Female Pastors?

[Paidiske]

Protestant Reformers is the correct answer. And you are picking and choosing what doctrines you believe from the design they maintain is truth.

I think you'll find the idea goes a lot further back than that. Perhaps as far back as Clement of Alexandria. (But I thought you were asking where I had first encountered it, not where it originated).

Such as?

We've been discussing it for 34 pages now.

Actually, the Wycliffe Bible is the oldest English translation.

I should have specified earliest printed English translation. Be that as it may, the point stands. In 1535, in a very early English translation, Phoebe the deacon was recognised as a "minister of the congregation."

The Bible says that the men still need to be examined by elders. And of good reputation with those who ''are without'', that would be the heathens. So I guess criminal record checks are applicable.

So that examination by elders and so on would basically amount to a process analogous to what I have described. So perhaps what my church does is not so unbiblical and sinful, after all?

I find it interesting you and the other woman are fighting so furiously against Gods scripture.

I'm not fighting Scripture. I'm fighting against the misuse of Scripture to prevent women from living as the people God creates, gifts and calls them to be.

And if you want to judge me by my actions, good grief, I preach and teach Scripture week in, and week out. It is a thread running through every working day and every aspect of ministry. Set against Scripture? How can I be, when it's the very fabric of what I do?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Protestant Reformers is the correct answer. And you are picking and choosing what doctrines you believe from the design they maintain is truth.

Aren't you just picking and choosing what Reformed believers believe since the ordination of Reformed Churches in America do ordain females?

D
Order for Ordination to the Office of Minister of Word and Sacrament | Reformed Church in America (rca.org)

@All Glory To God You remind me of the Pharisee that stood in front not allowing others to enter. Should you not be worried about hindering His servants?

Edit to add portion of link

Christ alone is the source of all Christian ministry,
through the ages calling men and women to serve.

we affirm that she/he is ready to be ordained
to the Office of Minister of Word and Sacrament.​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

1 Timothy 2 speaks about women not teaching men, and 1 Corinthians speaks about women remaining silent in "the churches" (KJV). Is this to be applied universally, or when read in context of the original audience this was intended for is there any room for women today to teach (for example) a Sunday school class for adults that both men and women attend?

In protestant churches opinions vary. Some have women pastors, bishops, and leaders of various kinds.

In the Catholic Church - so far - women cannot be ordained to the priesthood.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994) | John Paul II (vatican.va)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Catholics cannot ordain women because of what is written in ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

Specifically, because of this declaration:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.​

 

[All Glory To God]

I think you'll find the idea goes a lot further back than that. Perhaps as far back as Clement of Alexandria. (But I thought you were asking where I had first encountered it, not where it originated).

Well I don't know if one of the ancients wrote about it or not and you also seem unsure. But one thing I do know is the Protestant Reformers developed the teaching of the internal and external church as this ties to perseverance of the saints.

We've been discussing it for 34 pages now.

Yeah and all that you have presented is a retranslation and a personal call. Both of which are subjective and runs contrary to the church's traditional teaching.

I should have specified earliest printed English translation. Be that as it may, the point stands. In 1535, in a very early English translation, Phoebe the deacon was recognised as a "minister of the congregation."

The point does not stand. You said this was the oldest Bible translation into English, it is not. Point does not stand. And later Bible versions do not agree with the the word ''minister'' either. See, you are picking out what suits you.

So that examination by elders and so on would basically amount to a process analogous to what I have described. So perhaps what my church does is not so unbiblical and sinful, after all?

No, because women, Gays, trans and many others are not allowed on the basis of biology or sin. That's the difference between the Biblical standard and yours. Yours is a man-made ungodly subjective system. Mine follows the scripture.

I'm not fighting Scripture. I'm fighting against the misuse of Scripture to prevent women from living as the people God creates, gifts and calls them to be.

The things that have been said here to support women being pastors is a misuse of scripture.

And if you want to judge me by my actions, good grief, I preach . . .

I don't think you should be doing that in a church. And the result of women being Pastors is that the people that support this position need to lay waste to scripture in order to support this cause.

 

[Paidiske]

Yeah and all that you have presented is a retranslation and a personal call.

There's a lot more substance than that to the discussion. But of course, if you recognised that, you probably wouldn't still be arguing, so...

And later Bible versions do not agree with the the word ''minister'' either. See, you are picking out what suits you.

I am pointing out to you that it's not a modern innovation to see Phoebe the deacon as holding church office rather than being a domestic menial or the like.

No, because women, Gays, trans and many others are not allowed on the basis of biology or sin. That's the difference between the Biblical standard and yours. Yours is a man-made ungodly subjective system. Mine follows the scripture.

I was not talking about women or people of diverse sexuality. I was talking about the fact that the process used - of examination and prayerful discernment - is not in itself unbiblical.

The things that have been said here to support women being pastors is a misuse of scripture.

That's one key element of our disagreement.

I don't think you should be doing that in a church.

The point - which you once again miss - is that telling someone who makes the learning and teaching of Scripture the core of their daily working life, that they are "set against Scripture" is a fairly unrealistic mischaracterisation. If I never so much as opened the Bible except to make arguments against it, you might have a point. But when I open it in prayer and personal devotion, in teaching and preaching, when I seek in its pages the inspiration, the wisdom, and the hope to sustain not only myself but an entire community, to kind of hand-wave that away as "set against Scripture" is such a ridiculous caricature, it's as if you have no sense of the people with whom you disagree as actual Christians at all.

 

[All Glory To God]

Aren't you just picking and choosing what Reformed believers believe since the ordination of Reformed Churches in America do ordain females?

No. We have the same problem now as a lot of Churches. ''reformed'' or Protestant churches do not teach what the Reformers taught. Lutheran churches do not teach what Luther taught. The teachings have changed over time. So, these contemporary Protestant churches are way away from the original Protestant doctrines.

@All Glory To God You remind me of the Pharisee that stood in front not allowing others to enter. Should you not be worried about hindering His servants?

I'm not a Pharisee but that's sort of the idea. I don't think God has given women a licence to be Pastors so why would I support them taking up the role of pastor?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

No. We have the same problem now as a lot of Churches. ''reformed'' or Protestant churches do not teach what the Reformers taught. Lutheran churches do not teach what Luther taught. The teachings have changed over time. So, these contemporary Protestant churches are way away from the original Protestant doctrines.



I'm not a Pharisee but that's sort of the idea. I don't think God has given women a licence to be Pastors so why would I support them taking up the role of pastor?

For the same reason you say not too. So as not to offend God. If God shows that their means are to come from from Him and they choose Him as their portion, then who are you to say different. It is just interpretation.
It was scribes that Jesus taught against that ate up widows houses. I thought it was Pharisee. They sound like clericalism.

Beware of the Scribes
…46“Beware of the scribes. They like to walk around in long robes, and they love the greetings in the marketplaces, the chief seats in the synagogues, and the places of honor at banquets. 47They defraud widows of their houses, and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will receive greater condemnation.”

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Oppression is still always oppression. Only a child is not capable of making decisions for themselves. When they are grown, they can come off the milk and eat the meat of the word. What Paul describes is from the viewpoint of the Father, not that of Christ, to whom is our kinsman redeemer. Christ represents the church, the body His members. The Father is to Whom silence is given, the church has no say against Him. That is the picture that Paul draws, not of Christ and the church, to whom we all represent. Rather Paul draws us back to the garden when Adam and Eve walked with the Father. As long as we are still children then we have no say, but when we are come into the fullness of Christ, then Christ is in control thru the Spirit within. That is not confined to males, nor should that voice be silenced thru suppression/oppression. Again, a matter of interpretation.

ETA what matters is submission to the mind of Christ, who is now seated with the Father, for those who are (male or female) are seated together with the Father and the Son. There is no oppression there. But there is the need to come to the throne of grace as little children.

 

[All Glory To God]

There's a lot more substance than that to the discussion. But of course, if you recognised that, you probably wouldn't still be arguing, so...

I asked you what it was and the reply was ''34 pages'' so you tell me.

I am pointing out to you that it's not a modern innovation to see Phoebe the deacon as holding church office rather than being a domestic menial or the like.

A deacon historically, for women was not an office. It was a woman that helped to prepare other women for Baptism, for the purposes of modesty. Being fully immersed into water, preparations were made and to avoid impropriety women were prepared by women. Female deaconesses never held an office in the church. And as the church expanded further to colder countries, we no longer even Baptiste by immersion, we can sprinkle.

Older Bible versions do not use the Word ''Deacon'' when describing Phoebe. And let's not forget that Paul is the the authour of both Romans and 1 Timothy. Apostle Paul defines a deacon in his pastoral letters a husband of one wife. So obviously a man. Romans ending is simply saluting all the saints.

Men are to be Church Deacons ''Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.'' 1 Timothy 3:12.

I was not talking about women or people of diverse sexuality. I was talking about the fact that the process used - of examination and prayerful discernment - is not in itself unbiblical.

I was. You asked me how I would select Pastors and I told you, it's based from scripture. Let's run through some points:

1Timothy 3:1-17


1)This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work
(So this is women excluded because only men are called at a starting point for the office of a Pastor.

2)A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(Homosexuals are omitted here as are trans. Because a trans person is just a person pretending to be the opposite sex.)

3)Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
(This is a demand of general good conduct.)

4)One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5)(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
(Some have taken this to mean that a man has to have children before he can be a pastor. So that that he can be examined more thoroughly. The man and wife can put on an act for examiners but children are less inclined to be able be so fraudulent and is a good way of getting a look of how a potential male pastor really will operate ahead of time.

6)Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
(People need to be well studied in the word. Not degrees from their church denominations but serious Biblical knowledge.)

7)Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
(And this is where we were talking about criminal record checks. Those who are without are the heathens or non-Christians. But one thing to bear in mind is God never decreed in his law to punish people by prisons or criminal records. You did your crime/sin, you suffered the punishment and then it was done. Criminal records are the idea outside of the Bible. The very people who control society make laws and send people to prison decide when ''justice has been served'' but still issue criminal records. So it appears it is a system based on grudge and ungodliness. On the other hand we no longer use Biblical punishments like capital punishment for predatory criminals like paedophiles, Islamic terrorists etc. So, I think the best way forward is to be as faithful to the scripture as possible whilst taking into account what changes are going on. This still doesn't open up a gateway for women or the other excluded to be Pastors.

That's one key element of our disagreement.

Well actually there's the historical Church that is unanimously against you. So you can't find any witness there either.

The point - which you once again miss - is that telling someone who makes the learning and teaching of Scripture the core of their daily working life, that they are "set against Scripture" is a fairly unrealistic mischaracterisation. . .

I don't think I am missing your point I just disagree with you. And I can tell you three main points why women Pastors is sin and wrong: 1) Because the wrong person is preaching behind the pulpit-a woman. 2) The person who should be preaching behind the pulpit is absent-a man. 3) The scripture is layed waste in order to make a case for women to be pastors.

 

[All Glory To God]

Let me help you and give you some Bible teaching.

For the same reason you say not too. So as not to offend God. If God shows that their means are to come from from Him and they choose Him as their portion, then who are you to say different. It is just interpretation.
It was scribes that Jesus taught against that ate up widows houses. I thought it was Pharisee. They sound like clericalism.

Beware of the Scribes
…46“Beware of the scribes. They like to walk around in long robes, and they love the greetings in the marketplaces, the chief seats in the synagogues, and the places of honor at banquets. 47They defraud widows of their houses, and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will receive greater condemnation.”

The Pharisees ''They defraud widows of their houses, and for a show make lengthy prayers.'' means that these were men putting on a external show of holiness (public prayers) whilst privately/inwardly wicked as Hell (Defrauding the needy of their money). Christ want's us to be inwardly Holy, born again and not hypocrites putting on an act. How does this relate to me having a discussion about women being Pastors?

You're going to have to do a lot better than this to convince anybody that women can be Pastors. You didn't make case a case for your point.

 

[Paidiske]

A deacon historically, for women was not an office. It was a woman that helped to prepare other women for Baptism, for the purposes of modesty... Female deaconesses never held an office in the church.

It is true that there is a later gender distinction about deacons and deaconesses. But that's not reflected in the word used for Phoebe. (And when the order of deaconesses was revived in the 19th century, it included allowing women to preach).

Older Bible versions do not use the Word ''Deacon'' when describing Phoebe.

There are a range of terms used. Included among them such terms as "minister." But the Greek says deacon.

And let's not forget that Paul is the the authour of both Romans and 1 Timothy.

I don't forget it. It's part of my argument as to why Paul - who commended a woman deacon - cannot have intended his remarks in the pastoral letters to exclude women from the office.

if a man

I have, of course, already pointed out to you that the text does not say "if a man," but, "if anyone." Another fact which you can verify with very little effort on your own part, if you don't trust my knowledge.

(People need to be well studied in the word. Not degrees from their church denominations but serious Biblical knowledge.)

As if the work that goes into obtaining a degree doesn't lead to "serious Biblical knowledge"? It'd be a pretty interesting exercise to try to learn the language(s), and write in-depth essays on Biblical texts, without obtaining any "serious" knowledge.

Well actually there's the historical Church that is unanimously against you. So you can't find any witness there either.

Ah, but it's not. The historical record is much more mixed than is often admitted. There are, for example, early mosaics of, and plaques commemorating, women bishops and priests. Often conveniently explained away, but still there, pointing to a richer and more complex historical picture.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Oppression is still always oppression. Only a child is not capable of making decisions for themselves. When they are grown, they can come off the milk and eat the meat of the word. What Paul describes is from the viewpoint of the Father, not that of Christ, to whom is our kinsman redeemer. Christ represents the church, the body His members. The Father is to Whom silence is given, the church has no say against Him. That is the picture that Paul draws, not of Christ and the church, to whom we all represent. Rather Paul draws us back to the garden when Adam and Eve walked with the Father. As long as we are still children then we have no say, but when we are come into the fullness of Christ, then Christ is in control thru the Spirit within. That is not confined to males, nor should that voice be silenced thru suppression/oppression. Again, a matter of interpretation.

ETA what matters is submission to the mind of Christ, who is now seated with the Father, for those who are (male or female) are seated together with the Father and the Son. There is no oppression there. But there is the need to come to the throne of grace as little children.

 

[Richard.20.12]

Mike Winger did a very well-researched video series on this topic. The videos are long and there are a few of them because there are many different things to cover but can't recommend a better resource on this topic.

As for during the main service, no. As a Sunday school teacher over a mixed group of men and women, I don't know but lean towards no. Outside of the church such as on YouTube, as a teacher in a seminary, writing books, sharing on the radio, or something similar to what Aquila and Priscilla did is completely fine.

I think many women make outstanding Bible School teachers in church. Also counselors for children and teens. There is never too many teachers and counselors for our young people. And as most women adore youth its a perfect match. Most young people are far more likely to open up to a woman than a man. So they hear truth far sooner so help can be faster. Plus there's the obvious advantage of the lack of danger of them being an abuser. This is especially mentally healthy for single women who may not feel ready for marriage then or ever. They hugely benefit society and aren't burdened by a family. If they have a taxing career this can be focused on better without a family. But that yearning for youth mentorship will always be there. Its ingrained. It doesn't replace mothering but it helps a lot. And it doesn't have to stop after 15-20 years!

 

[Richard.20.12]

Of course women can be protestant pastors. Why couldn't they?

Is there a single woman in the Bible that had a lot of prominence? That commanded and led people? There isn't. Every single leader/teacher was male, from Genesis to Revelation. The 3 parts of the Godhead? All male. Why didn't God choose to make one female? All male. For a reason. We probably won't really understand that reason til we get to Heaven of course.

Now look at false religions and cults today and you'll see so many are female centered. Like men have blew it, that we're beyond help or hope so they're taking over. Health cults like yoga are especially infused with this thinking, this loathing of men.

Yes there are important women in the Bible but they served others in a humble way. And in that way they thrived and spiritually prospered. That is the point of this life after all. To serve the Lord and others and spiritually prosper.

 

[Paidiske]

Every single leader/teacher was male, from Genesis to Revelation.

I think you need to go back and notice quite a few people you missed, there...

The 3 parts of the Godhead? All male.

This, though, is a much more problematic statement. God is not male. Maleness (or sex and gender) is an aspect of reproductive biology, and does not pertain to God (beyond the incarnation).

Yes there are important women in the Bible but they served others in a humble way.

As Christ himself did? I'm not thinking this is a gendered virtue. Or that virtue is gendered at all.

Leadership is a valid form of service for the people gifted and called to it.

 

[Strong in Him]

Is there a single woman in the Bible that had a lot of prominence? That commanded and led people? There isn't.

Deborah.
Judge over the nation for 40 years.

The 3 parts of the Godhead? All male.

Nope. God is Spirit; neither male nor female.
The word for Holy Spirit is feminine.
God the Son, the eternal Word, was born male.

Why didn't God choose to make one female? All male. For a reason.

Why didn't God choose to make one what female?
If you mean, disciples: why didn't God choose one Gentile? All were Jews.
God chose plenty of women.
Prophetesses: Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Isaiah's wife, Philip's daughter. Paul himself said that women could prophesy.
Influential women: Sarah, Rachel, Miriam, Rahab, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Esther, Ruth, Mary, Elizabeth, the woman at the well, Mary of Bethany, Mary Magdalene - chosen by God to be the first witness to the resurrection. Also, Lydia, Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia and probably many others.

Now look at false religions and cults today and you'll see so many are female centered.

?? JW's Moonies, Armstrongism, Children of God - all male leaders.

Health cults like yoga are especially like this.

Yoga isn't a cult.

Yes there are important women in the Bible but they served others in a humble way.

Leaders can be humble.

That is the point of this life after all. To serve the Lord and others and spiritually prosper.

Which we do by using the gifts that he gave us.
And some women have the gifts of leadership and teaching, and the call to use those gifts by Pastoring a church.

 

[All Glory To God]

It is true that there is a later gender distinction about deacons and deaconesses. But that's not reflected in the word used for Phoebe. (And when the order of deaconesses was revived in the 19th century, it included allowing women to preach).

Like I explained in my previous post, a deacon historically, for women was not an office.

Throughout this response and indeed discussion your main argument is a translation dispute. The early translaters are wrong, now modern translators are correct. But have you considered the possibility that you and your contemporaries are wrong? And this is exactly my point, if you are wrong and women should not be Pastors, it is doing a disservice to God and has a damaging effect on the church. Regardless how you or anybody else feels about it. Facts don't care about your feelings.

Something else I will say on modern translations verses traditional translations. If the ancients and Protestant reformers got it wrong and this truth of women Pastors has only recently been discovered and brought to light that can only mean one of two things: 1) The church has been lying and deceiving this whole time and basically running a conspiracy to oppress women. 2) They genuinely did not know the truth and were in error, century after century after century....until the Nobel progressive church corrected the error. If either one is true, I would not be interested in being a Christian. I would not follow a religion that is run by liars. And if the church has been in error for two thousand years about women being Pastors, what's to say they are not in error about another ancient doctrine, like the Trinity. That proves too unreliable but fortunately I think the problem is not traditional texts and teaching but from heretics who teach against Gods word.

I think it's much more likely and consistent to call out the progressive churches for breaking Protestant tradition and tuning to heresy. That being the case, I am right and women should not preach behind the pulpit.

There are a range of terms used. Included among them such terms as "minister." But the Greek says deacon.

Another translation dispute.

I don't forget it. It's part of my argument as to why Paul - who commended a woman deacon - cannot have intended his remarks in the pastoral letters to exclude women from the office.

Paul would be contradicting himself if he defined what the office of a Deacon was in 1 Timothy (a man) than acknowledged a woman as a ordained Deacon in the Book of Romans.

I have, of course, already pointed out to you that the text does not say "if a man," but, "if anyone."

And another translation dispute.

There are, for example, early mosaics of, and plaques commemorating, women bishops and priests. . .

Provide evidence that he early church had a formal policy that officially ordained women to be Priests.

 

[Paidiske]

Like I explained in my previous post, a deacon historically, for women was not an office.

So you claim, but that is exactly the point under dispute.

The early translaters are wrong, now modern translators are correct.

Except I provided you with an early translator who translated "deacon of the church" as "minister of the congregation."

But have you considered the possibility that you and your contemporaries are wrong?

Of course. (And remember, I came from a starting position of thinking the priesthood should be male-only and needing to be convinced otherwise). And I have, over many years, examined all the evidence, and only become more and more thoroughly convinced that in the earliest church, women took up a range of positions in the church with authority or leadership or teaching aspects, and were gradually excluded from them over time. The contemporary move to allow women into all roles is a restoration of the earliest church's practice in this regard.

And this is exactly my point, if you are wrong and women should not be Pastors, it is doing a disservice to God and has a damaging effect on the church.

Of course, the reverse is also true. If you are wrong and all roles in the church should be open to women, then preventing them is also profoundly damaging. Having some experience of both types of churches, I know where I see the most damage on this issue.

Paul would be contradicting himself if he defined what the office of a Deacon was in 1 Timothy (a man) than acknowledged a woman as a ordained Deacon in the Book of Romans.

Exactly. So because he acknowledges Phoebe as a deacon, his words in 1 Timothy cannot be taken as limiting the office to men!

Provide evidence that he early church had a formal policy that officially ordained women to be Priests.

The early church (first century or so) didn't even have a formal policy of elders (what we would now call priests) being "officially ordained." Leadership was much more organic and practices varied in different places. The settling into a clear, three-fold order of ordained ministry (deacons, priests and bishops) came later, and it is about that point that the evidence for women in those roles drops away.