The World Needs Women Priests

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,799.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I say they are female prophetess.
God judge between you and I.
Now it is up to Him.

They were prophetesses, certainly.
Prophetess means female prophets. It is unnecessary to say female prophetesses - the correct phrase is Prophetess, or female prophet.

Which is more important t you; their gender, or that they were called by God and proclaimed his word?

I don't know why you think God is judging between us.
 
Upvote 0

antwaniiz

Active Member
Aug 8, 2020
155
17
24
miami
✟849.00
Country
Indonesia
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
They were prophetesses, certainly.
Prophetess means female prophets. It is unnecessary to say female prophetesses - the correct phrase is Prophetess, or female prophet.

Which is more important t you; their gender, or that they were called by God and proclaimed his word?

I don't know why you think God is judging between us.
I need not speak to you any further concerning this matter
it is before God. All I have to say of it is posted for you.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
King James bible:

Women are not prophets they are prophetess.

So what? Just because the King James Version translators used the word "prophetess" doesn't mean a thing.

=> Women have prophesied, are prophesying, and will prophecy <= The term that was used to describe them in early 17th Century Englyshe is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

antwaniiz

Active Member
Aug 8, 2020
155
17
24
miami
✟849.00
Country
Indonesia
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
So what? Just because the King James Version translators used the word "prophetess" doesn't mean a thing.

=> Women have prophesied, are prophesying, and will prophecy <= The term that was used to describe them in early 17th Century Englyshe is irrelevant.
I need not speak to you any further concerning this matter
it is before God. All I have to say of it is posted for you.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,799.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I need not speak to you any further concerning this matter
it is before God. All I have to say of it is posted for you.

Well that's fine.
I really don't understand the point you were trying to make or what you were objecting to.

Prophets and prophetesses were both called by God, both proclaimed his word and are both found in the Bible.
If someone was taking 1 Timothy 2:12 literally and insisted that a woman cannot speak in church, (and there have been some on these forums who've said that), they then have to explain why Paul allowed women to prophesy.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,799.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So what? Just because the King James Version translators used the word "prophetess" doesn't mean a thing.

=> Women have prophesied, are prophesying, and will prophecy <= The term that was used to describe them in early 17th Century Englyshe is irrelevant.

I think, for some weird reason, this forummer is more concerned about the correct word being used to describe those who prophesy, than with the point of the thread, which is that women can be called by God to do these things.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

kdm1984

WELS
Oct 8, 2016
309
365
SW MO, USA
✟38,886.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wow, that got rather odd. I think there may be an issue with English not being that person's native tongue.

I'll discuss prophesying first, then church authority.

There was a lot of hair-splitting recently in this thread over prophets vs. prophetesses. Yes, there are gender differences among male prophets and female prophetesses, but the Bible plainly indicates that their function is the same: they prophesy of God. Gender, in this specific context, matters only in distinguishing between the words used to describe what gender these people are, not what they do. The fact that they both prophesy of God, is clear in the Bible. A male prophet prophesies of God. A female prophetess prophesies of God. They are different genders, with different words, but with the same function.

But that's just from the prophesying angle. In regards to authority, I was the one who made the point that there is a difference among certain categories of church authority -- namely, that I believe women cannot hold positions of authority over men in church. So a woman can prophesy (prophetess), and then she submits that prophecy to be evaluated by men in authority in the church. A woman can also speak in certain church contexts, but not in positions of authority over men.

In sum:

1) Women can prophesy. This is not the same thing as having authority over men in church. A woman who prophesies is called a prophetess. But she has the same function as a male prophet: she prophesies.
2) Women can speak in certain church contexts, like praying and prophesying. This is not the same thing as having authority over men in church. In the context of authority, women are to be silent.
3) Women cannot be pastors, because that is holding authority over men in the church. This is a separate matter from praying and prophesying.

I've learned it's very difficult to discuss the nuances of this topic. You have some who insist that women cannot prophesy -- or that what they do is somehow different from what a male prophet does; that silence in the church means never speaking ever; and then on the flip side those who say women can be pastors/priests. From what I gather in Scripture, after going over all these passages and comparing them to avoid contradiction, is that women can prophesy (prophetess has the same function as male prophet), and they can speak in certain contexts, but they cannot speak authority over men in church. I've given Scripture and links explaining these positions, and why I think the conclusions are most in accord with what the Bible says.

I will say though, despite the disagreements in this thread, that people have nonetheless remained more cordial than a few responses I got last night from people on a subreddit. I think everyone here is at least trying to discuss the subject in good faith. I can't say the same for the subreddit.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I like NT Wright's understanding of the issue. He reads 1 Timothy 2:12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent as saying "I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women." rather than as "I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man".

He thinks this because for a couple of reasons. One is that it makes more sense in the context of verse 11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. This is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing so (verse 11). The "submissiveness" is often taken to mean "to the men", or "to their husbands", but Wright thinks that it's equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the gospel – which of course would be true for men as well.

The other reason is that he thinks there are some signs in the letter that it was originally sent to Timothy while he was in Ephesus. And one of the main things about religion in Ephesus is that the main religion – the biggest Temple, the most famous shrine – was a female-only cult. The deity and priests of the Temple of Artemis (that’s her Greek name; the Romans called her Diana) were all women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place.

So he thinks that if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organising male and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, with one feature of that being that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong impression. Was Paul saying, people might wonder, that women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually become a cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading and kept the men in line? That, it seems to Wright, is what verse 12 is denying.

So he thinks Paul is saying here that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis-cult, but so that men and women alike can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching and leadership God is giving them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Why are Christians putting themselves back the law? One person wrote one sentence to one church thousands of years ago and people think: that's the new law!

Paul also wrote to the church at Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" which contradicts the distinction he made in the letter to Timothy.

Does anyone really think that a woman can't teach a man or be in authority over him? Really?

I have been married for 51 years and consider the partner whom God gave me to be "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh". She has taught me many things and her decisions (as opposed to mine) have been right time after time after time. That situation didn't change when I was an elder of my church.

Trying to make Paul's seemingly contradictory statements into some kind of new religious law opposes the freedom that we have in Christ.

God gave women as much ability in every area of modern life as men, except perhaps physical strength. Their ability to perform any Christian role, task, etc. is plain for all to see.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
They were prophetesses, certainly.
Prophetess means female prophets. It is unnecessary to say female prophetesses - the correct phrase is Prophetess, or female prophet.

Which is more important t you; their gender, or that they were called by God and proclaimed his word?

I don't know why you think God is judging between us.

You are absolutely correct. The English language does not require a double gender identifier. There is no Female Priestess, there is a term for a female dog, but this site will not let me print it---there is no need to say a female b--tch, it is not said "female prophetess", prophetess is a gender pronoun. It is the same in several languages. In Spanish, my 1st language as a child, it is identified with the letter ending in "a" for female and "o" for male. Nina means female child, no one says, mujer nina--the word itself identifies the gender. This would translate to woman female child---ridiculous! This seems like a very odd display of a lack of understanding of basic English, and is most certainly distracting to the OP. I therefore will not mention this again and hope no one else will either.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Paul also wrote to the church at Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" which contradicts the distinction he made in the letter to Timothy.
I don't think it does. He's dealing there with two different matters.

In the first one, he's referring to the fact that we are all of equal worth in God's eyes, not ranked by social status, nationality, or anything like that.

In the second, it's about congregational officers (to put it in a clumsy way)--deacons, presbyters, elders, bishops.

Does anyone really think that a woman can't teach a man or be in authority over him? Really?
There probably are some people, but this is a completely irrelevant matter to the historic churches that do not ordain women.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Why are Christians putting themselves back the law? One person wrote one sentence to one church thousands of years ago and people think: that's the new law!

I agree. To take one or two sentences and to interpret that as saying something that even a child would know is so clearly wrong is quite simply perverse in my book. The idea that over half the human population can be so easily dismissed is so contemptuous imo of the image we see of God in Jesus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,799.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There was a lot of hair-splitting recently in this thread over prophets vs. prophetesses. Yes, there are gender differences among male prophets and female prophetesses, but the Bible plainly indicates that their function is the same: they prophesy of God. Gender, in this specific context, matters only in distinguishing between the words used to describe what gender these people are, not what they do. The fact that they both prophesy of God, is clear in the Bible. A male prophet prophesies of God. A female prophetess prophesies of God. They are different genders, with different words, but with the same function.

Agreed.

But that's just from the prophesying angle. In regards to authority, I was the one who made the point that there is a difference among certain categories of church authority -- namely, that I believe women cannot hold positions of authority over men in church.

Scripture doesn't say that, though.

So a woman can prophesy (prophetess), and then she submits that prophecy to be evaluated by men in authority in the church.

That might be what happens now, but it wasn't like that in the OT.
Deborah said to Barak, "The Lord commands you; "Go, take with you 10,000 men ................... I will deliver Sisera into your hands". Barak did not submit this prophecy to anyone, nor even question that it was from God, but essentially said "will you come with me?"
When Josiah found the book of the law and sent priests to a prophet to get a word from God, they chose to go to Huldah, a woman, 2 Kings 22:14. no one questioned the word that she gave them to give to the king; he obeyed it and there was a mini revival.

And if a prophecy can be submitted to men, why can't a call from God? Because that's what happens; a woman says that she believes God is calling her, and clergy, and church members alike, discern if that is the case. Authority is snatched from no one - it is given by God and freely recognised by the church.

A woman can also speak in certain church contexts, but not in positions of authority over men.

Again, that's a matter of opinion.
How is preaching the Gospel "usurping authority" over a man anyway?

In sum:

1) Women can prophesy. This is not the same thing as having authority over men in church.

No, but it involves speaking in church - something that literal readers of 1 Timothy 2:12 say is not allowed.

2) Women can speak in certain church contexts, like praying and prophesying. This is not the same thing as having authority over men in church.

It would depend on the prophecy. Calling on someone to repent or give up a bad habit, or challenging them to spend more time reading God's word instead of ........, could well be seen as having authority over them.
James tells us to confess or sins to one another. If a man confessed a sin or confided a secret to a woman, they could be said to have some sort of power, or hold, over that man - if they had wicked intentions.
Jesus said that if someone sins against us we should approach them and show them their fault, Matthew 18:15. Paul also said that we should watch over one another and speak the truth in love. Supposing a man insults a woman/takes her for granted/wrongly accuses her of lying etc: shouldn't she have the right to go to him and say "you are wrong" - even if he happens to be a Minister? Some would say that this was having authority over them, yet it is how we are to live our Christian lives.

3) Women cannot be pastors, because that is holding authority over men in the church.

Again, authority comes from God. If clergy, male ministers and male church members agree that a woman has been called by God to be ordained - and freely say so - how is that "having authority" over them? Especially as a number of female Ministers/vicars are themselves under the authority of a male bishop/Superintendent.

I've learned it's very difficult to discuss the nuances of this topic. You have some who insist that women cannot prophesy -- or that what they do is somehow different from what a male prophet does; that silence in the church means never speaking ever; and then on the flip side those who say women can be pastors/priests.

That's because we only have a few ambiguous verses on the subject, rather than a clear command from God, taught by Jesus and the early church, which says that women must NEVER be ordained. The former are interpreted differently; different churches say different things. The latter - i.e a clear cut command - would be obeyed by Christian women who want to serve God.

One of the first debates I had when I came to these forums - 18 years ago? - was on this subject. I wrote that I was training as a preacher, which meant that I was being tested and assessed, and if I had misheard the call or got it wrong, God could stop me at any time by having me fail. Someone replied, "I hope you don't have to fail to realise that it's wrong". I didn't fail anything - the clergy and churches have always been supportive, affirmative and enthusiastic about my call to preach.

There have been many times over the last 16 years when I've wished that God would tell me to stop writing sermons.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tampasteve
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,113
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,485.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In case of the Orthodox, however, I am not sure this would apply, as their rationale for not having female clergy is really very considerably more complicated, and I have found that simplistic answers, for example, to say that the Orthodox only ordain male priests because their tradition only allows them to do this and the Orthodox do not believe they have the authority to depart from tradition, while not inaccurate, are nonetheless entirely inadequete.

This may be true - and I will confess I am less expert on the Orthodox view than the Catholic - but I am not willing to concede that just because something is complicated or mystical or whatever is enough to let it off the hook of a charge of sexism. It's quite possible to be sexist in a complicated and mystical way.

I also see arguments about "But we treat women so well in this role over here" as problematic; because often they are about keeping women in tightly defined and controlled boxes. "Well, okay, you may become a schemanun or staritsa (if you can), but should your gifts and calling lie elsewhere we will ignore it," doesn't really cut it.

Because, frankly, if a church were to reject you, for example, I would argue they were unworthy of you, and God’s call would be better answered in a church that did value you and was prepared to equip you to respond to that call. For example, if you were from Sydney, to use a specific, local example, given the choice between trying to agitate for a change in the local archdiocese that could take decades and would likely only be partially implemented, due to the probability of a schism, or instead serving in the Uniting Church if you felt specifically called to minister in Sydney, or, if not, serving in one of the more authentically Anglican provinces in Australia, I would think either of those two options would be more productive.

This is an interesting question, and one I have often pondered. I was fortunate that when I had my vocation I was already a member of a church that ordained women. I didn't have to fight that battle. I have known women who became Anglicans (from Catholicism) or moved from Sydney to Melbourne to pursue their vocations, and I've seen that those transitions were painful and difficult; I'm glad I wasn't called on to make them. I have also known women with vocations who chose to stay Catholic, or Lutheran, or in Sydney, and work towards change; and while that is also painful, difficult, and costly, and I'm glad I wasn't called on to do that, either, I honour their patient and self-sacrificing work; because that is the only way this change will ever come.

Incidentally, I do know what it is to offer ministry in a context where it won't be accepted from a woman, and I know what it is to advocate for change in that environment (para-church and extra-ecclesial contexts being one arena of ministry). Even though I was ultimately unsuccessful in that, and it was personally costly, I don't regret putting everything I could into standing for what I believe God was trying to do in that context.

I am going to avoid the delicious temptation to air my views on Sydney at length, as that is rather off-topic to the thread as a whole. :)

By the way, one of my best friends died; his widow is staying with me, but she in her shock did fall and bruise her hip; I am also still in shock about it as I found him unresponsive, so if you could please pray for all of us @Paidiske I would really appreciate it.

Of course I will.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
This may be true - and I will confess I am less expert on the Orthodox view than the Catholic - but I am not willing to concede that just because something is complicated or mystical or whatever is enough to let it off the hook of a charge of sexism. It's quite possible to be sexist in a complicated and mystical way.

I also see arguments about "But we treat women so well in this role over here" as problematic; because often they are about keeping women in tightly defined and controlled boxes. "Well, okay, you may become a schemanun or staritsa (if you can), but should your gifts and calling lie elsewhere we will ignore it," doesn't really cut it.



This is an interesting question, and one I have often pondered. I was fortunate that when I had my vocation I was already a member of a church that ordained women. I didn't have to fight that battle. I have known women who became Anglicans (from Catholicism) or moved from Sydney to Melbourne to pursue their vocations, and I've seen that those transitions were painful and difficult; I'm glad I wasn't called on to make them. I have also known women with vocations who chose to stay Catholic, or Lutheran, or in Sydney, and work towards change; and while that is also painful, difficult, and costly, and I'm glad I wasn't called on to do that, either, I honour their patient and self-sacrificing work; because that is the only way this change will ever come.

Incidentally, I do know what it is to offer ministry in a context where it won't be accepted from a woman, and I know what it is to advocate for change in that environment (para-church and extra-ecclesial contexts being one arena of ministry). Even though I was ultimately unsuccessful in that, and it was personally costly, I don't regret putting everything I could into standing for what I believe God was trying to do in that context.

I am going to avoid the delicious temptation to air my views on Sydney at length, as that is rather off-topic to the thread as a whole. :)



Of course I will.
For what it worth, I certainly understand your perspective on this. I am strongly against sexism, and can see where this looks like it. I can’t post very long right now due to it being work time, but I can say that despite my opinions on that, I don’t see the Orthodox teaching to be promoting that. It isn’t as simple as some churches teachings, as @The Liturgist said, but I don’t consider it to be a form of disrespect or sexism.

That said, there are some groups within Orthodoxy (albeit not the faith as a whole) that have some beliefs that are very difficult to accept from my position. I am glad that they are not the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church. :)

Sometime I’d be happy to discuss it - but I don’t want you to think that I am applying any negativity towards you or others, as you have a really good ministry. I don’t want that to be ignored or anything like that, as I really respect what you do, your vocation and your ministry for God. My beliefs apply to Orthodox context specifically.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,025
34
Shropshire
✟186,359.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
At the end of the day though it's pretty binary isn't it. There's either discrimination against women or there isn't. I suspect that employment law will determine this issue once it's tested and churches will either change or become pariah and then illegal organisations. I have no doubt that churches of all denominations will change/twist their stance or dogma if survival is at stake and I for one will welcome it so that the church can address the real issues in today's world such as poverty and political oppression instead of this childish argument. I think it's a shame that the church isn't leading the way towards sex equality but I'm not too surprised.
 
Upvote 0

solid_core

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
2,695
1,579
Vienna
✟50,919.00
Country
Austria
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
and churches will either change or become pariah and then illegal organisations.
This can actually happen.

Who would say 100 years ago that pastors will be sent to prisons or made almost illegal for them to travel or similar things for preaching that homosexuality is not a normal godly lifestyle? And its happening. So this can be another step of how to impose wordly ideology on churches.

It seems that there cannot be a true freedom in a society. Only changes in who dictates the rules for others.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,113
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,485.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
For what it worth, I certainly understand your perspective on this. I am strongly against sexism, and can see where this looks like it. I can’t post very long right now due to it being work time, but I can say that despite my opinions on that, I don’t see the Orthodox teaching to be promoting that. It isn’t as simple as some churches teachings, as @The Liturgist said, but I don’t consider it to be a form of disrespect or sexism.

That said, there are some groups within Orthodoxy (albeit not the faith as a whole) that have some beliefs that are very difficult to accept from my position. I am glad that they are not the universal teaching of the Orthodox Church. :)

Sometime I’d be happy to discuss it - but I don’t want you to think that I am applying any negativity towards you or others, as you have a really good ministry. I don’t want that to be ignored or anything like that, as I really respect what you do, your vocation and your ministry for God. My beliefs apply to Orthodox context specifically.

Thanks, and I appreciate your kindness. :)

I would welcome hearing about Orthodoxy from your point of view, because as I noted, it's not my area of expertise and I can learn, and why shouldn't this thread hear from all perspectives?

I'm aware, though, that respecting what women do outside Orthodoxy can be a kind of double-edged sword; I well recall one of my Catholic lecturers saying to a group of women Anglican ordinands when we were in college: "Oh well, it's alright for you girls to play at ministry, since you're not in a real church anyway."

Now I'm sure you don't mean it quite like that! But I would have to say that I don't believe that God's position on this differs depending which denomination we're in. If the ordination of women is wrong, it's wrong in every church; but if it's right, then it's right in every church.

At the end of the day though it's pretty binary isn't it. There's either discrimination against women or there isn't. I suspect that employment law will determine this issue once it's tested and churches will either change or become pariah and then illegal organisations.

I don't think "discrimination" is quite the issue. That said, in the United Kingdom where you are, where the church is Established, the legal situation of at least the Established church is quite different to what most of us are used to working with elsewhere. For most of us, the idea that secular law would define our ministries is something to be rejected. At the moment, in my diocese, clergy are arguing to preserve our historic status as not-employees!
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0