Women Pastors?

bekkilyn · Dec 25, 2020

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I doubt I would ever be known for warfare since I'm rather amicable in the real world. Unless of course I'm provoked. I admit I don't have the saint like patience required for dealing with such people.

I also know something of the history of Christendom. It wasn't spread or maintained by pacifists who abhorred the use of violence at all costs. It was spread by flawed people and a Church in cahoots with various states whose policy was to spread Christianity. That's why the Philippines is Catholic today instead of whatever they were before hand.

This is really a topic for another thread though.

You truly believe that pacifists have the power to foil God's victory? "Christianity" may fall, but that's not the the same as Christ being defeated.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Dec 25, 2020

bekkilyn said:
You truly believe that pacifists have the power to foil God's victory? "Christianity" may fall, but that's not the the same as Christ being defeated.

Depends on what you mean by pacifists. Many of the Saints were pacifists but they didn't advocate that the states they lived in defund the army and lay down their swords to an enemy. At least, none that I'm aware of.

When I look at history and the development of Christianity and how it achieved the power it did, it was due to more forces than Christians being persuasive or converting their opponents. It was also Kings being baptized, Empires seeking to expand the Gospel and funding missionaries. It was Christians working within a Pagan Empire to subvert that Empire from the inside.

I agree, Christ cannot be defeated, even if Christians as a whole shrink in power and influence. But what communities are going to be the dominant Christian communities? I could imagine a strong Amish presence since they have high birthrates and an expectation of Christianity for their families. I couldn't imagine a Church that accepts and tolerates everything convincing anyone.

Paidiske · Dec 25, 2020

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
How do Churches pursue peace today? By being inoffensive, totally surrendering their moral authority to non-Christians and making theirs the standards by which things in the real world are done.

No, there I disagree. Many churches (or para-church organisations and movements) very effectively lobby, protest, engage in activism and action to pursue peace today. I see neither lack of challenge nor lack of moral authority.

As to the rest, I do not accept the idea of "just war." We cannot commit mass killing and atrocity and call it just. The ends never justify the means.

Another thread would be a very good idea, but I'm still recovering from Christmas, so maybe in a day or so I can think coherently about starting one. Or if you start it I will probably find it and join in.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Dec 26, 2020

Bishop qualities that refutes viciousness in anyone. (not to be a Cretan, a carnal person)

6 someone who is blameless, married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. 7 For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain; 8 but he must be hospitable, a lover of goodness, prudent, upright, devout, and self-controlled. 9 He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.

10 There are also many rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision; 11 they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what it is not right to teach. 12 It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said,

“Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.”

13 That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure. Their very minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their actions. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work. Titus 1

pescador · Dec 26, 2020

bekkilyn said:
It sounds like faithful and devout female priests would be the very least of your problems if your focus is preserving a church institution at all costs. Has God not already the victory through Jesus Christ? Do you not believe that a faithful remnant will always be preserved as has been demonstrated throughout all of human history? Fear is not what strengthens our faith, and without change and transformation, there is no life.

While peace is of the fruit of the Spirit, warfare is not. Would you truly rather be known for producing war than peace? While following Christ doesn't automatically demand that we give up everything the moment we begin to walk his path, we must be willing to give up everything, up to and including our "Temples". Anything we cling to besides him.

Shouldn't this be elsewhere? It has nothing to do with women pastors, the subject of the OP.

pescador · Dec 26, 2020

bekkilyn said:
You truly believe that pacifists have the power to foil God's victory? "Christianity" may fall, but that's not the the same as Christ being defeated.

Again, this has nothing to do with the subject of the OP: women pastors.

pescador · Dec 26, 2020

bekkilyn said:
You truly believe that pacifists have the power to foil God's victory? "Christianity" may fall, but that's not the the same as Christ being defeated.

Off topic.

bekkilyn · Dec 26, 2020

pescador said:
Shouldn't this be elsewhere? It has nothing to do with women pastors, the subject of the OP.

Well it does in a way since it is fears like these that cause some to resist women in ministry. Deep down, it's really not about scripture for many...scripture is more of a surface thing, the excuse to make their bias and bigotry sound more theologically legitimate. Based on other threads on this same topic, there are fears such as the "feminization" of the church, and you've seen how some people even in this thread have categorized women in the same general list as what they consider to be "liberal" theology or anything goes-ism.

And keeping women out of ministry must be pursued at all costs because women will utterly destroy the church and bring down Christianity as a religion, and if it takes violence and warfare to do so, then it's justified in order to preserve the faith. Not to mention that concepts such as "peace, humility, compassion, etc." are viewed as "womanly" and even though Jesus talks about such things, he only means them in a "manly" way, whatever that means.

I believe these fears are very unfounded as the Body of Christ can only thrive when all parts are working well and in accordance with God's will and God's plan rather than working against each other and to continuously obstruct the Spirit in one another as the anti-women faction seems to want to do. It's like people who know they are sick and yet are afraid to go to the doctor to get things checked out and treated as it may require some healthier lifestyle changes. Better the sickness we know than the uncertainty of what a new and transformed life in God's Kingdom might be.

Until the fear issue is resolved, the "woman pastors" question will continue to crop up and will continue to be a negative and discouraging yoke on women in ministry.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Dec 26, 2020

bekkilyn said:
Well it does in a way .... It's like people who know they are sick and yet are afraid to go to the doctor to get things checked out and treated as it may require some healthier lifestyle changes. Better the sickness we know than the uncertainty of what a new and transformed life in God's Kingdom might be.....

Mediacrity yah I’ve seen the toe fungus commercials, :eew:

Ignatius the Kiwi · Dec 26, 2020

bekkilyn said:
Well it does in a way since it is fears like these that cause some to resist women in ministry. Deep down, it's really not about scripture for many...scripture is more of a surface thing, the excuse to make their bias and bigotry sound more theologically legitimate. Based on other threads on this same topic, there are fears such as the "feminization" of the church, and you've seen how some people even in this thread have categorized women in the same general list as what they consider to be "liberal" theology or anything goes-ism.

And keeping women out of ministry must be pursued at all costs because women will utterly destroy the church and bring down Christianity as a religion, and if it takes violence and warfare to do so, then it's justified in order to preserve the faith. Not to mention that concepts such as "peace, humility, compassion, etc." are viewed as "womanly" and even though Jesus talks about such things, he only means them in a "manly" way, whatever that means.

I believe these fears are very unfounded as the Body of Christ can only thrive when all parts are working well and in accordance with God's will and God's plan rather than working against each other and to continuously obstruct the Spirit in one another as the anti-women faction seems to want to do. It's like people who know they are sick and yet are afraid to go to the doctor to get things checked out and treated as it may require some healthier lifestyle changes. Better the sickness we know than the uncertainty of what a new and transformed life in God's Kingdom might be.

Until the fear issue is resolved, the "woman pastors" question will continue to crop up and will continue to be a negative and discouraging yoke on women in ministry.

Except it is about scripture, it's also about tradition and the very idea of the Church itself. We just got entangled on a tangent that lead to a separate topic. If you don't accept we base our views on a commitment to Orthodoxy and have to imply bad motives on our part, what's to stop us from doing the same to you?

It's not that women will destroy the church, only women priests/clergy will destroy the Church and that's only a partial destruction. It's a breakdown of what the Church historically has been since it's inception. Everything I see coming from Churches that accept female clergy leads me to that conclusion.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Dec 26, 2020

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Except it is about scripture, it's also about tradition and the very idea of the Church itself. We just got entangled on a tangent that lead to a separate topic. If you don't accept we base our views on a commitment to Orthodoxy and have to imply bad motives on our part, what's to stop us from doing the same to you?

It's not that women will destroy the church, only women priests/clergy will destroy the Church and that's only a partial destruction. It's a breakdown of what the Church historically has been since it's inception. Everything I see coming from Churches that accept female clergy leads me to that conclusion.

Moral judgment refers to the determination a person makes about an action (or inaction), motive, situation, or person in relation to standards of goodness or rightness.

Always debatable topic unfortunately.

CaspianSails · Dec 28, 2020

Darren Brown said:
Should women be pastors?
I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet.
1 timothy 2:12

In a word no.

nolidad · Jan 1, 2021

Gregorikos said:
Wrong.

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Romans 16:7 (KJV)

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Romans 16:7 (NKJV)

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Romans 16:7 (NASB)

Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners: who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Romans 16:7 (1899 Douay Rheims)

salute Andronicus and Junias, my kindred, and my fellow-captives, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me. (Youngs Literal Translation, 1862)

Now if you only understood grammar! Other than the badly translated NASB these say they are noted or well known amongst the apostles and not well known apostles!

nolidad · Jan 1, 2021

Gregorikos said:
"Of note among the apostles" includes them in the group.

It wasn't like there was an apostles club, with all the apostles meeting together in a central place. They were spread out everywhere. To say one couple in Rome was "well known" to every apostle scattered all over the known world isn't at all likely. Most of them probably never met Andronicus and Junia.

Thus, every patristic author for the first 12 centuries held this passage to say Andronicus and Junia were apostles.

No because the writings of the ante nicene fathers barely speak of Andronicus and junia!

And Paul said they were in Christ before him! This would make them Jewish believers in Israel until they either left of their own or left due to the persecutions. So it is easy to say that teh Apostles knew of them. How many is not known but we can safely assume Peter James and John as they were in Jerusalem (maybe others as well) up to the council where the Jewish wing accepted Gentiles into the church. So it is no stretch that if they were of the same zeal before Paul got to know them- they would have had a great reputation with the Apostles before they were all dispersed!

If they were famed Apostles- where is the record of their ministry? where is the record of their ordination to the apostleship? After all they were in christ before Paul so why not any record? But normal grammar shows they had a great reputation oamong the apostles and were not famous apostles.

nolidad · Jan 1, 2021

bekkilyn said:
I wasn't going to respond again except that you decided it would be a great idea to make a personal attack against Paidiske. Is there any amount of low you won't resort to in order to "win"?

How is anything I said a personal attack? It is only deemed that way by someone who is hyper sensitive to anyone dare disagreeing with them.

If I am right (the if is for your benefit) then what you and Paidske are doing- though noble and honorable is not in accpord with the will of God and the call of God no matter who says it is! That measn these works are not borne of the Holy Spirit and thus subject to be burned.

Good deeds in and of themselves do not meet with gods approval.

bekkilyn said:
God has called her to do A-Y and she is doing A-Y and she does it well by the grace of God, and it is more than obvious the Spirit affirms and confirms her work.

You dishonor her.

according to you.

But teh bible says differently. She is engaged in Z.

bekkilyn said:
What a ridiculous and offensive thing to say to someone who has so obviously said yes to God in obedience to his unique call on her life. It is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that the Spirit is in her and works through her ministries. Well Jesus told those he sent out that when they were rejected, they were rejecting him. And even Paul admonishes against quenching the Spirit in 1 Thessalonians 5.

What glory are you bringing to God in your self-proclaimed role of discourager? The enemy barely needs to do any work when the body is all too willing to work against itself.

Well that is what we are debating now aren't we, whether or not a woman can be called to teh bishopric or office of deacon. If they are not allowed, then though they be "good" works- they are done in disobedience. If they are allowed, then if they were called then there works are approved.

Same with a man. If he is called to just be a husband and father and work a non "ministry" job, but instead goes into the ministry, he is acting in disobedience and those works will be burned!

And sorry but I am not a "self proclaimed" discourager. I have given you and paidske and gregorikios ample time and opportunity to show why the literal, normal translation of the passage is not the guiding rule for the church.

All of you have made statements, quoted others without showing the evidence to draw the conclusion from.

If anything I am trying to encourage her. but because I am not swimming in the flow of modern cultural translations- I am looked upon by some as a meanie and gore and discourager.

bekkilyn said:
You have been shown scripture upon scripture but it seems you lack comprehension of it. You won't "recant" because you don't want to and that's the entirety of it. Simple as that.

I have been shown exactly three scriptures from your side and all three were mistranslated or selectively used to support your case while not allowing the same interpretation to include others.

That is not being shown Scripture after Scripture. I will let a loving God and not a radical woman who has shown herself to be hostile to me just because I hold to Scripture as written judge whether I have comprehension or not.

And you really are bad at mindreading1 It is not because I don't want to. It is because I have not been given the evidence your side says is there to cause me to rethink my stance. but you probably won't accept that from me because you are convinced you know my thoughts better than I do!

nolidad · Jan 1, 2021

Gregorikos said:
I see you did!

Well I have been far more accurate than you ! And I have yet to dig out my old church history books. BTW the class I took was the church of teh first five centuries.

nolidad · Jan 1, 2021

Paidiske said:
Have you been reading this thread?

Well I know we are. But I was speaking of Christianity in general. I don't have me eat to all parts of the church and I haven't heard this is a point of contention outside of a few sects.

Paidiske said:
I think you have misunderstood my point. The Orthodox do not "accept women" (in the sense of ordaining us) and yet despite that they have the historical honesty to admit that Junia was an apostle. Even though that could be seen as undermining their refusal to ordain women, they don't shy away from it.

If they are historically honest, then why can't you find anyone sooner than the fourth-fifth century chrysotom who says she was?

And once again if they were such famous apostles as people are saying that passage in Romans means- why don't we have more than but mere snippets . One passage in Scripture, one writing from chrysotom etc. Where is anything about teh deeds that made them famed? As they were believers before Paul, where si the record of their (I include Andronichus here as he is supposed to be a famous apostle as well) deeds that made them famous apostles?

Paidiske said:
I have said before that I'm not concerned for "reward." But even so, I am doing what God called me to do; what the church has recognised God calling me to do. I am not disobedient; this is not what I would have chosen or imagined for myself, but when God called, I went through the difficult and costly process of carefully discerning that call and responding to it. If there are any rewards at stake, I do not believe that obedience will cost me any such.

I do not believe you intend to dishonour me, (although I see why Bekki reads your posts that way). But I think you are at risk of dishonouring God's work in God's people.

Well mere words on a screen do not show intent or attitude or heart. If they could I know you (but I doubt bekki)) would know there is no attempt to dishonour but actually honor!

Paidiske said:
We have shown you, and you have rejected it. But Scripture is not the only guide we can trust. Tradition and reason and experience also all play their part; including the experience of vocation.

Well tradition and reason and experience are only as valid as they conform their conclusions with Scripture.

If the Bible says thou shalt not- I don't care what tradition, how reasonable or the experiences of millions say- it is still wrong! Scripture is first and foremost and paramount above all!

pescador · Jan 1, 2021

CaspianSails said:
In a word no.

In another word, "yes", women should definitely be pastors (or any other church role).

pescador · Jan 1, 2021

nolidad said:
How is anything I said a personal attack? It is only deemed that way by someone who is hyper sensitive to anyone dare disagreeing with them.

If I am right (the if is for your benefit) then what you and Paidske are doing- though noble and honorable is not in accpord with the will of God and the call of God no matter who says it is! That measn these works are not borne of the Holy Spirit and thus subject to be burned.

Good deeds in and of themselves do not meet with gods approval.

according to you.

But teh bible says differently. She is engaged in Z.

Well that is what we are debating now aren't we, whether or not a woman can be called to teh bishopric or office of deacon. If they are not allowed, then though they be "good" works- they are done in disobedience. If they are allowed, then if they were called then there works are approved.

Same with a man. If he is called to just be a husband and father and work a non "ministry" job, but instead goes into the ministry, he is acting in disobedience and those works will be burned!

And sorry but I am not a "self proclaimed" discourager. I have given you and paidske and gregorikios ample time and opportunity to show why the literal, normal translation of the passage is not the guiding rule for the church.

All of you have made statements, quoted others without showing the evidence to draw the conclusion from.

If anything I am trying to encourage her. but because I am not swimming in the flow of modern cultural translations- I am looked upon by some as a meanie and gore and discourager.

I have been shown exactly three scriptures from your side and all three were mistranslated or selectively used to support your case while not allowing the same interpretation to include others.

That is not being shown Scripture after Scripture. I will let a loving God and not a radical woman who has shown herself to be hostile to me just because I hold to Scripture as written judge whether I have comprehension or not.

And you really are bad at mindreading1 It is not because I don't want to. It is because I have not been given the evidence your side says is there to cause me to rethink my stance. but you probably won't accept that from me because you are convinced you know my thoughts better than I do!

I won't respond to this rambling post except to say that Christians are not under the law. Just because Paul wrote some instructions to a church 2000 years ago doesn't make it an extension of The OT Law. We are Christians living in a 21st Century world that barely resembles the world of Paul's day. Women were living entirely different lives: uneducated, married as teenagers, lives filled with manual, menial labor under the control of their husbands. Today, many women are highly educated, married in their twenties or later, have professional careers, and co-earners of their household income. Our selection of clergy should not be limited to one gender, any more than any other profession. There is a good reason that Paul wrote 1) there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus, and 2) we are not under law but under grace.

If you want to live as people did thousands of years ago, where women are denigrated for no reason, there are places you can go such as fundamentalist Islam societies.

bekkilyn · Jan 1, 2021

nolidad said:
How is anything I said a personal attack? It is only deemed that way by someone who is hyper sensitive to anyone dare disagreeing with them.

If I am right (the if is for your benefit) then what you and Paidske are doing- though noble and honorable is not in accpord with the will of God and the call of God no matter who says it is! That measn these works are not borne of the Holy Spirit and thus subject to be burned.

Good deeds in and of themselves do not meet with gods approval.

according to you.

But teh bible says differently. She is engaged in Z.

Well that is what we are debating now aren't we, whether or not a woman can be called to teh bishopric or office of deacon. If they are not allowed, then though they be "good" works- they are done in disobedience. If they are allowed, then if they were called then there works are approved.

Same with a man. If he is called to just be a husband and father and work a non "ministry" job, but instead goes into the ministry, he is acting in disobedience and those works will be burned!

And sorry but I am not a "self proclaimed" discourager. I have given you and paidske and gregorikios ample time and opportunity to show why the literal, normal translation of the passage is not the guiding rule for the church.

All of you have made statements, quoted others without showing the evidence to draw the conclusion from.

If anything I am trying to encourage her. but because I am not swimming in the flow of modern cultural translations- I am looked upon by some as a meanie and gore and discourager.

I have been shown exactly three scriptures from your side and all three were mistranslated or selectively used to support your case while not allowing the same interpretation to include others.

That is not being shown Scripture after Scripture. I will let a loving God and not a radical woman who has shown herself to be hostile to me just because I hold to Scripture as written judge whether I have comprehension or not.

And you really are bad at mindreading1 It is not because I don't want to. It is because I have not been given the evidence your side says is there to cause me to rethink my stance. but you probably won't accept that from me because you are convinced you know my thoughts better than I do!

Actually you've only continued to convince me that you're not capable of having a reasonable or intelligent discussion, and no one needs mind-reading to see that. We need only look at the evidence. So you can keep your stance that God hates women and therefore so must we, and I'll just continue listening to the Holy Spirit rather than to your words of ignorance based on your faulty understanding of scripture and the gospel. Cheerio!

Women Pastors?

Contemplative Christian

Dissident

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Wise old man

Wise old man

Wise old man

Contemplative Christian

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wise old man

Wise old man

Contemplative Christian

Similar threads