Women pastors or not?

Yes - and the Bible documents that Paul was careless in his choice of wording.

James (I think it was) found it necessary to correct a mis-conception brought about by the way Paul approached salvation through grace and faith. James declared that it is incorrect to interpret Paul's exposition of this matter to say works are not involved in salvation. Nonetheless, Paul's sloppy choice of wording in those passages continues to give rise to the concept of Sola Fide.

Paul himself had to make corrections to his first epistle to the Corinthians - stating in 1 Corinthians that his instructions regarding a withdrawal from association with idolators, fornicators et al did not apply to anyone who was not a so called brother. Unfortunately, there are no extant copies of that first letter - we only know of it because Paul found it necessary to correct and declare the error within it.

We have here a very clear example of Papal infallibility as the concept applies to apostles.

Given that Paul,
by his own admission, declared that his first instructions regarding idolators, fornicators et al were erroneous (that is: the written instructions, he made it clear that he did not INTEND to pen the instructions as they stood)
another apostle deemed it necessary to correct mis-conceptions arising from poor phrasing on the topic of works and salvation,
the Bible documents the fact that God is shown to have appointed women to positions of authority
Paul himself declares men and women to be equal
the prophecies of the Old Covenant regarding the New make no distinction between men and women
these instructions do not expand on the gospel as it was first presented, but would seem to be a different gospel

I would hazard a guess that Paul may have had in mind specific women when he wrote these injunctions and got carried away a little bit, wording the instructions to make it look as though they were generally applicable to all women. A small slip only is required for "these women" to become "women." Even if that should prove to be so - the instructions as written neither admit to it, nor allow for such an interpretation.

For "Paul was careless" in the first line of the foregoing, read "was at times careless." (I haven't edited that post, as this is a good illustration of just how easy it is to mess up a meaning by the simple omission of just two words.)

Isshinwhat> Almost forgot - your query regarding women in positions of authority.

First - we have no difficulty establishing that women were deaconesses and ordained.

She steadfastly rejected all new proposals of marriage, determining to devote herself to the service of God and to works of charity. Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople (381-97), consecrated her deaconess. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11248b.htm

St. John Chrysostom
Letters to Olympias
LETTER 1
TO MY LADY, THE MOST REVEREND AND DIVINELY FAVORED DEACONESS OLYMPIAS, I JOHN, BISHOP, SEND GREETING IN THE LORD.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1916.htm

In the meantime, the female diaconate was undergoing significant expansion, but exclusively in the East. Beginning with the obscure reference of canon 19 of Nicaea respecting Paulinian 18 deaconesses and ending with canon 15 of Chalcedon which prohibits the ordination (cheirotonia) of a deaconess before the age of forty we have the canonical framework of the most significant period in the expansion and elaboration of the ministry of women before modern times.
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=165

One day I will remember to take notes of the comments I encounter in my travels through the net. There is something about the common practice - in early church history - of establishing "co-ed monasteries." In such groups, the abbess, not the abbot, had ultimate authority.

Just found this - from Jerome.... not that it is on topic, but - well - it IS an interesting example of how a candidate for ordination might be selected, and an ordination conducted...

I knew, moreover, that you could not find or lay hands on this servant of God(3) who had several times fled from you simply because he was reluctant to undertake the onerous duties of the priesthood, and that no other bishop could easily find him. Accordingly, I was a good deal surprised when, by the ordering of God, he came to me with the deacons of the monastery and others of the brethren, to make satisfaction to me for some grievance or other which I had against them. While, therefore, the Collect(4) was being celebrated in the church of the villa which adjoins our monastery--he being quite ignorant and wholly unsuspicious of my purpose--I gave orders to a number of deacons to seize him and to stop his mouth, lest in his eagerness to free himself he might adjure me in the name of Christ. First of all, then, I ordained him deacon, setting before him the fear of God, and forcing him to minister; for he made a hard struggle against it, crying out that he was unworthy, and protesting that this heavy burden was beyond his strength. It was with difficulty, then, that I overcame his reluctance, persuading him as well as I could with passages from Scripture, and setting before him the commandments of God. And when he had ministered in the offering of the holy sacrifices, once more with great difficulty I closed his mouth and ordained him presbyter. Then, using the same arguments as before, I induced him to sit in the place set apart for the presbyters. After this I wrote to the reverend presbyters and other brothers of the monastery, chiding them for not having written to me about him. For a year before I had heard many of them complain that they had no one to celebrate for them the sacraments of the Lord. All then agreed in asking him to undertake the duty, pointing out how great his usefulness would be to the community of the monastery. I blamed them for omitting to write to me and to propose that I should ordain him, when the opportunity was given to them to do so.

2. All this I have done, as I said just now, relying on that Christian love ....

Click to expand...

Gollie. . . so much for "all scripture is inspired by God."

Fr. Rob

Gollie. . . so much for "all scripture is inspired by God."

Fr. Rob

Click to expand...

On the contrary - so much for the story that everything in the Bible is scripture. Unless you consider, when Paul says that he is giving a personal opinion, both that claim and the opinion ventured are inspired of God: not to mention the Biblical errors - such as the mis-identification of Goliath's brother as Goliath in one of the Old Testament records. Or the accounts of events on the morning of resurrection -
We have two different accounts of how many "visitors" were at the tomb. Two different accounts of where they were located, inside or out. Three different accounts of what the "visitors" said. Two different accounts of whether the "visitors" were angels. Two different accounts of whether the "visitors" arrived before or after Mary. Two different accounts of whether the "visitors" were in the same location as Mary (or the party).

Further details available at http://pub43.ezboard.com/fwayrunnersfrm8.showMessage?topicID=11.topic

 

Or should one ignore the oft repeated Biblical declaration that every fact is affirmed on the testimony of two or more reliable witnesses - is that declaration considered of no worth and unscriptural? On what grounds? 

In the face of that declaration, used by both Paul and Jesus in circumstances that deny any possibility that this is intended only for use at law, why would anyone accept declarations by only one author as conclusive?

I am no authority on modern Church history but a lesson can be learned about women ordination from a modern day example. i am going from memory so bear with me if I mistake a name or two.

In the early part of the 20th century the Presbyterian Church (North and South) were in a serious debate over this subject. A man named Maecham (?) stood opposed to the popular view in the Presb. churches that women should be ordained. he was tried in a church court and givin the boot. He went on to start the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The OPC does not ordain women to this day.

There is a pattern that developes when we throw out what Gods Word says to follow our own oppinions.

The remaining Presbyterians became the Presb. church in America and began to ordain women. Several years later another debate was started and is still going on in the Presbyterisan Church USA. Should homosexuals be ordained. This same pattern has taken place in other denominations as well. It starts by disobeying God and then relying on the oppinion of people. Not Good!

I am not saying women are the cause of homosexuals wanting to be ordained but this belief opened the doors for the homosexuals.

My oppinion is meaningless but I think the Bible is clear on this subject. Women are not to be ordained as Pastors.

Well now, Heydeerman, I note that the Bible consistently declares homosexuality to be a sin (a condition which it doesn't seem to declare with regard to womanality). Nor does it consistently show that women are not to be in positions of authority. The aforementioned Judge, Deborah, who was also a prophet, as but one example. Likewise one Junia, an apostle (despite attempts to show that Junia was Junias, or that the person was not an apostle), seven daughters of Simon - who prophesied over Paul and who held the post of prophet (according to the Greek - which normally is translated as daughters who prophesied.)

Neal> Further information to hand from http://www.scs.unr.edu/~fdaniels/rel/women.htm ...

Clement of Alexandria uses the term diakonon gunaikon (female Servant) in several places, writing in the 2nd century. Referring to 1 Tim 3:11, Origen writes, "This text teaches with the authority of the apostle that even women are instituted deacons in the church." (Swidler, p.310).
Tertullian (160-255), who (it is believed) disliked women in positions of power, said, "How many men and women there are whose chastity has obtained for them the honor of ecclesiastical orders!" (Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol 2, Col. 978).
Pliny, circa 99 AD, refers to finding it necessary to torture two Christian maidens called "ministrae", the Latin word for Servants. So here we have a first century reference to women Servants (Deacons).

Women in the early church served actively as Servants, though in the 3rd and 4th centuries the Catholic Church began to separate the men from the women in such orders, allowing women to minister to women but not to men.

1 Tim 3:11: the word "their", added to the text by some translators, is NOT present in the Greek. In fact, there is no textual or historical support for translating "gunaikaV" to be "wives" in v.11. All of the evidence points to the contrary. We must render the word "women" in its general sense and conclude that women Servants are meant. Only tradition clings to the viewpoint that wives and not women are meant in this passage. The passage contains the authorization of women Servants (and perhaps Overseers as well).
The term diakonoV (servant) is used to describe five people: Paul (Eph 3:7; Col 1:23), Tychicus (Eph 6:21;Col 4:7), Epaphras (Col 1:7), Timothy (1 Thess 3:2; 1 Tim 4:6), and Phoebe (Rom 16:1). Of these, Phoebe is the only one described as the Servant of a specific congregation (Cenchrea). The specific language used to describe Phoebe is more concrete than the more general "servant of the Lord", etc. used of the others. Furthermore, the term "prostatiV" is used to relate a function Phoebe performed. The word when used in a technical sense denotes a legal authoritative representative, as over strangers in Rome, who had no rights. (However, Paul was a citizen and needed no help of that type.) Therefore the word should be rendered as it the masculine form is translated elsewhere in the NT. While translators use expressions like "direct the affairs of the church" when the word group is believed to refer to men (1 Tim 5:17), "helper" is used when Phoebe is the person described.

Fr Rob,
Sorry I didn't get back to you about the stuff you mentioned, but it looks like its going to be a few days before I can get to the library to look up stuff. Instead, I thought I'd refer you to an essay I wrote on this a while back, which is here. A warning in advance though, there are some very large omissions in that essay, stuff I forgot to put in, stuff that went peculiar when I edited it (I was trying to get the word count down to the 3,000 it was supposed to be...fat chance) but it might be helpful, nonetheless.

-Divinus

the NT says relatively little about ordination with the biblical concept of ministry. It clearly portrays the fact however, that the church had varied and faithful ministry arising from the fact that all of God's people were "gifted" by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of edifying or building up one another. A person could exercise ministry who was called and gifted by God and affirmed by the body of Christ, the Church. Some were set apart in leadership positions and some were assigned tasks to accomplish, but the differences among ministries were not distinctions of any kind. Eventually certain types of affirmation were ombined with certain functions of ministry to bring us to the current understanding of ordination we know today. Remember ministry means service. Just as no person should be ordained or given responsibilities of ministry because of their sex, neither should any person called and gifted by God be denied any role of leadership or ministry in the church because of one's sex.

I beleive that the pastorial epistles (1Tim, 2Tim and Titus) didn't leave many unanswered questions on this subject. Here is the issue to me. It's the family which is the very reason Paul gave in 1 Tim. A mans house must be in order before He can be considered for the office of Pastor. Why? Because the local church is a family, made up of families. Not excluding anyone that is not in a traditional family but encouraging traditional families as the model God gave us. We find ourselves in a time when the family that God planned is in trouble in this culture. What questions were left unanswered in the pastorial epistles? How would Paul have changed His message if He wrote it today?

when you speak of the "head" of the household or church what was Paul saying? First of all, was Paul mandating to all women for all times or was Paul addressing various church problems that had arisen out of the diversity of backgrounds. Remember Paul's message was for unity and harmony in worship and as members of the family in Christ. In 1Tim 3:1-11 there is no reference to gender. The Greek word in 1 Tim 1 that is translated "a man" is Ei-tis, which means "if any" or "whever, whatever" In the ensuing scriptures after verse one, nearly all references to him or he are added for English clarity. When the word "he" is included as in v4, the Greek word "ho" which is genderless. Strong defines ho as including the feminine he (hay) and the neuter to (to); The only reference to male gender is in the verse where "husband" is used. This is similar to Titus 1:6. As far as v6 we know and accept that it does not require man to be married to be an elder. We believe it is inserted in the context of "if any man is married it must be to one wife" The reason men are singled out in this verse is that, in the times these epistles were written, it was common for men to have multiple wifes but not for women to have multiple husbands. Men almost exclusively could attain a divorce or have his wife "put away" (which is a discussion within itself), since the woman was the property of the man or husband, she had almost no rights for divorce or to control the consequences of her husband to disregard her. The message would only be pertinent to the husband then. The qualifications in 1Tim and Titus have to do with character traits of the individual to be chosen. Paul could have easily used masculine pronouns if he had intended for exclusion of women in leadership. Actually by the ackward Greek construction of using neuter pronouns it leans toward the fact Paul went out of his way to make this for both men and women who meet the character standards and behavior for leadership.

Now about the head of the household and that order discussion. That is a discussion in itself. The Greek word for head as used in the verses you are leaning toward eldermike, is kephale. This word does not mean authority but instead means "source". "origin" or "starting point". When the husband is called the head of the wife, the expressed idea is that the husband is the source of life to the wife, as Christ is the source of life to the church. Speaking in these terms the issue then does not deal with authority over but instead love. In Ephesians 5 Paul is dealing with household codes during Roman Empire. Paul borrowed from the Greco-Roman moral writings of how the leader of the household should deal with its members. These discussions break down to husband-wife; father-child; master-slave relationships. Paul was actually taking a radical break from the traditional patriarchal households of that day in this by enjoining all Christians to submit to one another. The next implication is whatever submitting a wife must do, the husband is called to do the same as a Christian. The final expression of being filled with the Spirit is submitting to one another because Christ is one's Lord.

Here is the problem with all the interpreting being done on this, and other topics, in the Church today.

What we are doing is: 1) Assuming that God's inspired word is not, in fact, inspired. 2) Intrepreting the terms and situations according to our modern needs instead of taking them context with their original writing. 3) Looking for any way to manipulate the scriptures to support our point of view, even when the plain, contextual, literal translation does not support what we say.

This is not only a problem on this topic, but on many others as well. We need to get back to our biblical roots, before we "Mainline" ourselves into oblivion.

Fr. Rob // thankful that the gates of Hades will NOT prevail!

Suzie,

You make some good points on this issue. I think we mostly agree.This is a different subject, as you correctly stated. And you may have misunderstood me a bit. I agree with you, this authority is a spiritual authority. But that is, in fact, what I believe Paul was getting at when He was writing about a mans house being in order. Not that all the dishes are clean or anything such as that but rather the house must have a godly man that sets the pace for service to the Lord, not a man that gives orders. But this is the same task as Pastor of a local church. The pastor is not an authoritative order giver, but rather a servant to the membership and spiritual leader by way of example. I do not believe that anyone who understands this issue believes that women have a lesser role in God's kingdom.

I do believe that the family is the issue is this area but hopefully I have explained myself a little better. Men should out-serve their wives, but not by holding them back <grin>

I actually don't have any problem with women in positions of authority in the church (including pastor) and in many cases it's a must because many men are not doing what God has called them to do. However,I do not believe this condition, changes the word of God.

Blessings

What makes you think that Paul's declarations on the issue of women's roles are scriptural, Father Rob?

Fr. Rob- I am not sure what context you are coming from with your above remarks. I most wholeheartedly believe that scripture is the inspired Word of God. In that context however, we also know that literally we cannot take word for word scripture to hold the same meaning as it did then, or that sometimes stories or situations were used to give meaning to the message attempting to be conveyed. Jesus himself spoke in parables. Jesus was refered to as a vine, a shepherd, bread, etc. We know he wasnt really all these things, but symbolically the meaning expressed was conveyed by these terms. Salt meant something very different to those times than it does today. We use salt as a flavoring, while salt was the main preservative of that time period and essential to them, which brings a different dynamics to being the salt of the earth. In fact, that is why it is important to have a hermaneutical understanding of the mindset and peoples of the times. That does not take away from the meaning or intent of the message at all. There are some Greek words that are not even able to be translated literally into English, so we have the burden to translate as closely to the meaning as we can. This does not detract from the scriptures and their meaning.
Are we to have slaves then, since Paul gave instructions on how to treat slaves and never denounces slavery, that must mean that we are to own others ....or was Paul attempting to work within the sinful cultures of the times to achieve the goals of the kingdom. Instead, we need to try and understand what Paul was attempting to convey and why. And from that, what message flows in harmony with the message of God and His will for us. I dont think this is a new concept.
eldermike- I appreciate your remarks however I do not think I misunderstood you. I do not believe men are called to be the spiritual leaders of the household or church and if they are unable or unwilling, then it is ok for a woman to take on that role. That is essentially what I believe you are saying, and if not, then I am in misunderstanding and I apologize. I believe husband and wife are to both share spiritual leadership using their gifts as given and both of them are under the authority of God. Needless to say, if both husband and wife are seeking God's will for themselves and family, it will be a mute point who is leading who. That is the uniqueness of marriage where man and woman become "one". God designed woman from man--not from the ground but they are of one flesh, unique in relationship to any other creature. they complete each other . God's creation design was male/female equality. The household codes Paul was dealing with was during a time when women were regarded as subordinate and inferior in virtually every way. They could not partake in public discourse or education. A common Jewish prayer at this time was "Praised be God that He has not created me a Gentile! Praised by God that He has not created me a woman! Praised be God that He has not created me a slave! "(the gentiles had a similar one with Jew inserted instead of Gentile). Most household codes at the time of Pauls letters simply addressed the leader of the household (exclusively men) instructing him on how to govern the other members. Instead Paul speaks first to the woman, the children and slaves omitting any references to govern, instead he calls on him to love his wife, be restrained in disciplining his children, and treat his slaves as equals before God. Most ancient writers expected their wives to be obedient to their husbands, some even required absolute obedience in their marriage contracts. Although Paul upholds the wifely submission of this culture, he qualifies it by placing it under the context of mutual submission. Both husbands and wives must submit and love. Instead of stressing how to rule her, he stresses how he is to love her. This is unity.
Within the church, God is and has used many women in leadership and their gifts and abilities as called. Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, Lydia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Cloe, Nympha,Junia, come to mind. There are no distinction of spiritual giftedness or abilities by gender, power, or any other means. Romans 12 and again in 1 Cor 12 it speaks about spiritual gifts --Paul speaks of unity of the body and love. We are called to use our giftedness and abilities to the fullest in our church for God's glory.

Originally posted by Thunderchild
What makes you think that Paul's declarations on the issue of women's roles are scriptural, Father Rob?

Click to expand...

Because I believe that all Scripture is inspired by God, and is useful for. . . etc... you know the rest ;-)

As for the witness of the early church: "It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the Church, nor to teach, baptize, offer, or to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to mention the priestly office." Tertullian, c. 207

"We do not permit a woman to teach in the Church. Rather, we permit them only to pray and hear those who teach; because Jesus himself never sent out women to preach, even though there was no lack of women avaliable." The Apostolic Constituitions, Compiled c. 390.

Are these Bible verses? No. Are they good examples of the practice of the early church? Yes.

Between the Bible and the witness of application in the early Church, I am secure in the Scriptural prerequsite of being a man to be a minister.

Fr. Rob

Now you are separating scripture with tradition. But if you wish to look at the early church then.....Junia (Romans 16:7-8) is called an outstanding apostle. Origin (185-253) referred to Junia as a female. likewise Jerome (c.340-420) In fact no one in history supposed the name to be that of a man until the 13th century when Aegidius of Rome referred to Junia as honorable men. John Chrysostom (4th century) wrote "To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles-just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! they were outstanding on the basis of their works and viruous actions. Indeed how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was deemed worthy of the title of apostle." Tertullian said "How many men and woman there are whose chastity has obtained for them the honor of ecclesiastical orders!" (Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol 2. Col. 978. There are surviving stone inscriptions which refer to women overseers..."Theodora Episcopa" and the head of a woman appears in a mosaic of a 9th century church. The name also appears elsewhere in print. Episcopa Terni is mentioned in the canon 20 of the Council of Tours...An episcopa is listed in a Vatican Library manuscript taken from an epitaph which reads (Hono)rabilis femina episcopa. Pliny, circa 99AD, refers to finding it necessary to torture two Christian maidens called "ministrae" the latin for Servants or Deacons. Women in the early church served as deacons or servants though in the 3-4th century the Catholic Church began to separate men from women ---and in the 4th century the diminutive title deaconess was created to describe women in this separate role. in 352 AD at the Council of Laodicea it was proclaimed that women could not serve as priests or preside over churches. In 365 at the Council of Laodicea it also declares that the women may not be called presbutidas (overseers) and also that women must not approach the altar. In 398 the 4th Synod of Carthage proclaimed that women may not teach men in assembly and in another canon they state a woman cannot baptize. and finally in 533 we have that they no longer shall the blessing of deaconess be given because of the weakness of the sex. So it appears that for the first 300 yrs, women were participating in ministry and leadership and after that human tradition has tended away from the gender roles that God declared as equal.

Wasn't Tertullian a heretic? I'm sure I remember reading that somewhere...

Originally posted by Divinus
Wasn't Tertullian a heretic? I'm sure I remember reading that somewhere...

Click to expand...

Both Origen and Tertuillan had written some pretty extreme things about exclusion from the Church for those who had sacrificed to idols to avoid persecution. . . some of them borderline and even outright wrong. However, there is a fixed point when his writings change, when he ceases to support he broader Church in their desire to reconcile the "sinners".

I don't believe he died denying any of our core doctrines of faith, but I haven't gotten that far in my studies of their writings in specific.

Fr. Rob