Should Women be Allowed to Pastor Churches?

[Deadworm]

aiki: ""Paul does not wrongly muzzle women on the grounds of women being morally inferior to men. He says in the passage above only that Eve was deceived (not morally inferior) when Adam was not."

You are oblivious to both the literary context and the broader cultural context.
(1) What you don't get is the fact that the author of 1 Timothy (not Paul!) Eve is deceived is used both to stereotype women's weak character and as grounds to deny women the right "to teach or have authority over a man." Indeed, in creation women are treated as an afterthought to prevent men from being lonely. And the author overlooks the fact that Adam is present at the Serpent's deception, and is equally deceived and culpable.

(2) 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is a typical expression of the broader misogynist contemporary Jewish culture. For example, in the Catholic OT we read: "Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good (Sirach 42:14)." "Even the most virtuous woman is a witch (Midhnah Terum 15)." "Whoever speaks much with a woman brings misfortune on himself, neglects the words of the Law, and finally earns Hell (Mishnah Aboth 1:5)." Women didn't even count towards a quorum necessary to form a worshiping community (Mishnah Aboth 3:6).



Aiki: "As far as I'm concerned, the deutero-Pauline debate is a post-modernist load of nonsense, in no small part provoked by - and pandering to - the modern hard-line, leftist/"progressive," third-wave feminist ideology of the identicality of the sexes."
You need to season your penchant for bluster here with a modicum of intellectual rigor by actually learning Greek well enough to grasp the many arguments invoked by liberal and conservative Bible scholars against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. Otherwise, you are pontificating from ignorance, like most Fundamentalists.

AIKI: "Paul says nothing here about a woman prophesying or praying in church."

On the contrary, women are required to cover their heads in public worship "for the sake of the angels" who are present during corporate worship (1 Corinthians 11:5, 10). The belief that angels are present during corporate worship is traceable to the Qumran Essenes.













c

 

[Zoii]

So many times we seem to approach this question by asking what the church should allow rather than looking at it from the perspective of "What does our Lord say in the Bible about Men being given the responsibility for the family and for the Church of Jesus Christ." We tend to ask what is forbidden rather than what God demands of us.

Just for the sake of discussion my very devoted wife says, "As long as there is one man standing, seeking the will of God in his leadership and using the Bible as his guide and taking responsibility for the well being of all then it is incumbent that he be the leader of his family and of the church. But if there is no man able to do so and no man with a backbone to stand for Jesus and take up the cross, then we have no choice but to allow a woman take that role. Then, when a man comes along who has the backbone and shows the Word of our Lord as his guide, then she should stand relieved even if it requires that she acquiesce to him." So, if a man has the ability but stood back when he should have stepped up, then he is going to be held accountable before God. And if a woman takes the reins and was doing Gods will then no man has any authority to hold her to a lesser standard during that time. God Bless Her for her service.

She sounds like a lovely woman but Im sorry thats too old fashioned for my generation and unnecessary

 

[marineimaging]

She sounds like a lovely woman but Im sorry thats too old fashioned for my generation and unnecessary

Well, you can call it "old fashioned" if you wish. But we call it being Biblical. So we are probably approaching the issue from two different philosophical upbringings. I see and hear so many arguments between conservative and liberal identities that when it gets heated I just fall back on this with; If we believe in Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God, who was born of the virgin Mary, who was crucified as atonement for our sins, who rose on the third day, abode with mankind for a certain period of time then ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father, who will return and cast Satan into hell and reign for 1000 years..., then we will probably see each other in heaven some day which will be like the twinkle of an eye.

 

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

i'm actually surprised that 'no' is winning by a good margin.

 

[Albion]

I have no intent to sidetrack the discussion, however I know that growing up the 'mark of Cain' was specifically taught as 'skin colour'. I think very few of us would do that today. My guess is that you possibly did not look at the two page study I uploaded, however it provides a very different look at the matter. It seems that there is a case to argue for understanding the deutero-Pauline material, which I am not saying is not part of the Canon because clearly it is, however I suspect it makes for a different understanding of Paul, and one that resonates with me.

I think I understood the perspective you were explaining, but, for myself, I cannot just brush Scripture aside as culturally fluid--or something like that--without also brushing aside the belief that it is revelation. If it is endlessly subject to reappraisal, in accordance with the changing norms of the secular world, what of Scripture is left?

There is also another understanding about head coverings for women, which it takes as a clear indication that women were both speaking, praying, and teaching in the Corinthian Church.

Well, for me and for us Anglicans generally this is a non-issue. We do not say that women must keep silence, even going beyond what Paul was referring to. That is the perspective of fundamentalists and other Christians.

But when it comes to clergy, the evidence is overwhelming and can only be overcome by advocates of women's ordination by arguing that God changed his mind--or that he was bound by Hebrew social convention in the first place--neither of which seem like strong arguments to me, although that is exactly what the proponents argued during the debates that culminated in approval for women to be priested in TEC some years ago.

So that's an explanation of my own view on the subject. I really don't have any resentment or outrage towards those who disagree with me on this, but I do take the traditionalist view because the evidence is so compelling.

 

[Paidiske]

I think I understood the perspective you were explaining, but, for myself, I cannot just brush Scripture aside as culturally fluid--or something like that--without also brushing aside the belief that it is revelation. If it is endlessly subject to reappraisal, in accordance with the changing norms of the secular world, what of Scripture is left?

This is the nub of the issue for many, not just on the ordination of women but on many issues. Understanding cannot shift because shifting understanding is felt to threaten the place and role of Scripture.

I find the Jewish approach to this really helpful, actually. They take Scripture very seriously, but insist that every Scripture is open to more than one understanding, and rabbinical scholars very carefully preserve conflicting - or contrasting - understandings side by side, to hold open the pluripotency of Scripture, and to encourage humility about the possibility that we might grasp the "one right answer."

But even more than that, I think we need to be a bit discerning about genre. Does what Scripture tells us about the nature of God change in a different culture? No. Does what it tells us about salvation change? No. But when Scripture is giving behavioural advice which is to do with the cultural norms of a particular time and place, the principles behind that advice will apply everywhere, but the specifics of applying it might change.

An example would be that very few of us, today, have to confront the moral question of what to do when our neighbour's donkey has fallen in the road; but the principle behind it (of helping your neighbour in distress) can be applied to a broken-down car or any other large variety of scenarios. It's not really about the donkey.

In the same way, I'd say the principles of good order and not offending the sensibilities of people who didn't know any better meant that - in some times and places - advice was given that women be treated as less than men's equals in the home and in the church. It was never really about the women, though, just as the instruction about the donkey was never really about the donkey. Today, the same principles might well lead us to being aggressively egalitarian, as the patriarchy and misogyny of the church have become a stumbling block which keeps many away from ever hearing the gospel.

 

[Albion]

An example would be that very few of us, today, have to confront the moral question of what to do when our neighbour's donkey has fallen in the road; but the principle behind it (of helping your neighbour in distress) can be applied to a broken-down car or any other large variety of scenarios. It's not really about the donkey.

Agreed, but no one has the slightest difficulty in understanding that helping with the donkey and helping with some other farm animal or even a pet are about the same thing.

This is not comparable to the case of the priests of Christ's church, for whom specific qualifications are given in Scripture and, moreover, we know from the rest of the NT and from secular history how the Apostolic Church actually functioned with regard to this matter.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I'm now SJW or PC type person. That stuff annoys me. However I find most men who don't want women to be pastors also don't like women to lead in general at anything unless its the stereotype "woman" role. "Do the chores, feed us, take care of our house!". The men aren't really misogynist or sexist as much as they are just thinking women are "less than". They fear a woman that is equal and can teach just as well as a male pastor. Its a threat to them.

The fail to realize men and women are equals in most everything. They don't like the fact that a woman may tell them what to do. And biblically speaking there is not a single verse that says a woman cannot be a pastor, rabbi, cardinal, bishop (whatever your beliefs main role as a leader is called). You can talk about various verses that speak about various subjects. But none of them use those words above. If God has no intention for women to lead, He would have made it obvious in the bible. He wouldn't have made it so people have to twist and guess what scriptures are "really" saying.

Now does this mean women can be good pastors? It depends. Just as with men sometimes there are certain issues that a few women can't separate from pastor role vs personality.

My wifes mother is pastor in her home country. I have no issue with it. She teaches a strong message and knows what shes talking about.

We need to ask those men who against such women, will God deny a christian was saved because of a women pastor? Will He deny that woman pastor in heaven? Because if men can't trust women to lead a church, then why is it we let them lead our kids at church? Or any other event or role in church? What is the difference?

 

[Albion]

I'm now SJW or PC type person. That stuff annoys me. However I find most men who don't want women to be pastors also don't like women to lead in general at anything unless its the stereotype "woman" role. "Do the chores, feed us, take care of our house!".

"Most men?" That's easy to say, but I would be interested to know which men this is, because a number of historic churches representing the majority of the world's Christians do not ordain women.

And the reason that they continue to adhere to that policy is not because they are convinced that "the little lady should stay in the kitchen," etc!

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

"Most men?" That's easy to say, but I would be interested to know which men this is, because a number of historic churches representing the majority of the world's Christians do not ordain women.

And the reason that they continue to adhere to that policy is not because they are convinced that "the little lady should stay in the kitchen," etc!

It's simply based on conviction which is based on the Scriptures. We are not misogynists. If any of us 'male-only pastor believers' is a misogynist, he is sadly in the wrong.

 

[marineimaging]

I'm now SJW or PC type person. That stuff annoys me. However I find most men who don't want women to be pastors also don't like women to lead in general at anything unless its the stereotype "woman" role. "Do the chores, feed us, take care of our house!". The men aren't really misogynist or sexist as much as they are just thinking women are "less than". They fear a woman that is equal and can teach just as well as a male pastor. Its a threat to them.

The fail to realize men and women are equals in most everything. They don't like the fact that a woman may tell them what to do. And biblically speaking there is not a single verse that says a woman cannot be a pastor, rabbi, cardinal, bishop (whatever your beliefs main role as a leader is called). You can talk about various verses that speak about various subjects. But none of them use those words above. If God has no intention for women to lead, He would have made it obvious in the bible. He wouldn't have made it so people have to twist and guess what scriptures are "really" saying.

Now does this mean women can be good pastors? It depends. Just as with men sometimes there are certain issues that a few women can't separate from pastor role vs personality.

My wifes mother is pastor in her home country. I have no issue with it. She teaches a strong message and knows what shes talking about.

We need to ask those men who against such women, will God deny a christian was saved because of a women pastor? Will He deny that woman pastor in heaven? Because if men can't trust women to lead a church, then why is it we let them lead our kids at church? Or any other event or role in church? What is the difference?

My wife is a professional consultant to hospitals and works all over the country. She has worked with some of the nations top surgeons and hospitals. She cooks like a chef. I wash dishes. She cleans like a demon possessed. I wash my own clothes and clean up outside. She manages the money and bank accounts. I work a minimum of 10 hours a day and most weekends. I drive to church but when we go on a trip she drives when I am tired. She also drives where she wants to go, after all. It is her car. She shoots at the range. After all it is her gun. We share everything and balance it out and especially our love for the Lord. It was her position I outlined when I said that it is the Man who was given responsibility to lead the family and lead the church and that it is Biblical. Clear as a bell on a chilly Sunday morning in chapter and verse. I don't know why people say it isn't in there in that manner because we sure wouldn't live by the Word if it were not in the Word.

 

[Albion]

I'm going to comment on the following, although most of what should be said on this issue has already been posted. And the reason I am doing this is because the parts quoted contain the most common misunderstandings about why traditional Christians do not ordain women.

If God has no intention for women to lead, He would have made it obvious in the bible.

The issue is not about women LEADING something in the church. It is about women being clergy (deacons, presbyters/elders, and/or bishops).

While there are differences between the various denominations, women in these male-only clergy churches have women in many leadership positions of importance.

He wouldn't have made it so people have to twist and guess what scriptures are "really" saying.

On the contrary, we believe as we do because of the plain, obvious meaning of the relevant verses. It is the advocates of womens ordination who are forced to say "That does not hold true anymore" and "The Holy Spirit has a different revelation for our times."

Now does this mean women can be good pastors? It depends. Just as with men sometimes there are certain issues that a few women can't separate from pastor role vs personality.

Again, this is a non-issue. I am convinced that women can preach as effectively, minister as effectively, counsel as effectively, conduct worship as effectively, etc. as any male pastor. That is not the issue!

 

[redblue22]

Since no one can explain what a pastor is or does--or find it in the bible--I think it is just some made up title. The whole debate is ridiculous because the terms are meaningless.

 

[Albion]

It is a convenient generalization and the most familiar term for one's clergyman. I use it mainly because others use it, and I am replying to them.

However, you will note that I identified the several clerical orders by their Biblical names in my own post above.

In short, "the whole debate is (not) ridiculous," after all.

 

[Nick Moser]

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.

1 Timothy 2:12–13, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve."

 

[marineimaging]

Since no one can explain what a pastor is or does--or find it in the bible--I think it is just some made up title. The whole debate is ridiculous because the terms are meaningless.

pas·tor
ˈpastər/ noun - a minister in charge of a Christian church or congregation. Finds assistance from the deacons and other members. Is given authority to lead the direction of the church in line with the elders and the bylaws.

 

[redblue22]

It is a convenient generalization and the most familiar term for one's clergyman. I use it mainly because others use it, and I am replying to them.

So then what is a clergyman? What is it that a clergyman does that women are not to do?

(or replace "clergyman" with "minister") (or "deacon", "elder", "bishop")

What is the minister in charge of? What does one do as a minister that women are not to do? A list might help. "Leading" is a metaphor; we're not travelling on horseback across the countryside. What does this "leading" consist of?

What is the issue?

 

[aiki]

What I dont get is, even if the interpretations of what Paul said re women are to remain silent and not teach is correct...so what? why does what Paul said become an indelible stamp.

Because Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, directly taught and commissioned by Christ to serve as an apostle, and is the single greatest contributor to the divinely-inspired New Testament. Paul was not merely offering his opinion when he wrote what he did to the churches, but was speaking for God.

What is the logic of Christianity in this. Why on earth would a woman not be able to teach and preach - what capacities does it require.

It isn't, I think, a question of capacities, but of order. Paul makes this point in at least couple of instances that I've cited in my earlier posts. He doesn't justify his thinking on the basis of cultural norms, or on the notion that men have superior capacities, but on the basis of a God-ordained hierarchy:

1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

Ephesians 5:23-24
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.

1 Timothy 2:12-13
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.

I'd argue the important capacities are intrinsic personal strengths such as wisdom, intelligence, forbearance, compassion and gentleness. It requires the person to be organised and ethical. It requires them to be honest, articulate and good with people...... None of these things have anything to do with possessing a penis....... No where in the bible did I read, and God made incapable, those possessed with vaginas in the matter of intelligence, wisdom and forbearance.

So, why are you arguing against such a viewpoint?

It is...interesting how your list of qualifications for a pastor/elder/bishop differs from the apostle Paul's.

The insistence to pursue a line of thinking that is totally incapable of evolving with the passage of time renders those christian denominations to the ranks of the superfluous and useless

Well, fortunately, your saying so doesn't make it so.

And being relevant does not mean abandoning the paradigm of Christianity, but rather the dogma that has absolutely nothing to do with salvation before God.

"Being relevant" has become an excuse for many in the Church to increasingly capitulate to, and compromise with, the World. I guess God wasn't able to look down the corridor of time and see how the World would transform and take that into account when He inspired the writing of His word, the Bible. Who knew God was actually so limited and shortsighted, eh?

 

[Albion]

So then what is a clergyman? What is it that a clergyman does that women are not to do?

(or replace "clergyman" with "minister") (or "deacon", "elder", "bishop")

Clergy or Clergyman or Clergyperson are modern terms, but they describe ministers of the Gospel who are referred to in the New Testament. Each, however, has its own functions in the church.

But that is the case with the historic churches. There are many Protestant churches like Baptist, Pentecostal, an] other such, which for their own reasons use completely different terminology. I think that one quick way for you to get a handle on this subject is to look up those offices I named before and you named in the remarks I quoted above.

 

[straykat]

If it was the function of most of the things many Protestants consider a "Pastor", then I say yes (preaching, teaching, etc). But since I'm also in favor of Liturgy and Eucharist, then no. The whole point of liturgy is to model our High Priest in heaven. And the High Priest chose to be a male.

I don't wish to insult anyone though. Many Protestants are pretty lax on the eucharist anyways.. and center their church on preaching. So they really have little to lose, from my perspective.