Women Pastors?

Albion · Dec 9, 2020

AK1982 said:
A soul is touched/transformed by the "power" that is in the "word" preached or taught and not by the skills or the gender of the preacher/teacher. That "power" flows from God through the instruments (men & women) chosen by God for his purposes and according to His will.

If God Himself doesn't mind using any instrument which surrenders itself to Him, what is the debate all about? Ultimately, work is HIS not ours.

Indeed! And if we take that approach, we are guided by two things--1) Scripture and 2) Christ's church, guided from the beginning by the Holy Spirit.

Both of these take their stand with the male priesthood. They say to us that God does decide such things...just as you said...and this is what he decided.

So what's the other argument based on? Oh, that would be everything else--logic, intuition, whatever.

AK1982 · Dec 9, 2020

Albion said:
Indeed! And if we take that approach, we are guided by two things--1) Scripture and 2) Christ's church, guided from the beginning by the Holy Spirit.

Both of these take their stand with the male priesthood. They say to us that God does decide such things...just as you said...and this is what he decided.

So what's the other argument based on? Oh, that would be everything else--logic, intuition, whatever.

We can also be guided by what's happening around us. Lot of God's work is being accomplished through the teachings of both men and women and is an enough proof that the Holy spirit is not gender biased.

Albion · Dec 9, 2020

AK1982 said:
We can also be guided by what's happening around us. Lot of God's work is being accomplished through the teachings of both men and women and is an enough proof that the Holy spirit is not gender biased.

That still means that we humans are imposing our own judgments upon the word of God.

What one person thinks is the will of God, the next one thinks is the work of Satan tricking us, and the next one after that thinks it's just what the social order likes at the moment.

There would be no purpose for God to reveal his will to us through inspiration (the Bible), if we were to be left on our own to guess at what's right and what's not.

ItIsFinished! · Dec 9, 2020

AK1982 said:
We can also be guided by what's happening around us. Lot of God's work is being accomplished through the teachings of both men and women and is an enough proof that the Holy spirit is not gender biased.

God will not contradict His Word.
Women cannot be pastors.
It has nothing to do with gender bias.

nolidad · Dec 9, 2020

Archivist said:
No, what you are telling me is your interpretation. You are entitled to your interpretation just as I am entitled to mine.

No one is entitles to their own interpretation. I just used the words as they have come to be understood. But you knew that already. Can I reinterpret the statment above of yours to mean you believe God condones murder, and adultery and blasphemy and call it me entitles to interpeting you ?

Archivist said:
No, I don’t practice mind reading. I don’t think Christians should attempt such things. You were the one who was shouting at me (you do realize that all caps means shouting), now you are saying that I stink at things. Are you always so rude?

Well to me all Caps and exclamation marks are for emphasis, not for yelling! Are you always so presumptuous? Is there a cardinal rule written in the cloud that says caps always mean the person is mad! I am very passionate in my speaking and writing as well as very blunt and direct. Not mad> But to many (And I would have to say that includes you) they think that is rude, angry, whatever. But I still sit here, cool, calm, collected.

Archivist said:
I have implied no such thing. I merely stated a fact.

So parts of the church have been in error to the Scriptures since the 1600's.

nolidad · Dec 9, 2020

Gregorikos said:
No, because the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the one that wants to exclude over 50% of the Lord's church from his army, when he explicitly told us to pray for more workers in his harvest. And you're basing it on a phrase that is disputed even by guys from your own side. You haven't proven anything.

Why do you take a subject and then twist it to something I did not say!

I do not wish to exclude 50% of Gods people from His "Army" nor do I want to limit the harvesters.

I just merely have quoted Scripture --you know that book that we are not allowed to privately interpret and use as our infallible guide in settling all spiritual matters?

But humor this old coo. Please explain in detail how I wish to exclude women from service to the lord in general when the bible says bishops and deacons must be the husbands of one wife?

Show me how, by me promoting what the Scriptures say here as written and not re-interpreted, I am not allowing women to serve in teh church (except as the writtne prohibiton for bishops and deacons)

Exaggerating is folly.

nolidad · Dec 9, 2020

Gregorikos said:
No, because the burden of proof is on you, not me. You're the one that wants to exclude over 50% of the Lord's church from his army, when he explicitly told us to pray for more workers in his harvest. And you're basing it on a phrase that is disputed even by guys from your own side. You haven't proven anything.

Burden of proof?

Okey -dokey!!!!!!!

1 Tim. 2

7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not

a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 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.

1 Timothy 3
King James Version

3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:8-12
King James Version

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Heres my proof! Now why should I reject this command from God, spoken through the apostle as it is written? What other commands can we reject as written and reinterpret them?

nolidad · Dec 9, 2020

Fervent said:
You're right that there were different mores in different areas, but polygamy wasn't universally frowned upon and was routinely practiced in various places which is why the rejoinder is necessary. Polygyny, on the other hand, was universally recognized as illicit so there is no such need for that qualification. That single phrase is not enough to warrant basing a tradition that if we look to the historical documents we can see arose later, and the English translations relied on that tradition in their rendering. A major criticism of early Christianity was the number of women and the extent of their influence within the church, as the early church treated women and men as equals.

I would like to see some of those early writings. Teh works of teh anter-nicene fathers do not look at men and women as equal in all things.

Yes equal in how we come to salvation, equal in how we can pray and supplicate, but not equal when it came to the offices of the church.

And sorry, but if the Bible doesn't allow (even implicitly) women to hold office as these explicitly do then we shouldn't wither. And just because polygyny was not accepted doesn't allow us to force an opinion on the Scriptures.

Philip_B · Dec 9, 2020

nolidad said:
And sorry, but if the Bible doesn't allow (even implicitly) women to hold office

Judges 4:4-10
At that time Deborah, a prophetess, wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the Israelites came up to her for judgement. She sent and summoned Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali, and said to him, ‘The Lord, the God of Israel, commands you, “Go, take position at Mount Tabor, bringing ten thousand from the tribe of Naphtali and the tribe of Zebulun. I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the Wadi Kishon with his chariots and his troops; and I will give him into your hand.” ’ Barak said to her, ‘If you will go with me, I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go.’ And she said, ‘I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.’ Then Deborah got up and went with Barak to Kedesh. Barak summoned Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and ten thousand warriors went up behind him; and Deborah went up with him.

Hmm · Dec 9, 2020

A question for you then. You quote:

nolidad said:
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Do you attend a church and, if so, are the women required to be silent? If they aren't, aren't you rejecting the command (as you interpret it) that they should be by attending the church, something you say you wouldn't do below:

nolidad said:
Now why should I reject this command from God, spoken through the apostle as it is written?

Fervent · Dec 9, 2020

nolidad said:
I would like to see some of those early writings. Teh works of teh anter-nicene fathers do not look at men and women as equal in all things.

Yes equal in how we come to salvation, equal in how we can pray and supplicate, but not equal when it came to the offices of the church.

And sorry, but if the Bible doesn't allow (even implicitly) women to hold office as these explicitly do then we shouldn't wither. And just because polygyny was not accepted doesn't allow us to force an opinion on the Scriptures.

I'd be interested in seeing what from the ante-nicene you're insinuating excludes women from offices. There are multiple critics you could look to, Celsus was pretty vocal on the matter for starters. But considering you write off the Biblical data of Priscilla's leading a church, you'd likely write off the multiple house churches led by women(who were about 2/3's of all Christians in the earliest church). It seems to me you're clinging to a single injunction and insisting it to be more meaningful than it is, as it does not imply that women are excluded.

Archivist · Dec 9, 2020

nolidad said:
No one is entitles to their own interpretation. I just used the words as they have come to be understood. But you knew that already.

No, you are providing your interpretation.

Can I reinterpret the statment above of yours to mean you believe God condones murder, and adultery and blasphemy and call it me entitles to interpeting you ?

Did I say God condones murder, adultery or blasphemy? No, I did not.

You need to work on your grammar. "Call it me entitles to interpeting you" makes no sense.

Well to me all Caps and exclamation marks are for emphasis, not for yelling! Are you always so presumptuous? Is there a cardinal rule written in the cloud that says caps always mean the person is mad!

Writing in All Caps Is Like Shouting (lifewire.com)

I never said you were mad, I said you were shouting. It is very rude. But of course, telling someone that what they said "stinks" is rude too, but you did that. Apparently your mother didn't teach you manners.

I am very passionate in my speaking and writing as well as very blunt and direct. Not mad> But to many (And I would have to say that includes you) they think that is rude, angry, whatever. But I still sit here, cool, calm, collected.

A person can be cool, calm and collected and still be rude.

So parts of the church have been in error to the Scriptures since the 1600's.

No, parts of the church gained the correct interpretation of scripture in the 1600s. But of course, you are entitled to your interpretation.

Philip_B · Dec 9, 2020

I suspect that one of the realities we need to balance is that the Gospel has been carried to us through a tradition of a largely patriarchal society. The difficulty that this presents is the significant possibility that this cast in the neutral tend to become masculine over time and things cast in the feminine tend to become neutral.

The prevalence of culture within the faith tradition is both a blessing and a curse. When I worked in the Church in Papua New Guinea we were always challenged with this issue, and the matter of discerning faith from culture. Papua New Guineans can and do make fabulous 1st class Christians, however getting them to become Neo-European did nothing for them or for the kingdom.

Using what Paul wrote to Timothy in a particular context as the absolute determination of the nature and practice of Church leadership and ministry for all time may well miss the mark. There are examples of women in leadership in both old and new testament, the example of Jesus in the resurrection, and other places according women a significant roll in carrying the message.

Frankly I think we are better together.

Gregorikos · Dec 9, 2020

nolidad said:
Why do you take a subject and then twist it to something I did not say!

I do not wish to exclude 50% of Gods people from His "Army" nor do I want to limit the harvesters.

I just merely have quoted Scripture --you know that book that we are not allowed to privately interpret and use as our infallible guide in settling all spiritual matters?

But humor this old coo. Please explain in detail how I wish to exclude women from service to the lord in general when the bible says bishops and deacons must be the husbands of one wife?

Show me how, by me promoting what the Scriptures say here as written and not re-interpreted, I am not allowing women to serve in teh church (except as the writtne prohibiton for bishops and deacons)

Exaggerating is folly.

That is simply the logical outcome of your theology. You place restrictions on what a woman can do for the Lord. She can reach a certain height, but no higher. You place no restrictions on men, only on women.

Gregorikos · Dec 9, 2020

nolidad said:
Burden of proof?

Okey -dokey!!!!!!!

1 Tim. 2

7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 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.

1 Timothy 3
King James Version

3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:8-12
King James Version

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Heres my proof! Now why should I reject this command from God, spoken through the apostle as it is written? What other commands can we reject as written and reinterpret them?

As I've told you repeatedly, there are perfectly legitimate alternate translations of the scriptures you provided that render your objections moot.

A wife should learn quietly with complete submission. I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband. Instead, she should be a quiet listener. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (CEB)

This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing. So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching. 1 Timothy 3:1-2 (CEB)

In the same way, servants in the church should be dignified, not two-faced, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money. They should hold on to the faith that has been revealed with a clear conscience. They should also be tested and then serve if they are without fault. In the same way, women who are servants in the church should be dignified and not gossip. They should be sober and faithful in everything they do. Servants must be faithful to their spouse and manage their children and their own households well. 1 Timothy 3:8-12 (CEB)

The fact remains: You want to place restrictions on over half of the Lord's army based on your dubious interpretation of one passage of Scripture.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Dec 9, 2020

alllivesmatter said:
I have a hard time accepting woman pastors. I wish it wasn't that way. There are many on Christian TV.

I have a hard time accepting pastors on Christian TV. Their sex is irrelevant.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Dec 9, 2020

Gregorikos said:
As I've told you repeatedly, there are perfectly legitimate alternate translations of the scriptures you provided that render your objections moot.

A wife should learn quietly with complete submission. I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband. Instead, she should be a quiet listener. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 (CEB)

This saying is reliable: if anyone has a goal to be a supervisor in the church, they want a good thing. So the church’s supervisor must be without fault. They should be faithful to their spouse, sober, modest, and honest. They should show hospitality and be skilled at teaching. 1 Timothy 3:1-2 (CEB)

In the same way, servants in the church should be dignified, not two-faced, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money. They should hold on to the faith that has been revealed with a clear conscience. They should also be tested and then serve if they are without fault. In the same way, women who are servants in the church should be dignified and not gossip. They should be sober and faithful in everything they do. Servants must be faithful to their spouse and manage their children and their own households well. 1 Timothy 3:8-12 (CEB)

The fact remains: You want to place restrictions on over half of the Lord's army based on your dubious interpretation of one passage of Scripture.

Do you think these were translated by a woman?

More seriously, do you think they might have been translated in such a way as to make them more amenable to a theology of women in leadership?

Just to be clear, I support women leadership, but I think we do have to be careful about translations with an agenda.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Dec 9, 2020

Albion said:
Nuns and Mother Superiors are not pastors.

I'd have to disagree on the Mother Superior front. Clearly they are (and were) pastoral. Whether they should be is the issue.

Albion · Dec 9, 2020

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I'd have to disagree on the Mother Superior front. Clearly they are (and were) pastoral. Whether they should be is the issue.

They aren't pastors. They are supervisors, the heads of convents, etc.

But they are not in the role of ordained clergy. I thought we all understood that, when the question is about women as pastors, we are asking about them being called as ministers, priests, presbyters, elders, or the like, not just appointed as the administrators of some organization within the church. If, however, we want to debate whether women must remain silent and subservient to their husbands, which a few denominations teach...then the 'sides' change.

Gregorikos · Dec 9, 2020

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Do you think these were translated by a woman?

More seriously, do you think they might have been translated in such a way as to make them more amenable to a theology of women in leadership?

Just to be clear, I support women leadership, but I think we do have to be careful about translations with an agenda.

Both men and women were on the CEB translation team: Our Scholars · Common English Bible

But their translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is not a new idea. The first English Bible ever, Wycliffe's 1382 edition, translated that passage as a married couple.

Young's Literal Translation of 1862 translated it as a married couple.

As does C. B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People (1937), The 2020 Literal Standard Version, the 2011 NIV (margin) and the 1989 NRSV (margin).

Greek Scholar Max Zerwick, S.J. said in his Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament that it should be translated that way.

I think I'm on solid ground here.

Women Pastors?

Facilitator

All things ... through HIM who strengthens!

Facilitator

Jesus Christ is our only hope.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured

Ordinary Mystic

Ordinary Mystic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Ordinary Mystic

Similar threads