Female Pastors (oh no not again)

[Father Rick]

start it on another thread diffeerent topic, I will answer there.

we have examined every possible angle, I think I have thoroughly proved my point by using both books on church order, and the ACTS. so hopefully, we're finished here, and inspired many to study the church order books.

The reason I asked if you thought a single man could be an overseer is that using YOUR method of interpretation ONLY married men can be. It's not a different topic... the issue at stake is the hermeneutic method used to determine intent in the passage.

And, no... you have not proven your point-- unless you consider ignoring scriptures/facts that you disagree with as proving you point.

Becoming indignant about how Paul wrote it, not you doesn't solve anything. I could equally say to you "Paul wrote it, not me"-- all we've done is agree that Paul wrote it-- that does nothing to clarify meaning in the passage. And Paul chose to write in a way that was ambiguous at best. The fact that 1800 or more years later one of the translators decided to translate in English from Greek with a particular bias does not change what was originally written-- no matter how much you repeat the English translation.

And a completely DIFFERENT issue, which Raine brought up-- but is very relevant here-- is whether these were intended as Paul's personal feelings for a specific situation or if they were to be binding for all the Church for all time.

 

[M51MADISON]

There is not a place on the bible about the rapture but we still belive it will happen ,in many subjects the answers are not there, but we can pray and ask God to give us revelation. He made women to compliment man to be his equal

 

[Saulball]

ugghhh

yes, he stated it TWICE!(in 2 different books) its in the New testament! God intended for it to be there! Was it for our use, YES! Again, you would even agree (you have not disagreed) that 1 timmy and titus are the books on church order. I have used those 2 books to show that Men were to be overseers. Galations 3:28 is not about LEADERSHIP...read the PASSAGE, not the verse...its about salvation.

Using what the bible says the man must not be divorced! (one-woman man), why does it matter if he was single. Was timothy single? Paul? That is an easy application when you look at the language. However, Paul TALKS about MEN and WOMEN in these passages (not just a singular "everyone" which could be interpreted either way) We know that women, like Phoebe, were deacons, or prophets. AND paul points this out in this PASSAGE...women can be DEACONESSES!! but when talking right above it, he states an elder should be a man, not divorced or remarried, I think most people with any sense understand that.

Paul's pattern of talking here is addressing BOTH sexes individually, for different offices. HOWEVER, when talking about ELDERS (in BOTH BOOKS!!! timmy and titus) he leaves it at MEN. This is not hard to understand. We can explain it away, but there is no scripture of Overseers of churches being women. I didn't make the rules, God did.

saying Paul was ambiguous, while he did it in 2 different books, books about church order, that GOD INSPIRED and left us for church order, is crazy. If all the scripture passages referred to a HE, I would agree that it was ambiguous, but he didn't. He related womens positions, what women and men were to do, etc. I'm sorry I take the bible literally, and don't explain it away. You could argue against any literal text and say "its ambiguos", but that is clearly not the case in these scriptures. Choose to believe it is, but I will take the literal meaning, rightly dividing what the books says on church order.

 

[Saulball]

There is not a place on the bible about the rapture but we still belive it will happen ,in many subjects the answers are not there, but we can pray and ask God to give us revelation. He made women to compliment man to be his equal

of course there is scripture on it!

 

[Maharg]

saying Paul was ambiguous, while he did it in 2 different books, books about church order, that GOD INSPIRED and left us for church order, is crazy. If all the scripture passages referred to a HE, I would agree that it was ambiguous, but he didn't. He related womens positions, what women and men were to do, etc. I'm sorry I take the bible literally, and don't explain it away. You could argue against any literal text and say "its ambiguos", but that is clearly not the case in these scriptures. Choose to believe it is, but I will take the literal meaning, rightly dividing what the books says on church order.

So are you saying that your understanding of scripture in these examples is correct, infallible?

 

[Father Rick]

ugghhh

yes, he stated it TWICE!(in 2 different books) its in the New testament! God intended for it to be there! Was it for our use, YES! Again, you would even agree (you have not disagreed) that 1 timmy and titus are the books on church order. I have used those 2 books to show that Men were to be overseers. Galations 3:28 is not about LEADERSHIP...read the PASSAGE, not the verse...its about salvation.

I fully agree that the passage in Galations is about salvation. However, I don't see salvation as being limited to just going to heaven. The word 'sozo' Paul uses for salvation means, literally "the fullness of messianic deliverance". Salvation encompasses every area of our life here in this world-- and in the world to come. It affects our relationships with each other (including how leadership works). It affects our marriages. It affects and changes every aspect of how we function in this world. Therefore any verse pertaining to salvation pertains to every aspect of the Christian life-- particularly how we relate to each other within the Church.

Using what the bible says the man must not be divorced! (one-woman man), why does it matter if he was single.

Actually neither passage says anything about divorce. It says 'the husband of one wife'. Since polygamy was still practiced by some of the people to whom it was written, that gives it a completely different meaning. Even today, certain primitive cultures practice polygamy-- and when missionaries go and share the gospel, this passage has to be dealt with.

Now the reason I ask if they were single or not is this... If you feel that it must strictly be 'the husband of one wife', then no single man would qualify-- since he is missing the 'one wife'. You are actually picking and choosing what to be literal on, even if you don't realize that is what you are doing.

And yes... that is significant, because some groups of Jews felt that one MUST be married to qualify to be a rabbi/teacher, etc. Simultaneously, certain groups, such as the Latin rite Catholic Church require clerical celibacy, while the other 21 churches under papal jurisdiction allow a priest/presbyter/elder (all the same word) to be married, yet require celibacy of bishops.

Remember, whatever interpretation you choose-- it must apply to ALL peoples of ALL times.

Was timothy single? Paul? That is an easy application when you look at the language.

Most scholars believe Paul was either widowed or divorced.

However, Paul TALKS about MEN and WOMEN in these passages (not just a singular "everyone" which could be interpreted either way) We know that women, like Phoebe, were deacons, or prophets. AND paul points this out in this PASSAGE...women can be DEACONESSES!! but when talking right above it, he states an elder should be a man, not divorced or remarried, I think most people with any sense understand that.

In the Titus passage, it states that Deacons are to be the 'husband of one wife' (Tim. 3:12) using exactly the same statement as he makes about elders in Titus. You believe that there can be female Deacons (there is only one word anywhere in the Greek-- no deacon/deaconess distinction), yet Titus says deacons are the 'husband of one wife'...... so which passage are you choosing to take literally? And why not both?

Paul's pattern of talking here is addressing BOTH es individually, for different offices. HOWEVER, when talking about ELDERS (in BOTH BOOKS!!! timmy and titus) he leaves it at MEN. This is not hard to understand. We can explain it away, but there is no scripture of Overseers of churches being women. I didn't make the rules, God did.

I agree God made the rules... I'm just saying you're reading a mistranslation of the rule book-- one that is including words that are NOT in the original. I posted the Greek/English interlinear earlier so that you could see that for yourself.

saying Paul was ambiguous, while he did it in 2 different books, books about church order, that GOD INSPIRED and left us for church order, is crazy. If all the scripture passages referred to a HE, I would agree that it was ambiguous, but he didn't. He related womens positions, what women and men were to do, etc. I'm sorry I take the bible literally, and don't explain it away. You could argue against any literal text and say "its ambiguos", but that is clearly not the case in these scriptures. Choose to believe it is, but I will take the literal meaning, rightly dividing what the books says on church order.

I'm glad you take the Bible so seriously... my concern is that you are taking an English translation literally, when the original language does NOT imply what you feel the English does. Please-- go back and look at the Greek.... the Greek wording IS ambiguous. It does not even have some of the words (such as the word 'man') in it-- that was added by the translator.

 

[theywhosowintears]

How very complecated is this simple topic. God knows we might not.
Each stands before God to be judged,

let the lady pastors be: if you dont agree go join a mens club.

So there!

*Peace*

 

[New_Wineskin]

How very complecated is this simple topic. God knows we might not.
Each stands before God to be judged,

let the lady pastors be: if you dont agree go join a mens club.

So there!

*Peace*

I agree . This only matters to those in a group that is thinking about going to or from women in leadership . If one is not in such a group , what does it matter ? They hae already chosen not to fellowship with them .

 

[Entertaining_Angels]

I agree . This only matters to those in a group that is thinking about going to or from women in leadership . If one is not in such a group , what does it matter ? They hae already chosen not to fellowship with them .

I think (and would hope) that those who do not believe females should be pastors do not hang around outside their churches and hurl insults at those attending the church. Speaking as somebody who does not believe women should be pastors, I simply do not attend churches now where women hold those positions. It is something I don't think much about. However, this thread was started and people wanted to hear from both sides.

So, why should only one side be allowed to post?

 

[New_Wineskin]

I think (and would hope) that those who do not believe females should be pastors do not hang around outside their churches and hurl insults at those attending the church. Speaking as somebody who does not believe women should be pastors, I simply do not attend churches now where women hold those positions. It is something I don't think much about. However, this thread was started and people wanted to hear from both sides.

So, why should only one side be allowed to post?

I wasn't suggesting that one side only post . I was writing about those that are considering that others that hae already chosen not to fellowship with those that agree with a certain system are writing about how they are wrong . How will their writing about those that they don't assemble with change their way of doing things ? Isn't it a a form of gossip and being busy-bodies ?

So , is salvation no longer applicable to those that participate with a group with a female leader ? If not , how is it not a redundant issue ?

Edited to add : Most of that was my thinking out loud while I was getting ready to leave for work .

 

[Johnna]

My youth pastor is a woman, and she's done wonderful things. If it weren't for her, I wouldn't know God. Pastor Jen has helped so many of the youth, and she's led so many to Him- I don't think that God minds that.
I'm sorry... I don't know a lot of the Bible yet... so I don't have any scripture to back that up.
~Johnna~

 

[Christian Dude]

My girlfriend preaches.

 

[~RENEE~]

Our worship leader is female. And has the anointing of a psalmist.

 

[Sally Wren]

I don't support female pastors. Just a couple of quick thoughts. I don't really have a bible with me for verses but I will leave a message later with verses if you would like.

1) In Acts 1:21 when they were picking someone to replace Judas is says it had to be from among the "men". Apostles were part of the leadership that God appointed for the church. It seems to me that all the other offices were intended to be men also, that just is commonsense.

2)All the priests in the Old Testament were men. Anyone who even worked on the temple were all men, there wasn't one woman that even helped build it. Even the sewing and stuff like that in the templel in the wilderness was done by men. I don't see anywhere that God's order was changed just because Jesus was born. The bible says that the creation order will finally cease in the world to come.

3) Junias was not a woman, it calls him a "kinsmen". If you look that verse up in the dictionary, it says a kinsmen is a man.

4) In the book of Timothy it says the message is to be committed to men.

5) The problem with women pastors is that you really can't find even one in the New Testament.

6) The many verses in the New Testament that clearly says that the leadership of the church was to fall to the man's responsibility.

That's my two cents worth.

A content woman at home

 

[riverpastor]

Acts 21:8-9 - And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.​

I know this may not be speaking of the office of a prophet, per se, but just wanted to make mention of it. This man had four daughters who prophesied.

 

[foursquareman]

2)All the priests in the Old Testament were men. Anyone who even worked on the temple were all men, there wasn't one woman that even helped build it. Even the sewing and stuff like that in the templel in the wilderness was done by men. I don't see anywhere that God's order was changed just because Jesus was born. The bible says that the creation order will finally cease in the world to come.

Just wanted to mention that before kings were appointed to lead the jews, judges were the ones that led the nation. Deborah was one of them, a female leader of God's nation.

 

[merryheart]

Has anyone here besides me read "Gods Word to Women" by Katherine Bushnell? I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in this question. The entire book is online at http://www.godswordtowomen.org/gwtwbook1.htm

It is a fascinating study done by a woman born in 1855.

 

[North Star]

Good Biblical examples!
I'm new here, but surprised to see this issue in a charismatic forum.
Don't we all believe in being Spirit-filled and led by the Spirit of God?
Can't the Spirit of God lead in any way He chooses?
In the last days, God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh....

 

[Father Rick]

I don't support female pastors. Just a couple of quick thoughts. I don't really have a bible with me for verses but I will leave a message later with verses if you would like.

1) In Acts 1:21 when they were picking someone to replace Judas is says it had to be from among the "men". Apostles were part of the leadership that God appointed for the church. It seems to me that all the other offices were intended to be men also, that just is commonsense.

Not only from among the men-- but from JEWISH men (since the gentiles had not been given the gospel yet). So can we only have Jewish pastors?

2)All the priests in the Old Testament were men. Anyone who even worked on the temple were all men, there wasn't one woman that even helped build it. Even the sewing and stuff like that in the templel in the wilderness was done by men. I don't see anywhere that God's order was changed just because Jesus was born. The bible says that the creation order will finally cease in the world to come.

3) Junias was not a woman, it calls him a "kinsmen". If you look that verse up in the dictionary, it says a kinsmen is a man.

First, 'Junias' is a mistranslation. It was originally Junia (feminine gender). Some translators later changed it to Junias, however there are NO instances found ANYWHERE in any writings (biblical, secular or otherwise) of the name Junias ever being used as a man's name-- however Junia was a common woman's name. For the first 1000 years or so, every reference to her in church history writings referred to her as a woman.

As to the plural 'kinsmen'-- when referring to a group of people of both sexes, it is standard practice to use the masculine plural to refer to all in that group. (i.e. 'mankind' refers to all people, male and female)

4) In the book of Timothy it says the message is to be committed to men.

So should women not be taught the scriptures, since that is what Paul was referring to?

5) The problem with women pastors is that you really can't find even one in the New Testament.

You can't find any male pastors listed by name either-- so should we not have male pastors?

The closest you find is Timothy, an apostle, who was pastoring at one time-- but he is the ONLY example of this. And one example doesn't make a rule.

6) The many verses in the New Testament that clearly says that the leadership of the church was to fall to the man's responsibility.

Which verses are you referring to? I've read the NT a dozen or more times and haven't seen any that 'clearly says the leadership of the church was to fall to the man's responsibility'. In fact, there are women in leadership named by name--Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, etc.

That's my two cents worth.

A content woman at home

 

[Mark Downham]

Father rick

Magisterial Exegesis.

Mark