same way, it is far from clear that ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις means that the word "apostle" was used of her/him (Chrysostom thought it was, but apparently in an honorific sense).

Sorry to belabour the point, but I think we do this a lot on CF. Catholics use arguments that make perfect sense if you are already a Catholic. Calvinists use arguments that make perfect sense if you are already a Calvinist. And so forth. Naturally, these arguments make absolutely no impact on "the other side," at which point the person making the argument wonders "why those morons can't see the obvious."

 

[GingerBeer]

I found this helped me understand the Scripture regarding that verse a bit clearer. Jon is an incredible man with a lot of Godly wisdom.

The video is smoke and mirrors and what does the video guy know about "the original Greek"? His comment about "the original Greek" was a throw away line offered to discredit the standard English translations of 1 Timothy 2:12.

 

[Radagast]

The officer training is more difficult than enlisted training. The marines expect their officers to be better than the lower ranking soldiers.

The USMC have also made their infantry officer course much, much easier, by no longer requiring a pass on the Combat Endurance Test.

But what has this to do with female clergy?

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

This poll doesn't have a neutral option, so I have not voted.

It occurs to me, however, that the Bible, does, in fact, prohibit women as pastors. At the time that Paul wrote those words, as I understand it, women played little part in the proceedings of synagogues. They were mere spectators, and their being allowed to attend at all was a privilege, not a right. Considering that, I suspect that the model that the church was approaching was probably a bit more favorable to women than the Jewish model that it had proceeded from. In light of that, it would be tempting to downplay the scripture as a reference to the culture of that era, with no lasting implication.

However, there is also that nasty law of unintended consequences. The Bible tells women to submit to their husbands. Some would argue that the marital roles are equivalent or interchangeable, but statistics show that the young men born to mothers who dominate the family have a vastly increased chance of becoming homosexual. One sin begets another. The Bible tells us not to do it, but we do it anyway because we cannot foresee the harm in it, and that's exactly what happened to Eve ("surely you will not die").

Then, there's also the circular effect: because the Bible tells women not to preach, a woman who does preach has proved by that very act that she does not esteem the very Bible that she preaches. If the roles were reversed, then the same could be said about men. This is nothing inherent in women being able or unable to preach, but it does make one wonder upon what authority such a person stands. One cannot derive authority from the same Bible whose authority one has rejected. I see this in practice, too. The women that I have seen pastor a church have, with one exception, had little to no regard for the real doctrine of the Bible in their preaching. I suspect that the congregations are full of godly women who could easily preach a far better and godly sermon than the one who got up to preach, but they do not, because they actually follow the Bible that they are so qualified to preach.

But the days when it was within anyone's remit to "allow" us or not are past.

No man has the authority to tell a woman that she cannot preach, but the Bible is unchanging, and it has the authority to do that very thing. It has told women not to preach, and it is upon the word of the Bible that both men and women make that claim. Your rebellion is not against men. It is certainly not against me, for I make no such claim. One must wonder why a woman should be ordained to preach the scriptures which she has rejected.

I am a female and I have no problem submitting to God or to men in authority.

It is by this submission that you have made yourself qualified to lead.

 

[Halbhh]

My opinion is no, according to Scriptures. In any other position, I would think otherwise.

e.g. A woman can teach children and other women. A woman can be an assistant.

Trying to guess more about what were the actual roles in the early church we have things like 1 Cor chapter 12 --

"27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts."


And a powerful indication here! --

1 Corinthians 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

So, if you want your church to be like that -- then the "pastor" needs to yield the floor very often.

Often!

And let the congregation hear from more of the believers!

Yes?

What is our response to this from the early church?

What our response should be -- real change now, in most churches.

So, while at that time women were needed to apply the principle of 1 Cor chapter 8, right now today we have a severe problem of a whole different kind -- that we are not hearing enough from enough of our brothers and sisters.

 

[GingerBeer]

A little context helps with what Paul teaches about women in a church meeting.

1Tim 2:9 Let women dress with simplicity and modesty, not adorned with fancy hairstyles, gold, jewels and expensive clothes, 10 but with good works, as is fitting for women serving God. 11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction and be submissive. 12 I allow no woman to teach, or to have authority over men. Let them be quiet. 13 For Adam was created first and then Eve. 14 Adam was not deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and fell into sin. 15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided that her life be orderly and holy, in faith and love.

1Cor 11:1 Follow my example as I follow the example of Christ. 2 I praise you, because you remember me in everything, and you keep the traditions that I have given you. 3 However, I wish to remind you, that every man has Christ as his head, while the wife has her husband as her head; and God is the head of Christ. 4 If a man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonours his head. 5 On the contrary, the woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, does not respect her head. She might as well cut her hair. 6 If a woman does not use a veil, let her cut her hair; and if it is a shame for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved, then let her use a veil.​

Paul speak of limits on what he allows women to do and he also talks about what women may do. There is nothing in these two passages to suggest that women were allowed to be pastors. Other passages may offer some vague hope for those who accept or desire others to accept women as pastors but the passages quoted about make it very difficult to justify that.

 

[dreadnought]

My opinion is no, according to Scriptures. In any other position, I would think otherwise.

e.g. A woman can teach children and other women. A woman can be an assistant.

Yes, I think women should be allowed to be pastors. Paul didn't think so, but Jesus taught we should love our neighbors as ourselves, and I wouldn't like it if someone told me I couldn't pastor a church, simply because I was born of the wrong gender. The Lord certainly didn't think women were incompetent - he had Deborah rule over Israel.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Women and men who do not regard the scripture in relation to the order of the church have the same rebellious and proud spirit that some in the homosexual community have in relation to trying to nullify what the Bible says because of how they feel about what it says.

If a woman is becoming a pastor because she is trying to assert her equality, she should not become a pastor.

Having said that, please consider the following parable Jesus said.

Luke 14

16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:

17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.

18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.

19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.

20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.

21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.

22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.

23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.


There are times when we are called to fill a role that is not ours to fill because those who were called did not come. Maybe is hasn’t been noticed, but in many places, churches are full of women and there are few men.

Paul said that he became all things to all people that some might be saved. Jesus said that the harvest is plenty, but the laborers are few.

If you think it’s more important for a woman running a Bible study, to turn away men who want to know about God, in order to observe the scriptures about a woman teaching a man, I heavily disagree. So to a large extent women fill these roles because the men don’t do it.

Jesus gives the example of saving a sheep on the Sabbath. He was not saying to ignore the Sabbath, but that it is ok to do good on the Sabbath even if it means not upholding the Sabbath to do it.

Women and men need to recognize what the Bible says about their roles. If they step outside of those roles, it should be to meet an unanswered need for the kingdom’s sake and not because they do not regard the scriptures.

 

[aiki]

No, women should not be serving as pastors/elders.

1 Timothy 3:1-7
1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;
3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;
4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence
5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);
6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1 Timothy 2:11-14
11 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.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

Ephesians 5:22-24
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Scripture could not be more plain as to the role of women in the church and in relation to men (particularly within the bonds of marriage). There is no biblical record of a woman serving as an elder/pastor and as the passages above indicate, this is in perfect accord with the injunctions of the inspired writers of the New Testament. Any woman serving in the role of pastor/elder is doing so in contradiction to the plain dictates of Scripture and as such is in rebellion toward God, however "spiritually fruitful" she may feel her "ministry" is.

 

[archer75]

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded,

A very literal reading of this passage might say that a bishop MUST be married. Do you think that's the case?

 

[aiki]

A very literal reading of this passage might say that a bishop MUST be married. Do you think that's the case?

What does the verse say? Is there a figurative way in a which a man may be the husband of one wife?

 

[archer75]

What does the verse say? Is there a figurative way in a which a man may be the husband of one wife?

I asked you about your understanding of this verse. Will you share it?

As for me, on the face of it might mean "a bishop must be married to exactly one woman" or "a bishop may not have multiple wives" or "a bishop may not be divorced."

Is your understanding that it means, to be a bishop, the candidate MUST be a man and MUST be married to exactly one woman? May he have been married to a different woman in the past? If he becomes bishop and then his wife dies, is he still a bishop?

 

[aiki]

I asked you about your understanding of this verse. Will you share it?

As for me, on the face of it might mean "a bishop must be married to exactly one woman" or "a bishop may not have multiple wives" or "a bishop may not be divorced."

Is your understanding that it means, to be a bishop, the candidate MUST be a man and MUST be married to exactly one woman? May he have been married to a different woman in the past? If he becomes bishop and then his wife dies, is he still a bishop?

I think several things are clearly implied by the phrase "the husband of one wife":

1. A bishop is supposed to be male. A woman, after all, cannot be a husband - whatever lesbian couples may assert.
2. A bishop ought, at least, to have been married. If a bishop's wife has passed away, he is certainly free to make another woman his wife without violating Paul's criteria for the role of bishop. Obviously, though, no bishop may be a polygamist or be married as a divorcee and/or to a divorced person (except, perhaps, in the case of adultery, as God reluctantly allows).
3. A bishop is to be heterosexual.

 

[archer75]

I think several things are implied by the phrase "the husband of one wife":

1. A bishop is supposed to be male. A woman, after all, cannot be a husband - whatever lesbian couples may assert.
2. A bishop ought, at least, to have been married. If a bishop's wife has passed away, he is certainly free to make another woman his wife without violating Paul's criteria for the role of bishop. Obviously, though, no bishop may be a polygamist or be married as a divorcee and/or to a divorced person (except, perhaps, in the case of adultery, as God reluctantly allows).
3. A bishop is to be heterosexual.

So, you have interpreted the phrase not to mean only exactly what it says, but in accordance with what seems to you to be good sense, etc. And other people might reasonably understand the sense of the verse differently.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

biblically, no.

but rebels gonna rebel.

 

[Deadworm]

Most Fundamentalists, especially on this site, lack the intellectual integrity to investigate what NT scholars have discovered on this issue. The 2 relevant NT texts are 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:9-15, neither of which come from Paul. The scholarly consensus among both conservative and liberal NT scholars demonstrates on linguistic and other grounds that the Pastoral Epistles (1 -2 Timothy and Titus) are Deuteron-Pauline, that is not written by Paul. Furthermore, 1 Timothy 2:9-11 wrongly muzzles women on the grounds that women are morally inferior to men. The author blames Eve, not Adam, for the Serpent's deception, when in fact Adam was present during the deception and remained silent before eating the forbidden fruit. By contrast, the real Paul blames Adam for the Fall.

NT scholars reject 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as a later non-Pauline interpolation on 5 grounds:
(1) It contradicts what Paul has just said in the same epistle. in 1 Corinthians 11:5 we learn that Paul encourages women to prophesy and pray out loud in church.
(2) It does not fit its present context, which focuses exclusively on the gifts of prophecy and tongues.
(3) Early NT manuscripts recognize that these verses don't belong here and relocate them.
(4) There is precedent for claiming an interpolation in the Corinthian correspondence. The scholarly consensus recognizes 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 as another later non-Pauline interpolation.
(5) The real Paul would never base an argument for church order on the Law of Moses, as 14:34-35 does. Rather, the real Paul teaches that "Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4).

Of course, the bogus character of both texts clashes with what we know about female leadership in Paul's churches. Here are just 3 examples from Romans 16:
(1) Paul recognizes Junia as a female apostle, a fact widely recognized by the church fathers.
(2) Phoebe was the minister (diakonos) of her house church Romans 16:1-2). "Minister" is the primary meaning of "diakonos." Only later, when combined with "bishops" and "elders," does it acquire its hierarchical meaning of "deacon."
(3) In 4 of the 6 times Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned in the NT, Priscilla is mentioned before her husband! This sequence pattern is unheard of in ancient patriarchal culture. That's most likely because she did the missionary work, while her husband worked as a tentmaker to finance her ministry. But since she arrives in Rome before Peter (See Acts 18:1-2) and establishes a house church there, she looms as the best candidate as the founder of the Church of Rome.

So Paul means what he says in Galatians 3:27-28 when he repudiates discrimination in church based on gender, race, or social standing.

 

[Innerfire89]

Far more against discrimination.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,
there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The point of Galatians 3:28 all are equal in Christ, all have received the same Grace.
Being equal dose not mean being the same.

 

[Innerfire89]

Why should we men not consider a woman to be regarded as "an other?"

Matthew 7:12
In everything, then, do to others
as you would have them do to you.
For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not demand it back.
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Philippians 2:4
Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,
there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So there's no room for following the the guidelines of biblical church practice because someone wants to do thier own thing?

Philippians 2:4 isn't about helping with whatever someone is interested in, it's about looking out for the good of others, to edify them.

I for one would like others to instruct me in righteous living and biblically sound teachings, so that's what I do unto others.

 

[aiki]

So, you have interpreted the phrase not to mean only exactly what it says, but in accordance with what seems to you to be good sense, etc. And other people might reasonably understand the sense of the verse differently.

I have not merely applied "good sense" in a purely subjective way as you seem to be implying. All of what I "interpreted" is clearly carried within the phrase "husband of one wife" and is in accord with other pertinent Scripture (that pertain to marriage). I haven't, then, just offered one of a myriad possible interpretations of Paul's words. There aren't a myriad number of interpretations that the phrase will allow and you haven't offered an alternative interpretation that better communicates Paul's meaning. Consequently, I am well-justified in asserting that how I have understood Paul's words is exactly how he meant them. Of course, if I'm correct, then all those other interpretations you imply are possible become very difficult to sustain - if they differ significantly from what I've taken Paul to mean.