Should Women be Allowed to Pastor Churches?

Women can do everything and anything that a pastor can do. But they are not allowed to carry the title of being a "pastor."

disciple1 said:

I've met a lot of pastors who didn't know what they were talking about, so if a woman knows what she's talking about I'll listen to her.

Click to expand...

Someone doesn't need to be a pastor in order for you to listen to what they say and take it to heart- but you shouldn't elevate them to that office just because bad pastors exist.

What I dont get is, even if the interpretations of what Paul said re women are to remain silent and not teach is correct...so what? why does what Paul said become an indelible stamp. At the end of the day Paul was just a man speaking in the context of the 1st Century. Like most people he could change his mind depending on the context of another situation. If he lived today and met women with the capacities they possess today, he may well speak differently. And what does it matter if he didn't anyway.

What is the logic of Christianity in this. Why on earth would a woman not be able to teach and preach - what capacities does it require. I'd argue the important capacities are intrinsic personal strengths such as wisdom, intelligence, forbearance, compassion and gentleness. It requires the person to be organised and ethical. It requires them to be honest, articulate and good with people...... None of these things have anything to do with possessing a penis....... No where in the bible did I read, and God made incapable, those possessed with vaginas in the matter of intelligence, wisdom and forbearance.

The insistence to pursue a line of thinking that is totally incapable of evolving with the passage of time renders those christian denominations to the ranks of the superfluous and useless, like outdated models of computers to be discarded for something more capable and relevant. And being relevant does not mean abandoning the paradigm of Christianity, but rather the dogma that has absolutely nothing to do with salvation before God. Would people here seriously argue that God would say "you were a wonderful christian but hey...I saw that that were a pastor and brought all those people to your church and normally Id say that's great but I noticed you didn't have a penis so...yea sorry you cant get into heaven"..... what a lot of nonsense.

Paul wasn't a sexist, if that's what you're trying to get at. He was speaking in a first century context, sure- and I ask, so what? So was Jesus. So was Peter. So was John. This was their custom, and they bucked against it more than a few times. They all grew up going to the synagogues and to the Temple, and they were used to having men only teach them and offer their sacrifices. This had been going on for thousands of years. Women today are more educated than people back then could have possibly imagine- even beyond what the men knew! But none of that matters.

Think about it. The Jews were surrounded by all these different pagan religions which had no shortage of priestesses- but God still insisted that only the "sons of Aaron" could assume His priestly office. Is God a sexist?

If He wanted priestesses to minister to His people, God could have ordered it so and the Jews largely wouldn't have cared. They did want to be like the other nations, after all (1 Samuel 8:5). The fact remains that this idea was alien to the ancient Jews and to our ancient Christian brothers and sisters. They would have been receptive to this idea, if they wanted to be like those around them. Jesus could have said or done something to leave the possibility of female ordination open- but He didn't, and we are left with two options: cling to God and let things be done according to His will, or rebel against Him. Which do you choose?

My wife is one of the finest preachers I have ever heard. She is also a pastor of two churches.

If you were to visit one of those churches you would meet a 76 year old gentleman with asbestosis and parkinson's who would tell you in no uncertain terms that his life has been transformed by the ministry of this woman.

If you met some acquaintances of this man, you would encounter more than one Atheist perplexed as to how this man seemingly changed overnight from a bitter and cantankerous person, to a hopeful and optimistic one, without any fundamental change in his circumstances.

If you were to ask my wife the source of this transformation, she would simply point to the Holy Spirit, because it is not people (male or female) that have these effects, and no amount of theologizing (she has a degree in the subject) can diminish or augment this reality. Although by all means, theologize away.

archer75 said:

A very literal reading of this passage might say that a bishop MUST be married. Do you think that's the case?

Click to expand...

A very literal reading of the Greek in this passage is that a bishop should be a "one-woman man." Marriage is not actually mentioned.

TuxAme said:

Paul wasn't a sexist, if that's what you're trying to get at. He was speaking in a first century context, sure- and I ask, so what? So was Jesus. So was Peter. So was John. This was their custom, and they bucked against it more than a few times. They all grew up going to the synagogues and to the Temple, and they were used to having men only teach them and offer their sacrifices. This had been going on for thousands of years. Women today are more educated than people back then could have possibly imagine- even beyond what the men knew! But none of that matters.

Think about it. The Jews were surrounded by all these different pagan religions which had no shortage of priestesses- but God still insisted that only the "sons of Aaron" could assume His priestly office. Is God a sexist?

If He wanted priestesses to minister to His people, God could have ordered it so and the Jews largely wouldn't have cared. They did want to be like the other nations, after all (1 Samuel 8:5). The fact remains that this idea was alien to the ancient Jews and to our ancient Christian brothers and sisters. They would have been receptive to this idea, if they wanted to be like those around them. Jesus could have said or done something to leave the possibility of female ordination open- but He didn't, and we are left with two options: cling to God and let things be done according to His will, or rebel against Him. Which do you choose?

Click to expand...

You're arguing that it's male pastors that what God wants. I'm saying that no-one speaks for God on this and that it's men who have written those redundant statements at a time that it was pertinent and relevant, but now is being used as a weapon to not only remove women participating in preaching, but also used as a thin wedge to paternalistic marriages/headship.

I cant see evidence of God supporting any of it. What I see evidence of is men of the 1st century offering an opinion which had relevance in 20 AD but redundant now.

And you know what - regardless of yours or anyone else's opinion, women ARE pastors. It's like so many men can't fathom that the world keeps turning and women now are leaders in all forms of life and relationships including religion. This argument is totally mute because change has happened like it or not and as far as I'm concerned it's for the better. I am sick to my heart at the numerous sexual crimes committed by male pastors and I for one wont go near one and am very grateful for the women in this vocation.

Deadworm said:

Most Fundamentalists, especially on this site, lack the intellectual integrity to investigate what NT scholars have discovered on this issue.

Click to expand...

Nice ad hominem there.

Deadworm said:

the scholarly consensus among both conservative and liberal NT scholars demonstrates on linguistic and other grounds that the Pastoral Epistles (1 -2 Timothy and Titus) are Deuteron-Pauline, that is not written by Paul.

Click to expand...

The scholarly consensus among conservative NT scholars is that Paul wrote the the Pastoral Epistles. There is actually no real evidence to the contrary.

Deadworm said:

NT scholars reject 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Click to expand...

Liberal scholars do.

Deadworm said:

(1) Paul recognizes Junia as a female apostle, a fact widely recognized by the church fathers.

Click to expand...

We do not even know if Junia/Junias was a woman, nor is it clear that she was "recognized as a female apostle;" also the church fathers have varying opinions on him/her.

Deadworm said:

(2) Phoebe was the minister (diakonos) of her house church Romans 16:1-2). "Minister" is the primary meaning of "diakonos."

Click to expand...

The primary meaning of diakonos is "servant." What it means here is anybody's guess. It might simply mean that Phoebe was delegated by her church to carry a message.

Deadworm said:

(3) In 4 of the 6 times Priscilla and Aquila are mentioned in the NT, Priscilla is mentioned before her husband! This sequence pattern is unheard of in ancient patriarchal culture. That's most likely because she did the missionary work, while her husband worked as a tentmaker to finance her ministry.

Click to expand...

Not likely at all. A flight of fancy, in fact.

But at least you're clarifying where the dividing line is on this issue; it is on the interpretation of Scripture.

apogee said:

...

Click to expand...

It's great the she's good at what she does and that what she does helps people, but the fact remains: what she's doing is extremely unorthodox. It doesn't square with the teachings of Jesus, or that of the apostles and their successors. Women can (and definitely should) be active in ministries in the Church, but God chose- despite the fact that the pagans around the Jews had priestesses- to restrict "ordained" ministry to men. With the arrival of the New Covenant, Jesus still chose not to buck this "trend", despite having fully sufficient opportunity to do so. We mustn't doubt Him.

Halbhh said:

Well, in Ephesians 4:11 a shepherd/pastor is a different role from a teacher, 2 roles

Click to expand...

It's not clear in the Greek whether there are two roles (pastor and teachers), or a dual role (pastor-teachers). See the footnote in the ESV.

Halbhh said:

as were the instructions for slaves to remain cheerful servants even to harsh masters (instead of escaping)

Click to expand...

Advising slaves to escape would be bad advice. They would be pretty much certain to be caught and killed.

Zoii said:

You're arguing that it's male pastors that what God wants. I'm saying that no-one speaks for God on this and that it's men who have written those redundant statements at a time that it was pertinent and relevant, but now is being used as a weapon to not only remove women participating in preaching, but also used as a thin wedge to paternalistic marriages/headship.

I cant see evidence of God supporting any of it. What I see evidence of is men of the 1st century offering an opinion which had relevance in 20 AD but redundant now.

And you know what - regardless of yours or anyone else's opinion, women ARE pastors. It's like so many men can't fathom that the world keeps turning and women now are leaders in all forms of life and relationships including religion. This argument is totally mute because change has happened like it or not and as far as I'm concerned it's for the better. I am sick to my heart at the numerous sexual crimes committed by male pastors and I for one wont go near one and am very grateful for the women in this vocation.

Click to expand...

You're the only one who seems to be trying to speak for God. All I've said is that God provided no- zero- suggestion that female ordination is in His plans. I've made references to the Old Testament and appeals to Church history, and everything you're claiming is based on- what? Emotion?

You discount the impossibility of female ordination because Paul's statements were made in the context of the culture he was a part of. You're essentially attributing a motive- sexism- to him, and, "Paul was being sexist because he was from the first century" isn't a sufficient basis for female ordination.

Radagast said:

Advising slaves to escape would be bad advice. They would be pretty much certain to be caught and killed.

Click to expand...

From Romans, right. From Jews, no. Philemon is a very short and interesting letter.

TuxAme said:

You're the only one who seems to be trying to speak for God.

Click to expand...

Fair's fair, TuxAme. Only a few posts ago you were admonishing us not to doubt (your understanding of) Jesus. All of us here are wrestling with the best way to interpret the godly sources we have.

Paidiske said:

Fair's fair, TuxAme. Only a few posts ago you were admonishing us not to doubt (your understanding of) Jesus. All of us here are wrestling with the best way to interpret the godly sources we have.

Click to expand...

Care to at least quote what I said so I can comment on it? I've commented a lot.

TuxAme said:

Care to at least quote what I said so I can comment on it? I've commented a lot.

Click to expand...

I was referring to this post:

TuxAme said:

It's great the she's good at what she does and that what she does helps people, but the fact remains: what she's doing is extremely unorthodox. It doesn't square with the teachings of Jesus, or that of the apostles and their successors. Women can (and definitely should) be active in ministries in the Church, but God chose- despite the fact that the pagans around the Jews had priestesses- to restrict "ordained" ministry to men. With the arrival of the New Covenant, Jesus still chose not to buck this "trend", despite having fully sufficient opportunity to do so. We mustn't doubt Him.

Click to expand...

Halbhh said:

From Romans, right. From Jews, no.

Click to expand...

The Roman authorities themselves would hunt down slaves.

Halbhh said:

Philemon is a very short and interesting letter.

Click to expand...

It is indeed. Paul is putting considerable pressure on Philemon to regularise Onesimus' status, and to free him.

Onesimus was a runaway, but he had presumably been living in a way that made it possible to claim, if asked, that he was Paul's slave.

TuxAme said:

It's great the she's good at what she does and that what she does helps people, but the fact remains: what she's doing is extremely unorthodox. It doesn't square with the teachings of Jesus, or that of the apostles and their successors. Women can (and definitely should) be active in ministries in the Church, but God chose- despite the fact that the pagans around the Jews had priestesses- to restrict "ordained" ministry to men. With the arrival of the New Covenant, Jesus still chose not to buck this "trend", despite having fully sufficient opportunity to do so. We mustn't doubt Him.

Click to expand...

I think you're really missing the point, but that's fine, I'm not preaching to you, I'm not theolgizing, although I could, I'm presenting a candid account of reality and it is not for your benefit that I'm doing so.

TuxAme said:

You're the only one who seems to be trying to speak for God. All I've said is that God provided no- zero- suggestion that female ordination is in His plans. I've made references to the Old Testament and appeals to Church history, and everything you're claiming is based on- what? Emotion?

You discount the impossibility of female ordination because Paul's statements were made in the context of the culture he was a part of. You're essentially attributing a motive- sexism- to him, and, "Paul was being sexist because he was from the first century" isn't a sufficient basis for female ordination.

Click to expand...

Im arguing we are all speaking for God when none of us can. So what we are operating on are comments made in the first century AD. Consider the cultural context of that time - were they sexist - of course they were - men had multiple wives and women had limited or no rights. A girl raped had to marry her rapist - I just dont understand why your astonished at that - women couldn't even vote until 1890-1900 (for New Zealand & Australia- several decades later if your in USA)... so I dont accept the argument that men of the 1st century supported gender equality - they didn't - that was the culture then - and if your support of Pauls statement is "shut up woman let the men speak" then yes I'm saying its sexist and redundant.

And its not only redundant but superfluous because it appears you cant acknowledge that like it or not, women ARE pastors.

Paidiske said:

I was referring to this post:

Click to expand...

I thought so, but had to make sure. And so I ask: what's the problem?

I made an observation: Jesus didn't challenge this institution- the institution being the male only priesthood- so that probably means that He didn't want it to change. And here I make another observation: Jesus chose twelve apostles- all of whom were male- to be priests and bishops of His New Covenant (if you want to challenge the ordained priesthood, that's another conversation altogether- but here the terms can be synonymous with "pastor" for the sake of the argument).

He most certainly had female disciples- and these are some of the greatest figures in Church history- but He didn't charge any of them to perform priestly duties as He did the apostles. This is in harmony with the Old Covenant, rather than at odds with it.

And now I make the case that the burden of proof is on the pro-female ordination party to make their case. Everything I've provided can be observed from Scripture- I didn't have to attribute any motives, and I didn't include any of my own thoughts on what was going on. This is all "straight Scripture", and it's more than what I've seen the "other side" give.