Female Pastors & Bible Teachers

[ImperatorWall]

Sources outside scripture. Regardless, you may have a problem with women leading in the church, but that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I have no desire to change your opinion or really discuss it with you because it would just turn into an argument that I really don't want to spend the brainpower to do.

I don't have opinions on issues like this, only what the Bible says. My interpretations are not infallible, but I certainly don't decide to intepret the Bible based on what I want it to mean.

On this issue the Bible is quite clear. This is all I'm attempting to demonstrate to you.

 

[ImperatorWall]

It isn't clear to me exactly what kind of fundamental flaw women have which would prevent that from being effective leaders. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

My concern is not a fundamental flaw in the women but rather the effect it has on the men being led.

 

[Obzocky]

My views haven't changed much, i'm still in the "people will read what they want to read into scripture and no one will tell them otherwise" camp. What has changed is a slight leaning towards a slightly stronger belief when it comes to how much of a human, rather than God, issue the gender of those who feel drawn to preaching/teaching/all of that is.

 

[acropolis]

My concern is not a fundamental flaw in the women but rather the effect it has on the men being led.

So are men just too insecure to handle a woman leader?

 

[ImperatorWall]

So are men just too insecure to handle a woman leader?

It has nothing to do with insecurity. God placed man as the leader of woman. Man leads, woman follows. Tinkering with this has disastrous effects, as is evident in society at large today.

 

[Rhamiel]

i can understand why athiests would see this as a gender equality issue
but i find it troublesome that so many christians think they know so much more then all the christians for the first 1850 some years of christianity

 

[ImperatorWall]

i can understand why athiests would see this as a gender equality issue
but i find it troublesome that so many christians think they know so much more then all the christians for the first 1850 some years of christianity

It pains me that it so often degenerates into an issue of gender equality.

When I say that man should lead woman, I am not at all implying inequality. I am in awe of women, and readily admit I could not fill the role God created for them as a man.

 

[KingCrimson250]

On this issue the Bible is quite clear. This is all I'm attempting to demonstrate to you.

Is it? There's only one pertinent passage that I can think of, 1 Tim 3, and there is a heated debate as to whether that statement was intended as contextual or universal. I personally would believe that it is contextual and is in response to the Ephesian heresy, which at the time was being taught by the heretics to the women of the church. Hence the illustration of creation: The serpent (heretic) gives false knowledge to Eve (these particular women) who then roped in Adam as well (the men of the church).

In other words, the prohibition against women teaching and leading was to a specific group of women in a specific place and time for a specific reason, and isn't really something we can read as applying to everyone.


There's also the 1 Corinthian passage, if you're a head-covering, "woman-be-silent" kind of guy, but even most complementarians take that passage contextually.

 

[Obzocky]

I'm not sure it's so much believing they know more as taking everything into context on a cultural basis. There are many things in the Bible that have been adapted to fit changing societal norms. Interpretations are interpretations, none are more valid than the other if all parties can cross reference their beliefs and provided strong support for their understanding of scripture. Valid from a human perspective anyway.

If Christians agreed on everything denominations would not exist, nor would variations within those denominations. Humans are funny like that.

 

[acropolis]

It has nothing to do with insecurity. God placed man as the leader of woman. Man leads, woman follows. Tinkering with this has disastrous effects, as is evident in society at large today.

You should at least admit that Christianity is sexist in this case, since you've simply accepted that women are useless for leadership without any kind of reason you can explain.

 

[ImperatorWall]

Is it? There's only one pertinent passage that I can think of, 1 Tim 3, and there is a heated debate as to whether that statement was intended as contextual or universal. I personally would believe that it is contextual and is in response to the Ephesian heresy, which at the time was being taught by the heretics to the women of the church. Hence the illustration of creation: The serpent (heretic) gives false knowledge to Eve (these particular women) who then roped in Adam as well (the men of the church).

In other words, the prohibition against women teaching and leading was to a specific group of women in a specific place and time for a specific reason, and isn't really something we can read as applying to everyone.


There's also the 1 Corinthian passage, if you're a head-covering, "woman-be-silent" kind of guy, but even most complementarians take that passage contextually.

I was thinking more of Titus 1.

 

[Rhamiel]

Is it? There's only one pertinent passage that I can think of, 1 Tim 3, and there is a heated debate as to whether that statement was intended as contextual or universal. I personally would believe that it is contextual and is in response to the Ephesian heresy, which at the time was being taught by the heretics to the women of the church. Hence the illustration of creation: The serpent (heretic) gives false knowledge to Eve (these particular women) who then roped in Adam as well (the men of the church).

In other words, the prohibition against women teaching and leading was to a specific group of women in a specific place and time for a specific reason, and isn't really something we can read as applying to everyone.


There's also the 1 Corinthian passage, if you're a head-covering, "woman-be-silent" kind of guy, but even most complementarians take that passage contextually.

what about the fact that Jesus only choose men to be the 12 apostles?
i think the actions of Jesus in his ministery speak far more then this one verse by Paul
whenever I think on the issue I think of the fact that there were so many holy women who were close to Jesus, Mary Magdaleen for example, but none of these women were to be Apostles

 

[Rhamiel]

I'm not sure it's so much believing they know more as taking everything into context on a cultural basis. There are many things in the Bible that have been adapted to fit changing societal norms. Interpretations are interpretations, none are more valid than the other if all parties can cross reference their beliefs and provided strong support for their understanding of scripture. Valid from a human perspective anyway.

If Christians agreed on everything denominations would not exist, nor would variations within those denominations. Humans are funny like that.

but Jesus went agianst the culture of His time in so many ways and yet He still choose only men to be Apostles

 

[ImperatorWall]

You should at least admit that Christianity is sexist in this case, since you've simply accepted that women are useless for leadership without any kind of reason you can explain.

God has roles for both men and woman, and both are uniquely suited to those roles.

Sexism has nothing to do with it.

 

[KingCrimson250]

but i find it troublesome that so many christians think they know so much more then all the christians for the first 1850 some years of christianity

Matt made the point that woman leadership was likely more widely recognized in the early church than we might expect. Bishop N.T. Wright is a good starting point on this topic. Especially relevant is Junia, the female apostle.

 

[ImperatorWall]

Matt made the point that woman leadership was likely more widely recognized in the early church than we might expect. Bishop N.T. Wright is a good starting point on this topic. Especially relevant is Junia, the female apostle.

Junia has already been discussed. There is no indication in scripture that she was an apostle.

 

[Obzocky]

but Jesus went against the culture of His time in so many ways and yet He still choose only men to be Apostles

That is true, at the time many things were positively shocking and would have offended the sensibilities of many a human, including new followers and such.

It's still a question of whether you take scripture and dissect it to be culturally relevant but flexible with the times, specific to a particular event in time, or fixed. There are exceptions to the general "women can't" rules present in the Bible but they seem to be ignored in favour of a blanket "nope, no women in modern times can do this" sort of thing.

But then is it really an issue for me anyway, since it is more the teaching of men that is the issue than women? If I am reading correctly then women may be in authority of other women and children, it is just when you throw men into the mix that the waters are muddied?

Either way I am not convinced by the "women can't" positions put forward. As stated I have seen far too many thoughtful, researched positions for and against this particular issue to see it as anything other than human bias. In my mind it is preferable to give each equal ground from which to prove themselves in authority, if they are unable to do the job or people are unable to respect them then that is that. That is nothing to do with gender equality so much as allowing those who feel the calling to prove themselves rather than poo-pooing them instantly.


Edit: I could have just saved my fingers the ramble and settled for "cherry picking is cherry picking". We do not know the reasons behind various decisions, we only throw our perspective onto them in order to try to understand. We look to recorded history whilst ignoring the fact a large part of history goes unrecorded and we seem amazingly flexible on what can be adapted to modern society and what can not. It amuses and confuses me at the same time.

 

[KingCrimson250]

I was thinking more of Titus 1.

What, with the husband of one wife bit? That's surprising, I've not known many complementarians who would take that as a statement of gender roles. It's in there as a prohibition of adultery and nothing more. If you take the "husband of but one wife" verse and start saying that because it talks about husbands its referring only to men, then to be consistent you've really got to go through the Bible and say that any time Paul addresses his "brothers" his words aren't intended for the women, and then you run into a whole heap of trouble.

 

[acropolis]

God has roles for both men and woman, and both are uniquely suited to those roles.

Sexism has nothing to do with it.

Right. Sexism is legitimate and you have no reasonable explanation. Noted.

 

[ImperatorWall]

That is true, at the time many things were positively shocking and would have offended the sensibilities of many a human, including new followers and such.

It's still a question of whether you take scripture and dissect it to be culturally relevant but flexible with the times, specific to a particular event in time, or fixed. There are exceptions to the general "women can't" rules present in the Bible but they seem to be ignored in favour of a blanket "nope, no women in modern times can do this" sort of thing.

But then is it really an issue for me anyway, since it is more the teaching of men that is the issue than women? If I am reading correctly then women may be in authority of other women and children, it is just when you throw men into the mix that the waters are muddied?

Either way I am not convinced by the "women can't" positions put forward. As stated I have seen far too many thoughtful, researched positions for and against this particular issue to see it as anything other than human bias.

The only thing the Bible is adamantly clear on, in both the OT and NT, is that women should not be in a position of leadership over men in the home, or in spiritual affairs.

Unfortunately, this could be used as a reason to ban women outright from participating in the church, but clearly women were a vital part of the church in the NT. However, to claim that these women were leaders in the church would contradict far too much of scripture to lend credence to the claim.