Should women be pastors?

Re: husband of one wife.

Don't forget Paul also said 1Tim 3:12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. Yet Phebe was a deacon too and highly commended by Paul. I think people are misreading Paul and thinking his instruction to Timothy to appoint church leaders who were married, which he expressed as a male overseer or deacon having a wife, was meant as an exclusion of female church leaders. Peter warns us that Paul can be difficult to understand. There is a problem with intrepretations of Paul's statements about women when they contradicts what we know about women's ministry in the early church, in fact that we learn through Paul's own epistles.

chingchang said:

Fellow CF-ers,

There is NO getting through to Zaac. In his mind he is right...everyone else is apostate. I've encountered these types of replies from Zaac in other threads. There is no budging from his position...regardless of the facts. God himself could appear in a vision to Zaac and tell him of his error...and Zaac would think it was a deceiving spirit because it wasn't revealed to him through the Bible text. Some have called this position Bibliolatry.

Click to expand...

That's probably true, and very wise.
I can't promise that I won't continue trying to explain though.

To Strong in Him,
Thanks for the explanations, I think I am being pedantic, I agree.

I think you make a superb set of questions. …

I don't really want to get on to that issue, but I would say, look at the whole of Scripture.
Is marriage from God and his plan?
What is marriage, and who can marry?
What about sexual relationships outside of marriage, how does God feel about those?
Does he say anything specifically about same sex relationships, does he bless or curse them?
etc, etc.

In the same way - looking at the whole of Scripture -
Has God ever used a woman to proclaim his word?
Have there been any examples of women leaders? ("authority over men" is the real issue.)
How did Jesus treat women?
What was the role of women in the early church? Did Paul work with any women?

Click to expand...

The problem is that whilst marriage is only defined as man and woman and same sex relationships are condemned that isnt in dispute, whereas there are scriptures for and against women.

I think your questions help clarify, but my view why I personally don’t have an issue with women pastors or any leadership teaching etc, is that there seemed to be some described at the end of Romans, allowing for the prohibitions to be local issues.

Zaac said:

I know what history says.

Click to expand...

If you know what history says, then you are aware that Phoebe--a woman--was a deacon in the early Church. You are also aware that Paul listed Priscilla ahead of her husband and addressed them as "fellow workers in Christ Jesus." You are also aware that the Society of Friends has had female ministers for more than 350 years.

And I know what God's word says.

Click to expand...

No, you know what your interpretation of God's word says.

He has not called a woman to pastor over men.

Click to expand...

According to your interpretation. Many of us obviously disagree with your interpretation.

tulipbee said:

One reason why I might be leaving PCA to join PCUSA. I think PCA are a little too ultra-conservative and don't see any flexibly on ladies running certain areas in the church office.

Click to expand...

Same here.

Rigidity is almost never a good thing folks!

ke1985 said:

Same here.

Rigidity is almost never a good thing folks!

Click to expand...

As I teach tai chi, I tell the students to relax. Rigidity is like a stagnant area of a river. Stagnant waters creates many blockages and creates aliments. One must reform to keep the waters flowing and the healings return to it's natural state. Whats reform if you don't truly reform?

Years ago, when I was nursing in Birmingham and looking around for a church, I came across one that clearly did not accept that women could do anything. The men read the Scriptures, preached, lead the prayers, even took the collection. When I was having lunch with a couple from the church one week I asked what would happen if a woman received a prophecy or wanted to pray out loud. As far as I remember the answer was "I think we'd need her to tell that word/prayer to one of the men."

This church may have sincerely believed that such a position was Scriptural, but it felt a very stifling place - I was no more than an observer, (I think I sang the hymns, I can't remember,) and felt I would not have been able to be myself or use my gifts there.

What good is it if a church sticks to the letter of Scripture but ignores the spirit (small 's') and principles behind it? Isn't that a bit like the Pharisees, who were criticised by Jesus for tithing exactly 1/10th of everything as laid down in the law, but ignoring what the law also said about justice and mercy? Or complaining that Jesus healed on the sabbath, (which they regarded as 'work',) ignoring the fact that a person was now healed or forgiven?

AngelusSax said:

I've read, on a couple of occassions, that there is evidence (perhaps not conclusive though) of female leadership in the early churches (aside from Pheobe being a deacon[ess] or the fact that Priscilla is usually mentioned first in connection with her husband during a time when order of mention indicated amount of influence and even power/authority).

I think I need to go re-read some of my books to see if I can find that again (I think it's in one I own and wasn't some library book I've long forgot the title of).

Click to expand...

Yes, there is a surprising amount of evidence -- surprising because it has been so ignored. I mentioned some of it in this thread, and there is more out there. There are early church theologians (John Chrysostom among them) who interpreted scripture to say that Phoebe was a deacon and Junia was an apostle. There are ordination liturgies for female deacons parallel to those for men. There are inscriptions which record women conducting church business and celebrating the sacraments. History records a number of women who held the office of presbyter. Such women were few and far between, but that is only to be expected given the cultural context. This is one case in which the exception proves that the rule is not the rule after all.

I've been studying this more lately, and I've been shocked at the amount of evidence there is.

When you read what some of the "early church fathers" thought about women it's not surprising that women in the church were looked down upon and their role in the church limited as much as possible.

Many people over the years have used the bible as a weapon to propagate hate and the mistreatment of others.

angelmom01 said:

When you read what some of the "early church fathers" thought about women it's not surprising that women in the church were looked down upon and their role in the church limited as much as possible.

Many people over the years have used the bible as a weapon to propagate hate and the mistreatment of others.

Click to expand...

Romans 2:23-29
Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jude 1:10
But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

1 Peter 3:15-17
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

1 Peter 4:14
If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

Philippians 3:3
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

There has been some discussion - in this, and particularly Macrina's other thread - about whether or not deaconesses were ordained. The feeling seems to be that if they weren't ordained, then that's ok - no matter what they did, they did it as "lay" people; therefore that is proof that the church did not ordain women.

But surely the question should be; did they teach, preach and lead others in the church? If they did, then that shows that the early church were quite happy with women doing the things that some people say Paul forbids. Whether they had "hands laid on them" or not - and it would seem that the only reason they didn't do this was from some strange idea that a virgin must be "untouched by men" - were deaconesses preaching and teaching the faith?

And we might say today that celebrating communion, giving absolution etc requires people to be ordained, but was that the case then? I'm not aware that Scripture demands that the celebrant at the Lord's supper should always be a man - it simply says that the believers met together and broke bread. In fact, I'm not aware that the early church celebrated the Lord's supper as we do today at all - ie during a Sunday service with each believer going forward to receive a small wafer/piece of bread and a sip of wine.
And we are told to confess our sins to one another and forgive one another.

So what IS ordination? Is it something which was required and practised in Scripture, and laid down by Scripture, or is it something which has come about more recently?

What is 'ordained'?

Where is that found in the Scripture?

I mentioned this in another thread but look at how most denominations approach the feminine side of God and the church: they don't. Most of the sermons are not about any women of the Bible and except for the Catholic Church, Mary is almost never mentioned in Godly discussion.

Considering this, it doesn't surprise me that most churches do not want women in the forefront...they will not even discuss women in a sermon!

Steelerbred33 said:

I mentioned this in another thread but look at how most denominations approach the feminine side of God and the church: they don't. Most of the sermons are not about any women of the Bible and except for the Catholic Church, Mary is almost never mentioned in Godly discussion.

Considering this, it doesn't surprise me that most churches do not want women in the forefront...they will not even discuss women in a sermon!

Click to expand...

Yes, and what I find really discouraging is the fact that a lot of Christian women AGREE with this doctrine which says that leadership is exclusively a man's domain. Over the many years that I have defended womens equality in the Church I have been often rebuffed by many women. When you open their jail door they say "I want to stay here." Not you however.

Larry

PT Calvinist said:

Just curious...I don't know if this is a forbidden topic or not, if it is I'm sorry...

But if it isn't, the question stands, Should women be Pastors?

Click to expand...

No, scripture and the Church forbids it. A woman is not to usurp the authority of the man because of the order of creation. Womens' ministry puts women as teachers to men, which is a perversion of authority. Women are to teach their children, but never men or their husbands from the pulpit.

That doesn't mean women can't give advise to men and speak her opinion on issues.

CreedIsChrist said:

A woman is not to usurp the authority of the man because of the order of creation.

Click to expand...

Which means what?

How can a woman usurp (snatch, forcibly grab) authority from a man when a) authority is given by God, and b) men often recognise the fact that God can and does call women to be ordained, and agree to her being so.

What about the order of creation? Animals were created before humans - are you saying earwigs have authority over us?

Why do people think that being created first means that a man is "the boss"?
And how is a woman who teaches a man in authority over him?

CreedIsChrist said:

No, scripture and the Church forbids it. A woman is not to usurp the authority of the man because of the order of creation. Womens' ministry puts women as teachers to men, which is a perversion of authority. Women are to teach their children, but never men or their husbands from the pulpit.

That doesn't mean women can't give advise to men and speak her opinion on issues.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that Paul used Adam and Eve to teach truths about Christ and the church and as part of THE CHURCH (EVE) you (even as a male) fall under "the woman".

CreedIsChrist said:

No, scripture and the Church forbids it. A woman is not to usurp the authority of the man because of the order of creation. Womens' ministry puts women as teachers to men, which is a perversion of authority. Women are to teach their children, but never men or their husbands from the pulpit.

That doesn't mean women can't give advise to men and speak her opinion on issues.

Click to expand...

As for the Church forbidding it: Your church may do so, but not all do. This is an ecumenical board, and there are many here from branches of the Christian family which do, in fact, have female pastors.

As for scripture forbidding it: I see no evidence that it does, but I do see evidence that this interpretation has been forced on scripture over the years, based on the world's perception of gender roles.

If you'd care to offer more specifics, then we can discuss those. But in summary: Scripture records women performing ministerial functions and affirms this. Those few passages which are quoted to forbid women from ministry are taken out of context and twisted to mean something that they did not mean originally. Some of this has to do with translation issues, some just plain cultural bias. But a close examination of the issue will reveal that the Bible affirms the ministry of those women whom the Lord has called to it. If you want to look at these things in closer detail, I'm open to doing so.

Reprise from an earlier thread:

1 Tim. 2:12-15 (KJV)
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. [15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Frank Viola in his book titled, “The untold story of the New Testament Church'” tells of the historical situation in Ephesus where Timothy was assigned. I have edited down his comments to just those of womens issues – they were very severe.


Timothy and Paul were dealing with a kind of pre-Gnostic heresy that had come into the church via the male teachers. According to gnosticism, full salvation comes through special knowledge – gnosis – that only the initiated possess. In Ephesus this is what they were teaching...

• Eve is both a mediator and redeemer figure who preexisted Adam.
• Man came into existence because of a woman, and he was given enlightenment through the woman. Since Eve was the first to take a bite from the Tree of Knowledge, she is the bearer of special spiritual knowledge (called gnosis).
• Women are called to lead people to the illuminating gnosis, which was represented by the Tree of Knowledge. Redemption completely reversed the effects of the fall so that men are no longer subject to earthly authorities and women are no longer subject to their husbands.

Those accepting this heresy preferred the leadership of women over men. Male teachers were the first to spread this heresy in Ephesus. But it finds fertile ground among the women in the Church. Remember that the first and second century Churches were home cell groups. It was impossible to address the Church all at one time. Actually women who had opened their homes to the Church had a lot of control over the cell groups in that day.

The homes of the Ephesian women provide a network by which the heresy is spread rapidly through gossip, Some of the women are teaching the heresy in the Church meetings and are lording it over (dominating) the men. They have also accepted the ideals of the “new woman” [which was the Roman equivalent of “womens lib.”] They are dressing in an immodest and exploitive way (like that of prostitutes) and are defying other accepted norms regarding marriage and family.

There is also a problem with respect to how the widows are being cared for in the Church. Some of the widows have adopted the heresy and others have family members who are able to care for them. Still worse, some of the younger widows who decided not to remarry are acting promiscuously.

Consequently, Timothy wants to know which widows the Church ought to be responsible for. Paul wants to go back to Ephesus – but he cannot – he writes the pastoral epistle of 1 Timothy to address all these problems of which this post has not recorded all of them. In any case the situation with the women in particular was very grave and out of control.

Any one doing an in depth study of this topic may want to read the book "I suffer not a woman". It has good historic background and a thorough look at the passage of 1Timothy 2:11 15.The authors are Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger.

One of the difficulties with the interpretation of the afore mentioned scripture is the Greek word "Authentein" (To dominate or rule over). It is only used once in the Bible so there is no frame of reference for this word inside of scripture. Words change in meaning over the years and this is a point in Kroger's book. They believe -as does Viola - that this passage was written in answer to heretical Gnostic error, which was invading the Church.

Here is an edited comment based on Kroegers Book.

“In light of the authentic meaning of the word "authentein" and of the social context within which Paul wrote his letters to Timothy, let me offer what I believe is an appropriate rendering of the text in Timothy. I believe Paul is saying, "I am not allowing (present tense for that situation) a woman to teach or to proclaim herself the originator of man (authentein)." Do you see how this translation offsets false doctrine?

The word that is frequently translated "silence," "hesuchia", also means harmony, peace, conformity or agreement. I therefore suggest Paul goes on to say, "she must be in agreement," meaning agreement with the scriptures and with sound teaching in the Church.

He continues in this vein saying, "Adam was formed first then Eve." This statement militates against the doctrine of Eve as progenitor. He also says "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was! And sinned!" This statement directly contradicts the notion that Eve was the "illuminator," and carrier of new revelation (gnosis).

This translation is the most legitimate because it fits the social context, is true to the Greek, speaks to the troubled situation, and lines up perfectly with all of Paul's other teachings and practices concerning women.”

Conclusion: Paul was addressing this gnostic heresy in the Ephesian Church and if you take it literally - as a lot of people do - it suppresses women unjustly and out of the exclusive context of the Ephesian situation in Paul's day. It is also contradictory to the attitude of Paul throughout his days of ministry as he always saw women as his co-laborers in the Lord.

You can't simply draw conclusions based on literal 21st century western thinking. If you want to know what the truth is you must search the history of that period of time. As you see we get a major paradigm shift when we read the passage in the context of history. We see it as a local situation which was very bad and was corrected by the Apostles.

Larry