Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic?

[YeshuaFan]

And yet God calls both women and men into these roles and positions every single day, so it seems that it is not God who is denying women the ability to serve him according to the physical and spiritual gifts he has given them, but sinful human beings who have contorted God's design to favor their own superiority and pride rather than to humbly serve as Christ requires of them.

Again, this is how God has ordained it to be, are you saying that He was wrong to make it so?

 

[~Zao~]

I understand. I guess I have to go with what scripture describes as a person who is called to lead a flock. BTW what are your thoughts on the 12 that were called? They are all men. Would have been nice to have one or two females included in the 12 but Jesus did not choose any women. Do you think there is a reason for that? Just curious.
Blessings

The reason I have found is that they are judges of the tribes of Israel which is different from the church. The saints are to judge angels and the world.

 

[~Zao~]

Strictly talking about gender not race or status. Also, I believe Pagan philosophy regarded women pretty high as they were Priestesses and oracles of high regard. It would be more palatable to pagans if women were in leadership roles. This is why Mary was venerated at an early point in Roman Christianity eventually receiving the status of "queen of heaven". But I am going off topic interesting study though!

" Communication with a god was no small matter, and not just anyone could be allowed or trusted to serve this venerated position. It was decided that a pure, chaste and honest young virgin would be the most appropriate vessel for such a divine role."

Biblically queen of heaven is a detrimental term.

 

[~Zao~]

Never stated though that any of them were as Pastors or elders, and all scriptures who mentioned them was for men!

Whatever. Aquila was the teacher of Appolos. Guess that means nothing.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

That teaching violates the golden rule of treating others just as you would wish to be treated. Paul has added his own terms to scripture... (Treated the same except for women).

I can't entertain this argument, as it nullifies the scripture. "All scripture is God-breathed." If you're going to use this argument, my view is that you might as well abolish the entire New Testament. If Paul was wrong in his teachings, couldn't Luke have been wrong in Acts? Perhaps Christians have got it wrong for millenia, and we should just go back to being Jews (with Jesus added), like the Galatians?

So if local laws allow for women to speak in church, or even wear mens clothes like jeans, or preach, then that is God's law now. If ex-cons can be preachers, then so can women, if law allows it.

Paul qualifies his statement about the authorities. While they are God's servant for doing good, they are to be feared. But I would argue (separate topic), that an authority in rebellion against God has no more jurisdiction than an organised crime ring.

 

[bekkilyn]

You would have to then totally disregard what Paul taught on this issue!

Nope, because that's not what Paul taught. Paul taught mutual submission in Christ for all Christians, male and female alike. Paul taught that we have freedom in Christ. Paul often used examples that were familiar to people of his time to help people to understand the gospel and then go out and proclaim it. He wasn't at all suggesting that we set up our own social structures just like Greco-Roman pagan Rome!

God ordaining that men only can be authorized to be the pastor or elders is NOT discriminating, for does he not have the capability to do this as He deems fit?
And the Bible is not old letters, but the living and active and authoritative word of God to us today!

God certainly *does* have the capability to do as he deems fit, and he deems it fit to continue to ordain both women and men to proclaim the gospel and shepherd his flocks, so that they too have the training to go out and do the same.

The bible is composed of letters and other books written by a number of different people. Yes, it is authoritative in instructing us about God and his character and in showing us the gospel and way of salvation through Christ, but it is *not* God himself. We do not worship "the bible". We worship Christ. Christ existed long before any books of the bible were ever written, and would continue to exist even if all of the books of the bible were destroyed tomorrow. Christianity is not based on the bible, but on the living *person* of Jesus Christ.

 

[bekkilyn]

Again, this is how God has ordained it to be, are you saying that He was wrong to make it so?

God did not ordain it to be that way. We can't blame God for human sin and bigotry in the name of God.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

It's actually pretty tiring to need to constantly prove that women are capable human beings designed (like men) in God's image over and over and over again. Aren't there more important things that we should be doing for God than worrying about who gets to dominate over who (which is an anti-Christ view in the first place) like the great commission of making disciples for Christ?

I agree women are capable. This isn't the question. The question is more, how can we have women pastors, in consistency with scripture. If we disregard Paul's teaching around women not being able to teach men, what about the teachings where elders are supposed to have only one wife, or what grounds even to reject a practicing homosexual for such a role?

I raise the question not to be divisive, but in the event I am challenged, I am aware of the circumstances where an exception may be permitted (if such exceptions do exist).

 

[bekkilyn]

Whatever. Aquila was the teacher of Appolos. Guess that means nothing.

Cognitive dissonance.

 

[~Zao~]

Cognitive dissonance.

Fundamental attribution error.

 

[bekkilyn]

I agree women are capable. This isn't the question. The question is more, how can we have women pastors, in consistency with scripture. If we disregard Paul's teaching around women not being able to teach men, what about the teachings where elders are supposed to have only one wife, or what grounds even to reject a practicing homosexual for such a role?

I raise the question not to be divisive, but in the event I am challenged, I am aware of the circumstances where an exception may be permitted (if such exceptions do exist).

Well either women can teach men and Paul approves of it, or there is a very obvious contradiction since Aquila was an acclaimed teacher Apollos. One thing that Paul was concerned about in the churches at the time was false teaching, and many women of that time severely lacked education of any kind, not just in spiritual matters. It very obviously didn't apply to *all* women though or else he would not have had such a high regard the females in various church leadership positions. This is even ignoring the biblical scholarship suggests that some of these seemingly more misogynistic (and contradictory) statements from Paul were later additions to the letters based on style differences and other things.

The elder having one wife was addressing a problem with many men in that culture. It was the custom at the time for men to seek companionship (including sexual) with other men and prostitutes while their wives were kept secluded at home (think similar to women in the very conservative Muslim countries). Paul did not agree and wanted these men to favor, love, and respect their wives and not continue in their old ways.

Also, Paul is more generally making the point that Christian leaders are to be a positive Christian example. There is nothing here stating that the important point for leadership is to be male, but rather, the behavior of the person who is the leader. It would apply just the same for a woman, or for both men and women outside of that culture and in our own culture. People who are focusing on gender here are missing the entire point of Paul's message.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Well, with twelve Jewish men as apostles, then Jesus' status as a Rabbi could not be questioned. If we are going to use the twelve apostles as a condition, then Gentile men also wouldn't qualify to shepherd a flock. There were also no Chinese apostles either, so many races would be disqualified as well. Many of the anti-women views come from misinterpretations of scripture, much of it originating from pagan Greco-Roman philosophy in attempts to make Christianity more palatable to Rome.

But the Holy Spirit coming on Cornelius was the special occasion when Gentile men were recognised to become believers, and later, to shepherd the flock. There has been no such occasion for females (which would be fine, if Paul had not at the same time put prohibitions on female leadership).

 

[bekkilyn]

But the Holy Spirit coming on Cornelius was the special occasion when Gentile men were recognised to become believers, and later, to shepherd the flock. There has been no such occasion for females (which would be fine, if Paul had not at the same time put prohibitions on female leadership).

That wasn't about men being ordained to shepherd the flock, but about a visible and clear demonstration from God that he was accepting of Gentiles as well as Jews. In that culture, Jews believed that Gentiles were unclean and would not associate with them, and certainly not eat with or visit their homes. Peter having done so (after his dream) was practically unheard of in the Jewish community, but God was sending the message that none are unclean. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost on all believers was not discriminatory at all, and it would be a misuse of scripture to determine that since there were probably no Chinese people present that Chinese people aren't to be included. to turn these passages into gender proclamations misses the point of the message.

 

[Kerensa]

I can't entertain this argument, as it nullifies the scripture. "All scripture is God-breathed."

That quote (2 Tim. 3:16) itself comes from an epistle that most serious Bible scholars agree was not written by Paul. Bit ironic, isn't it — "All scripture is God-breathed" coming from a writer who was falsely attributing his own words and ideas to a great church leader in order to give them authority?

 

[Kerensa]

And just to lighten things up a bit — I'm not sure about the original writer of this (it comes from an archived website), but while we're at it, here are...

TEN REASONS

ACCORDING TO THE NATURAL ORDER OF THE WORLD, SOCIAL CUSTOM, AND THEOLOGY

WHY MEN SHOULD NOT BE ORDAINED​

1. The male physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as picking turnips or de-horning cattle. It would be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work. How can we argue with nature?

2. For men who have children, their duties as ministers might detract from their responsibilities as parents. Instead of teaching their children important life skills like how to make a wiener-roasting stick, they would be off at some committee meeting or preparing a sermon. Thus these unfortunate children of ordained men would almost certainly receive less attention from their male parent.

3. According to the Genesis account, men were created before women, presumably as a prototype. It is thus obvious that men represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

4. Men are overly prone to violence. They are responsible for the vast majority of crime in our country, especially violent crime. Thus they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

5. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. His lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinate position that all men should take. It is expected that even ordained men would be unable to withstand the natural male tendency to buckle under pressure.

6. Jesus didn't ordain men. He didn't ordain any women either, but two wrongs don't make a right.

7. Men are simply too emotional to be ordained. Their conduct at football matches, in the army, at political conventions and especially at Promise Keepers Rallies amply demonstrates this tendency.

8. Many men are simply too handsome to lead public worship. They could prove to be a distraction to the women in the congregation!

9. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture and strengthen a whole congregation. But these are not traditional male roles. Throughout the history of Christianity, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. If men try to fit into this nurturing role, our young people might grow up with severe gender role confusion.

10. If the Church is the Bride of Christ, then it goes without saying that all ordained leaders should be female. It just makes theological sense!

 

[Maria Billingsley]

This is the philosophical lens many were looking through and was ingrained into them while interpreting scripture such as Paul's letters. It ignores cultural context and Paul's mission as well as his acclaim of his female co-workers in Christ who were leading and teaching. When you look at scripture through a Christian lens that assumes we are to love each other as Christ loves his church, we realize that we cannot interpret scripture assuming any sort of human domination over others, but that we are to all be servants of one another.

I understand. I have no problem with women serving the Lord and scripture does not teach against it. However, when I read the qualifications for an Elder , Pastor , Bishop, it clearly states a man for this position. I am not sure how to change what is written in Timothy to reflect both men and women.
Blessings

 

[~Zao~]

I understand. I have no problem with women serving the Lord and scripture does not teach against it. However, when I read the qualifications for an Elder , Pastor , Bishop, it clearly states a man for this position. I am not sure how to change what is written in Timothy to reflect both men and women.
Blessings

How did you change what was written to accept unmarried men for priests?

 

[Albion]

There is no requirement for a man to be married, but simply that he not be a serial "marry-er," which was considered a scandal at the time although it was a common practice in Roman society.

 

[~Zao~]

There is no requirement for a man to be married, but simply that he not be a serial "marry-er," which was considered a scandal at the time although it was a common practice in Roman society.

One spouse doesn’t clarify either.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

How did you change what was written to accept unmarried men for priests?

Obviously the Roman Catholic Church is not following scripture. They actually were married until 1139. So a bit late in the game.
Blessings