Are Women Allowed To Be Pastors?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.

Everything is NOT JUST fine in ALL churches.

I would say that in a great many churches, things are doing very well considering the Covid-19 and society around us.

I am old enough to remember the 40's and 50's and everyone went to church on Sunday.

But today the things of this world......football games, the beach, golf, swimming at the lake, TV, computers and on and on and on pull people away from worship.

I am one who believes that this is actually God's method of thinning the herd. because Matthew 7:21-23 says that there will be more in hell than in heaven when we read......
"Not every one that saith unto me, LORD, LORD, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, LORD, LORD, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,272
19,092
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,511,711.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
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.

My church structure is different - our deacons are clergy, and most churches don't have one - but I think our parish council would function in a similar way to what you're describing, and I agree with you. In every church I've been in, the members have been great at caring for one another.

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.

There's plenty wrong with the contemporary church. I'm just not sold on your diagnosis that it's the model of ministry that's the problem. It's very easy, when things aren't going well, to blame the ministers; it's much harder for congregations to recognise the ways that they are unwilling to step up, or the attitudes they hold which actually get in the way.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: bekkilyn
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,476
USA
✟677,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
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.

So let's see....

You claim that God gives men mastery over women in every important facet of life and somehow expect others to believe that it means they are equal? It wouldn't be any more believable than comparing a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and a kid with a lemonade stand and trying to convince people that they have equal roles. And then you cherry-pick a few scriptures OUT of context to "prove" it while at the same time stating that you believe context is important.

No wonder people are leaving this religion in droves. Between the people who believe that Satan put the fossils in the earth 6000 years ago to deceive people and the above sort of "logic," there is no gospel to be found.

Ooookay.
 
Upvote 0

Gregorikos

Ordinary Mystic
Dec 31, 2019
1,095
887
Louisville, Kentucky
Visit site
✟113,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Major1 said:
The "MAN" must be the "HUSBAND" of one wife. The Greek antecedent of HUSBAND in verse 2 is the MAN of verse #1.......CONTEXT!

I've explained to you more than once in this thread that there is no "man" in 1 Timothy 3:1. The antecedent you are referring to in the Greek text is "tis." That means "anyone. " You are being misled by your English translation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,755
2,616
Livingston County, MI, US
✟200,005.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If we're going to restrict all women from preaching because some teach false things, boy is that also an argument for restricting all men...

I was speaking of a tendency among female pastors within Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.

I agree all false teachers need to be weeded out.
 
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,476
USA
✟677,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
read to here. I really have not seen any biblical arguments in favor of female head pastors.

I also haven't seen any biblical arguments in favor of male head pastors. I've only seen a few biblical arguments in favor of some form of church leadership and the requirement that such a leader should be of good character.

Also note that the positions of pastor/priest as they exist in modern times aren't even included in scripture at all, so it becomes all the more a ridiculous argument. If only Christ-followers were as enthusiastic about the gospel as they are about who they think they get to exclude from church leadership.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gregorikos
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So let's see....

You claim that God gives men mastery over women in every important facet of life and somehow expect others to believe that it means they are equal? It wouldn't be any more believable than comparing a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and a kid with a lemonade stand and trying to convince people that they have equal roles. And then you cherry-pick a few scriptures OUT of context to "prove" it while at the same time stating that you believe context is important.

No wonder people are leaving this religion in droves. Between the people who believe that Satan put the fossils in the earth 6000 years ago to deceive people and the above sort of "logic," there is no gospel to be found.

Ooookay.

NO....NO.....NO!!!

What is wrong with you people?????

I have claimed absolutely NOTHING!!!

I have not cherry picked any Scriptures at all. I used literraly the ones that are found in the Bible in several places.

I have posted the CONTEXT of everything I have posted.
CONTEXT always determines the correct meaning. Example.........

"If MAN (Anyone) desires to be a Bishop....". 1 Timothy 3:1.

Verse #2......"HE must be the HUSBAND of one wife".

What is the CONTEXT....verse #1....MAN/ANYONE.
What is the exegesis.....verse #2...."HE must be the HUSBAND of one wife".

God impressed upon Paul to write what is found in the Bible and all I did was to post the exact words.

The problem is that YOU and others do not like what GOD said!!!
 
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,476
USA
✟677,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
NO....NO.....NO!!!

What is wrong with you people?????

I have claimed absolutely NOTHING!!!

I have not cherry picked any Scriptures at all. I used literraly the ones that are found in the Bible in several places.

I have posted the CONTEXT of everything I have posted.
CONTEXT always determines the correct meaning. Example.........

"If MAN (Anyone) desires to be a Bishop....". 1 Timothy 3:1.

Verse #2......"HE must be the HUSBAND of one wife".

What is the CONTEXT....verse #1....MAN/ANYONE.
What is the exegesis.....verse #2...."HE must be the HUSBAND of one wife".

God impressed upon Paul to write what is found in the Bible and all I did was to post the exact words.

The problem is that YOU and others do not like what GOD said!!!

Not exactly. The problem is that we don't like (or agree with) what YOU said. :)

Not to mention that by your standards of interpreting scripture, Jesus himself wouldn't qualify to be a pastor of his own church, and for that matter, neither would Paul be qualified.

You are too focused on external things when it's all really about Christ and the church.

And don't you think it's even a little bit strange that God's standards as per your interpretation are set up practically identical to pagan Roman law outside of Paul telling the men that they needed to be faithful in their marriages rather than having concubines/young boys and hiring prostitutes? The women didn't need to be told these things because they were already forbidden these sorts of freedoms under Roman law.

Some of the things that Paul instructed particular churches made sense at the time...for example, it was ILLEGAL by Roman law for women to speak in public assembly (Ekklessia), but that's fortunately not the case now in most free areas of the world, so it doesn't make sense to hold 21st century Christians to the standards of an ancient Roman government because we misunderstand why Paul is using some of these examples.

He's trying to explain Christ and the gospel to a Gentile people who had little to no comprehension, so uses common examples such as their familiar social customs and family structures (while trying to remain within the boundaries of Roman law) to give them some sort of picture of who Christ is.

Our social customs and family structures are different than they were in ancient Rome and we have no need (or desire) to attempt to recreate them. We can be Christians without being ancient Roman citizens just like non-Jewish people in ancient Rome could be Christians without becoming Jews and being circumcised.

Too much of Christianity nowadays has become extraordinarily legalistic as shown by these ridiculous "woman" arguments that crop up here all the time, and we're becoming just like the Pharisees in that regard even though Jesus attempted time and time again to instruct them (and us through their example) otherwise.

Being a Christ-follower isn't about all the "can'ts" and who we must exclude, but about being more and more conformed to him in every possible way. We are to encourage and edify one another and when God calls a man or a woman into his service, to help lead his flock, we are not to attempt to obstruct them.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not exactly. The problem is that we don't like (or agree with) what YOU said. :)

Not to mention that by your standards of interpreting scripture, Jesus himself wouldn't qualify to be a pastor of his own church, and for that matter, neither would Paul be qualified.

You are too focused on external things when it's all really about Christ and the church.

And don't you think it's even a little bit strange that God's standards as per your interpretation are set up practically identical to pagan Roman law outside of Paul telling the men that they needed to be faithful in their marriages rather than having concubines/young boys and hiring prostitutes? The women didn't need to be told these things because they were already forbidden these sorts of freedoms under Roman law.

Some of the things that Paul instructed particular churches made sense at the time...for example, it was ILLEGAL by Roman law for women to speak in public assembly (Ekklessia), but that's fortunately not the case now in most free areas of the world, so it doesn't make sense to hold 21st century Christians to the standards of an ancient Roman government because we misunderstand why Paul is using some of these examples.

He's trying to explain Christ and the gospel to a Gentile people who had little to no comprehension, so uses common examples such as their familiar social customs and family structures (while trying to remain within the boundaries of Roman law) to give them some sort of picture of who Christ is.

Our social customs and family structures are different than they were in ancient Rome and we have no need (or desire) to attempt to recreate them. We can be Christians without being ancient Roman citizens just like non-Jewish people in ancient Rome could be Christians without becoming Jews and being circumcised.

Too much of Christianity nowadays has become extraordinarily legalistic as shown by these ridiculous "woman" arguments that crop up here all the time, and we're becoming just like the Pharisees in that regard even though Jesus attempted time and time again to instruct them (and us through their example) otherwise.

Being a Christ-follower isn't about all the "can'ts" and who we must exclude, but about being more and more conformed to him in every possible way. We are to encourage and edify one another and when God calls a man or a woman into his service, to help lead his flock, we are not to attempt to obstruct them.

Being a follower of Christ means that we are to follow what He said.

Allow me to be just as clear to you as you were to me.......
I do not care what you like or do not like about what I have said!!!!!

Having said that then the question is still "Should women be church Pastors"??

You have IGNORED the Scriptures written by the Lord Jesus Christ and have said yes. That is your choice to do so and I respect it.

But Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:12 that he doesn’t allow a woman “to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

Paul anchors his reason in the created order, “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.” In other words, this is not a culturally based opinion. It is a doctrinal statement.

Accept it or reject.....I DO NOT CARE!
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've explained to you more than once in this thread that there is no "man" in 1 Timothy 3:1. The antecedent you are referring to in the Greek text is "tis." That means "anyone. " You are being misled by your English translation.

THen what does........"HUSBAND of one wife" refer to????

If it is not the MAN of verse #1......what then is it or WHO is it?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,755
2,616
Livingston County, MI, US
✟200,005.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I also haven't seen any biblical arguments in favor of male head pastors. I've only seen a few biblical arguments in favor of some form of church leadership and the requirement that such a leader should be of good character.

Also note that the positions of pastor/priest as they exist in modern times aren't even included in scripture at all, so it becomes all the more a ridiculous argument. If only Christ-followers were as enthusiastic about the gospel as they are about who they think they get to exclude from church leadership.

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
 
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,476
USA
✟677,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Being a follower of Christ means that we are to follow what He said.

Allow me to be just as clear to you as you were to me.......
I do not care what you like or do not like about what I have said!!!!!

Why bother to respond to what I've written if you don't care what I think about what you have written? Seems kind of like it would be a waste of your time to respond to something you don't care about.

Having said that then the question is still "Should women be church Pastors"??

And the answer is very obviously "yes" as with any other human being that God calls through the Holy Spirit.

You have IGNORED the Scriptures written by the Lord Jesus Christ and have said yes. That is your choice to do so and I respect it.

I absolutely haven't ignored the scriptures. The scriptures as taken within the context that they were written do not in any way shape or form contradict women being pastors any more than they contradict men being pastors.

What I have carefully considered during years of scriptural and historical study, and discarded, is your perspective of this matter. It contradicts the spirit of the gospel and also denies God's choice in calling who HE chooses to call.

But Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:12 that he doesn’t allow a woman “to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

And it seems you've ignored those others who have explained to you that the verse in proper context doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means through surface-level reading in an English translation.

Paul anchors his reason in the created order, “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.” In other words, this is not a culturally based opinion. It is a doctrinal statement.

So it's also a doctrinal statement that animals have authority over humans?

You need to be able to see some of these verses without the tarnish on the lens that centuries of assumptions of women's inferiority have been teaching to people, because that's the only way you would be able to not see the contradictions with the message of the gospel and even with much of what Paul wrote elsewhere.

However, an egalitarian lens of interpretation suffers no such contradictions and is more in line of living into God's Kingdom rather than the curse of a fallen world.

Accept it or reject.....I DO NOT CARE!

Then why are you reacting so strongly?

Legalism is killing the faith of the church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Site Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,476
USA
✟677,638.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Nice verses, but there is nothing in them that contradicts anything I said.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gregorikos
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,755
2,616
Livingston County, MI, US
✟200,005.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not exactly. The problem is that we don't like (or agree with) what YOU said. :)

Not to mention that by your standards of interpreting scripture, Jesus himself wouldn't qualify to be a pastor of his own church, and for that matter, neither would Paul be qualified.

You are too focused on external things when it's all really about Christ and the church.

And don't you think it's even a little bit strange that God's standards as per your interpretation are set up practically identical to pagan Roman law outside of Paul telling the men that they needed to be faithful in their marriages rather than having concubines/young boys and hiring prostitutes? The women didn't need to be told these things because they were already forbidden these sorts of freedoms under Roman law.

Some of the things that Paul instructed particular churches made sense at the time...for example, it was ILLEGAL by Roman law for women to speak in public assembly (Ekklessia), but that's fortunately not the case now in most free areas of the world, so it doesn't make sense to hold 21st century Christians to the standards of an ancient Roman government because we misunderstand why Paul is using some of these examples.

He's trying to explain Christ and the gospel to a Gentile people who had little to no comprehension, so uses common examples such as their familiar social customs and family structures (while trying to remain within the boundaries of Roman law) to give them some sort of picture of who Christ is.

Our social customs and family structures are different than they were in ancient Rome and we have no need (or desire) to attempt to recreate them. We can be Christians without being ancient Roman citizens just like non-Jewish people in ancient Rome could be Christians without becoming Jews and being circumcised.

Too much of Christianity nowadays has become extraordinarily legalistic as shown by these ridiculous "woman" arguments that crop up here all the time, and we're becoming just like the Pharisees in that regard even though Jesus attempted time and time again to instruct them (and us through their example) otherwise.

Being a Christ-follower isn't about all the "can'ts" and who we must exclude, but about being more and more conformed to him in every possible way. We are to encourage and edify one another and when God calls a man or a woman into his service, to help lead his flock, we are not to attempt to obstruct them.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 8. -To the unmarried; including widowers. In my 'Life of St. Paul,' 1:75-82, I have given my reasons for believing that St. Paul was a widower. It is good for them. It is an expedient, honourable, and morally "beautiful thing," but, as he so distinctly points out further on, there might be a "better" even to the "good." Even as I. In the unmarried state, whether as one who had never married, or, as I infer from various circumstances, as a widower (so too Clemens of Alexandria, Grotius, Luther, Ewald, etc.); see my 'Life of St. Paul,' 1:169). Tertullian and Jerome (both of them biassed witnesses, and with no certain support of tradition) say that St. Paul was never married.

unmarried
ἀγάμοις (agamois)
Noun - Dative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 22: Unmarried, of a person not in a state of wedlock, whether he or she has formerly been married or not. Unmarried.

1 Corinthians 7:8 Now to the unmarried and widows I say this: It is good for them to remain unmarried, as I am.

Denny Burk makes the case. His main points are outlined below. Read the whole thing for explanation and defense.

  1. Paul puts himself in the category of being “unmarried” in 1 Corinthians 7:8.
  2. The word “unmarried” translates the Greek word agamos.
  3. Paul uses the term agamos to refer to those who have been married but now are no longer married.
  4. The context of agamos in 1 Corinthians 7:8 is dominated by Paul’s instructions to those who are married or who have been married.
  5. The Greek word for “widower” was not in use during the Koine period.
  6. The word for “unmarried” appears to be the masculine word for someone who has lost a spouse.
  7. As a good Pharisee, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have been single his entire life.
Was the Apostle Paul a Widower?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: atpollard
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,755
2,616
Livingston County, MI, US
✟200,005.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1 Peter 5:1
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Where does it say a woman was an Elder?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
NO....NO.....NO!!!

What is wrong with you people?????

I have claimed absolutely NOTHING!!!

I have not cherry picked any Scriptures at all. I used literraly the ones that are found in the Bible in several places.

I have posted the CONTEXT of everything I have posted.
CONTEXT always determines the correct meaning. Example.........

"If MAN (Anyone) desires to be a Bishop....". 1 Timothy 3:1.

Verse #2......"HE must be the HUSBAND of one wife".

What is the CONTEXT....verse #1....MAN/ANYONE.
What is the exegesis.....verse #2...."HE must be the HUSBAND of one wife".

God impressed upon Paul to write what is found in the Bible and all I did was to post the exact words.

The problem is that YOU and others do not like what GOD said!!!
Look, your behavior here is just an example of how ridiculous the notion that men are better leaders than women is. The women on this thread are all displaying better leadership qualities than you. Every post from you is angry, accusatory, defensive and full of all caps (yelling) and exclamation points. You’re not attempting to teach or listen, just attacking everyone who challenges you. Your posts have all the elements of a temper tantrum.

Then we have @Paidiske, who is displaying all of the great qualities that make a good pastor, including incredible patience and diplomacy, and you think she’s the one who’s not qualified, simply because of her anatomy?
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Daniel Marsh
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.