Are Women Allowed To Be Pastors?

[Junia]

I'll start by saying that the role of Pastor is vastly different now from the early church days. This is not warranted by the Bible. "Worship pastor" does not exist in the Bible. So even the concept of pastor has changed dramatically, and for the worse.
The alternate view to your two points is that in Christ there is neither male or female, so there is no reason to "discriminate" against women.

I think the best example of a woman effectively serving the Lord publicly is Joyce Meyer. Most of the people I've heard criticise her do so without ever hearing her teach. Criticism is usually based on her gender, and/or her wealth. In no particular order, I'll give my reason why I don't have a problem

1. Joyce Meyer preaches truth. She preaches Christ. I don't always agree with every last thing she says, but mostly I do.
2. She preaches that women should submit to their husbands. She obviously is not seeking to win a popularity contest
3. She is wealthy. I don't have a problem with that. She is one of the hardest working people on the planet and a prolific writer. Her books are sold for money at a profit. No one has to buy her books or give money to her organisation.
4. She does not head up a church.
5. She holds conferences that are open. Women are the majority in attendance and no one is forced to come. Much of her teaching is directed to women.
6. She comes from a background that would destroy most people. She gives all the glory to God. She is a tremendous encouragement to people who suffered as she has.
7. Her children have turned out well. That's no easy task when she is also running a multi national organisation.
8. She has grown spiritually. I first came across Joyce Meyer in the early 90's. To be honest, I could not see what the fuss was about. Now I see a woman of great grace, love, gentleness and strength in the Lord.

Should women be pastors in the traditional sense? No. Neither should most men. Church government should be by male elders who are apt to teach. Every Christian has a ministry but few churches allow that to be expressed. The problems of the church run way deeper than whether or a not a woman can speak in church.

Early in my Christian life, I went to a church where "What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a psalm or a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. All of these must be done to build up the church..." was normal for a time. They were wonderful meetings and people were being encouraged and built up. The Pastor did not like it so much. He put a stop to it and I left. The whole idea of people being a passive audience is flawed and unbiblical. Get that right and the question of female pastors will solve itself.

I

Good point

 

[Paidiske]

As long as they not usurping the authority of men in the church...

Of course, no duly appointed pastor/minister/priest is usurping authority at all. By whose authority?

 

[atpollard]

Of course, no duly appointed pastor/minister/priest is usurping authority at all.

As a point of personal layperson curiosity, where would one find the scriptural guidelines on “duly appointing” anyone (man or woman) to be “pastor/minister/priest”?

 

[Paidiske]

As a point of personal layperson curiosity, where would one find the scriptural guidelines on “duly appointing” anyone (man or woman) to be “pastor/minister/priest”?

There are guidelines as to the sort of person to be appointed, but I am not aware of any Scriptural guidelines on the process of appointment.

 

[Junia]

Sorry maybe usurping the wrong word @Paidiske. I am repeating what I have been told by other believers

for what it's worth I have no issue with women pastors or teachers and we have some female ministers in the Anglican church am part of. I am glad for that because many things I couldn't have told a male pastor

I am still unsure on this biblically though. I don't think God has a problem with it at all. But if we want to be what does the Bible say then I can't get around that?

However.....could it have been Paul meant in that context

There are other things Paul said about women which are not practiced by most churches today e.g. women must cover hair when prophesying (Married ones anyway) and also the emphasis on asking her husband at home?.

Am sure many women today would go direct to the pastor or whoever have the sermon if they had a question today

So I don't know

I doubt these are salvation issues

 

[Gregorikos]

I am still unsure on this biblically though. I don't think God has a problem with it at all. But if we want to be what does the Bible say then I can't get around that?

We shouldn't be "getting around" what the Bible says at all. But let me ask you- what is your problem passage that you feel states women shouldn't be priests? The "proof texts" are generally only 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Neither of those are applicable to women in ministry, IMO.

 

[atpollard]

There are guidelines as to the sort of person to be appointed, but I am not aware of any Scriptural guidelines on the process of appointment.

It was a bit of a trick question. Reading the Gospels and Apostolic Letters I see a church very different from the church we have today. Scripture paints the sharp divide between the professional ecclesiastical hierarchy and the body of submissive lay believers as anathema to everything that Christ and the Apostles were doing. The goal was to create a fellowship of interdependent believers forming a local “family” in which each member served the needs of all (Mark 9:35; Philippians 2:1-4; 1 Corinthians 12:7).

The rigid hierarchy of unquestioning obedience belonged to the Pharisees and was being left behind. Woe to the church for the harm done by allowing itself to be yoked together with the state in those early centuries. It never truly recovered what Christ and the Apostles built and was lost.

So turning back to the OP, I would vote that NO ONE (man or woman) should be Pastor/Minister/Priest as we have come to redefine the role in most “communities”. However I think Paul was actually pretty clear that when the Church gathered for the rare and unpleasant task of disciplining brothers that had fallen into some trap of sin and rejected private correction (Matthew 18:15-17), then it was the male elders that were to correct the younger man and not a woman. Women can do any task in the body except exercise “authority” over a man. Church Discipline is the only time the church exercises “authority” over its members ... everything else is service in love and humility.

 

[Paidiske]

Scripture paints the sharp divide between the professional ecclesiastical hierarchy and the body of submissive lay believers as anathema to everything that Christ and the Apostles were doing. The goal was to create a fellowship of interdependent believers forming a local “family” in which each member served the needs of all (Mark 9:35; Philippians 2:1-4; 1 Corinthians 12:7).

I agree with you that that was - and is - the goal, but I don't see that as incompatible with having people in particular roles (such as pastor/minister/priest). I see my task as a priest as being to enable, encourage and equip people to share in just this sort of community that you describe, not to encourage people into being submissive or passive.

But I am not sure that church discipline is or should be the only time there is any exercise of authority. For example, agreed boundaries about what is and is not acceptable when we gather for worship would seem to me to be another valid occasion.

 

[atpollard]

But I am not sure that church discipline is or should be the only time there is any exercise of authority. For example, agreed boundaries about what is and is not acceptable when we gather for worship would seem to me to be another valid occasion.

I would see that as a distinction between “leadership” and “exercising authority”. One willingly follows leadership and grudgingly yields to authority.

 

[Paidiske]

I would see that as a distinction between “leadership” and “exercising authority”. One willingly follows leadership and grudgingly yields to authority.

Oh, no, I disagree! Good, healthy authority, exercised within genuine mutually respectful relationship, should have nothing grudging about it.

 

[atpollard]

I agree with you that that was - and is - the goal, but I don't see that as incompatible with having people in particular roles (such as pastor/minister/priest). I see my task as a priest as being to enable, encourage and equip people to share in just this sort of community that you describe, not to encourage people into being submissive or passive.

Honestly, I have met VERY FEW (pastor/minister/priest) that were anything but genuinely trying their very best. The deck is stacked against both you and the congregation. Everything from the traditional roles in a service to the titles to the dress to where people sit and even where people park draws an impossible to miss line that separates “us” from “them” (whichever side of the line you fall on). As a consequence, the clergy never quite get to be ‘human’ (living up on that pedestal as you must) and the congregation never really gets a chance to serve and actually BE the CHURCH (often being forced into the role of spectators).

Here is a real world example. If I want to make French fries at McDonalds, I will first have to read an instruction manual. Then someone will explain the equipment and procedures. Then that person will make me watch them while they make fries. Then that person will talk me step by step as I make fries. Then that person will supervise as I make fries on my own until they are sure that I have learned how to make fries and can actually do the job. Making fries is a stupid easy task, but McDonalds invests that much training to make sure that I can do it.

If I want to evangelize the lost, but I have never led anyone to Christ before. My local church will offer a course on the importance of evangelism, teach me some quick and dirty mnemonic trick (like God-Man-Jesus-Decide), give me a few practice sessions of make-believe with other equally inept would-be evangelists, and send us out to just do it!

The point being that McDonalds invests more real effort in training employees to fry potatoes than most churches invest in teaching Christians how to share the Gospel. That is why everyone that works at McDonalds can make fries and almost nobody in church can share the Gospel.

However that is OK ... because YOU are the “professional clergy” so sharing the Gospel is really your job. My job is to just pay the tithe. That is all that the church really asks of me and equips me to do.

I think most of that is because of that artificial division robbing the Church of a chance to really be a community. Not a pot-luck Thursday “community”, but a “Mark tagging along with Paul and learning first hand” community where someone that knows how to evangelize can actually SHOW someone new how it is done. Where someone that just had a miscarriage can pick up the phone and talk with people who will listen ... not the pastor, real people, the Body of Christ ... one another.

 

[atpollard]

Oh, no, I disagree! Good, healthy authority, exercised within genuine mutually respectful relationship, should have nothing grudging about it.

Remember that the next time you get a parking ticket. (Because I am sure you never get speeding tickets like I do).

 

[Paidiske]

Honestly, I have met VERY FEW (pastor/minister/priest) that were anything but genuinely trying their very best. The deck is stacked against both you and the congregation. Everything from the traditional roles in a service to the titles to the dress to where people sit and even where people park draws an impossible to miss line that separates “us” from “them” (whichever side of the line you fall on). As a consequence, the clergy never quite get to be ‘human’ (living up on that pedestal as you must) and the congregation never really gets a chance to serve and actually BE the CHURCH (often being forced into the role of spectators).

I think this is changing a lot. Especially in smaller churches, it's impossible for the clergy (almost certainly the only paid staff person) to do everything, and in fact those churches often only function with almost everyone "pulling their weight" in some sense.

Where I am, for example, where I'm the only priest looking after four churches, you bet the lay folk are actually being the church, because without them we just couldn't function.

Here is a real world example. If I want to make French fries at McDonalds, I will first have to read an instruction manual. Then someone will explain the equipment and procedures. Then that person will make me watch them while they make fries. Then that person will talk me step by step as I make fries. Then that person will supervise as I make fries on my own until they are sure that I have learned how to make fries and can actually do the job. Making fries is a stupid easy task, but McDonalds invests that much training to make sure that I can do it.

If I want to evangelize the lost, but I have never led anyone to Christ before. My local church will offer a course on the importance of evangelism, teach me some quick and dirty mnemonic trick (like God-Man-Jesus-Decide), give me a few practice sessions of make-believe with other equally inept would-be evangelists, and send us out to just do it!

The point being that McDonalds invests more real effort in training employees to fry potatoes than most churches invest in teaching Christians how to share the Gospel. That is why everyone that works at McDonalds can make fries and almost nobody in church can share the Gospel.

There is certainly a lot of truth to this. Training in churches is often extremely poor. I suspect, though, that it's not so much that the church expects - consciously or unconsciously - that the clergy will do all this work, as that actually the church has not kept pace with a changing world and has not adapted its expectations of what skills are necessary. In many ways, we are still training people for the church and the social context that existed fifty years ago or more, rather than equipping people for the church and social context in which we must operate today.

To give you one example, even I, the supposedly so well trained professional at all of this, had had absolutely zero equipping or training for ministry online or considering a church's digital offering before Covid hit, and when I had implored our bishops to take the question of online presence and community seriously, I was pooh-poohed as being on about something irrelevant. Suddenly it's our young folk who have experience in things like livestreaming and podcasting who have the hot necessary skills, and I'm reliant on them to a much greater degree than any of us ever imagined. But those skills weren't fostered in the church, to our shame.

Not a pot-luck Thursday “community”, but a “Mark tagging along with Paul and learning first hand” community where someone that knows how to evangelize can actually SHOW someone new how it is done.

This does happen - and I have benefitted from it greatly - but not nearly as much as it could or should be.

Where someone that just had a miscarriage can pick up the phone and talk with people who will listen ... not the pastor, real people, the Body of Christ ... one another.

This, however, in my experience happens really well in most churches. (Aside from the suggestion that the pastor isn't "real people.")

 

[atpollard]

This, however, in my experience happens really well in most churches. (Aside from the suggestion that the pastor isn't "real people.")

No offense intended there. More an observation that the average church in the USA has about 100 members and if the Pastor is the "official" shoulder to lean on, that denies 99 people the "one another" opportunities and leads to a very tired Pastor. (At 800 people or 2000 people, the dynamic changes dramatically.)

 

[Major1]

I

And they evangelize, they vote, they prophesy, they have careers, they can do any job except be a pastor

Now ask yourself this question.

Why do YOU think that YOU understand the literal Words from the Bible and those on this thread have gone out of their way to demonize me for simply posting exactly what the Word of God says?

 

[Major1]

No offense intended there. More an observation that the average church in the USA has about 100 members and if the Pastor is the "official" shoulder to lean on, that denies 99 people the "one another" opportunities and leads to a very tired Pastor. (At 800 people or 2000 people, the dynamic changes dramatically.)

That is simply not true.

Most all of us who are church members know that every church has "Deacons",
"Elders" and Bible study teachers to do exactly what you just said is not done.

The average church that I know of where there is 100 people.....has at least 6 to 10 Deacons who help the pastor.

In fact, when the deacons are true helpmates, and the pastor has done his job, and do the job the Bible describes, it is the Deacons who actually run the church.

 

[atpollard]

That is simply not true.

Most all of us who are church members know that every church has "Deacons",
"Elders" and Bible study teachers to do exactly what you just said is not done.

The average church that I know of where there is 100 people.....has at least 6 to 10 Deacons who help the pastor.

In fact, when the deacons are true helpmates, and the pastor has done his job, and do the job the Bible describes, it is the Deacons who actually run the church.

OK. Everything is just fine in the churches as proven by the enthusiasm of the next generation coming along and the growth through evangelism. When I visit a church in the 21st century, I need to keep reminding myself that I am not living in the Book of Acts: the resemblance is uncanny. It just brings a tear to my eye.

 

[bekkilyn]

Now ask yourself this question.

Why do YOU think that YOU understand the literal Words from the Bible and those on this thread have gone out of their way to demonize me for simply posting exactly what the Word of God says?

One can literally make scripture say whatever it is you want it say by ripping it away from the culture it was written in, taking away the intended audience, and ignoring the context in which it was written, and not to mention ignoring the entire message of the gospel of Jesus Christ in one's enthusiasm to "prove", for example, that women are inferior to men because, hey, the written Word of God says it right here.

Same excuses were used for every other travesty in human history, such as slavery, genocide, and "holy" wars.

And now to pick out somebody who is currently struggling to understand where she fits in all this mess with a "who are you" to have any sort of thinking on the issue, well, just who are YOU then?

 

[bekkilyn]

OK. Everything is just fine in the churches as proven by the enthusiasm of the next generation coming along and the growth through evangelism. When I visit a church in the 21st century, I need to keep reminding myself that I am not living in the Book of Acts: the resemblance is uncanny. It just brings a tear to my eye.

Makes me think of that meme I keep seeing around the internet of the cartoon dog in the foreground with everything behind it on fire and the words, "It's fine."

 

[Major1]

One can literally make scripture say whatever it is you want it say by ripping it away from the culture it was written in, taking away the intended audience, and ignoring the context in which it was written, and not to mention ignoring the entire message of the gospel of Jesus Christ in one's enthusiasm to "prove", for example, that women are inferior to men because, hey, the written Word of God says it right here.

Same excuses were used for every other travesty in human history, such as slavery, genocide, and "holy" wars.

And now to pick out somebody who is currently struggling to understand where she fits in all this mess with a "who are you" to have any sort of thinking on the issue, well, just who are YOU then?

Absolutely agree. CONTEXT is always the key.

The CONTEXT of 1 Timothy 3:1-4 is "MEN".

The "MAN" must be the "HUSBAND" of one wife. The Greek antecedent of HUSBAND in verse 2 is the MAN of verse #1.......CONTEXT!

The Bible does not say that women are inferior to men. I have said just the opposite.

Women may indeed teach (e.g., Acts 21:9; Titus 2:3-5), as long as they do not teach over men (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-12). It does not mean women are inferior to men. It just means God gave men the leadership role in the home and in the church (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:34-35; Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Timothy 2:11-15).

It is just not that difficult to understand and to say that women are inferior is YOU reading into Scriptures what YOU want them to say.