How connected is attitude towards women and inerrancy?

[hedrick]

After watching a number of debates on women's leadership, it seems to me that acceptance of women leaders is closely tied to inerrancy. Inerrancy in practice seems to mean not just no factual errors, but that Paul's advice to 1st Cent churches applies directly to us.

Are there churches that hold inerrancy and also have women as ordained leaders? Are there churches that don't accept inerrancy that don't?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Paul was a man of his time in history and a product of his culture. It is therefore understandable that his cultural attitudes would creep into his writing. The culture of most societies in the 1st Century were male-dominated; not like today where women have assumed many roles that males had in previous times. If Paul was living in our modern world, would he believe and write the same things about women?

 

[Tree of Life]

After watching a number of debates on women's leadership, it seems to me that acceptance of women leaders is closely tied to inerrancy. Inerrancy in practice seems to mean not just no factual errors, but that Paul's advice to 1st Cent churches applies directly to us.

Are there churches that hold inerrancy and also have women as ordained leaders? Are there churches that don't accept inerrancy that don't?

I think they're very connected.

No church that I know of rejects inerrancy and yet holds to complementarianism. This is because Complementarianism is a thoroughly biblical position which is thoroughly unpopular with modern culture. There is simply no reason to accept it outside of Scripture.

But there are some conservative churches which accept inerrancy and also allow for women's ordination. An example would be the EPC.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Paul was a master builder building into his theology every turn possible to keep his heart into what he did to explain Christ and the church.

 

[HereIStand]

The EPC is an example as noted. Also, the Church of the Nazarene would be another.

 

[cloudyday2]

In some denominations, I think the issue is a resistance to changing an ancient tradition (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, some Anglican, and probably many Protestants).

 

[hedrick]

But there are some conservative churches which accept inerrancy and also allow for women's ordination. An example would be the EPC.

Right. I should have thought about that. How common is that?

 

[hedrick]

A post in Puritanboard in 2010 says "Until three years ago there were only 2 female ministers in the EPC. One was a chaplain and the other was a director of women's ministry at a church in Colorado." My impression is that most of their female pastors have come congregations transferring from the PCUSA. I wonder how strongly those congregations are committed to inerrancy.

The Church of the Nazarenes does not currently maintain strict inerrancy.

 

[Silmarien]

Paul was a man of his time in history and a product of his culture. It is therefore understandable that his cultural attitudes would creep into his writing. The culture of most societies in the 1st Century were male-dominated; not like today where women have assumed many roles that males had in previous times. If Paul was living in our modern world, would he believe and write the same things about women?

I see Paul complimenting women right and left, always mentioning Priscilla before Aquila, and so forth and so on. I'd assumed that he was pretty much responsible for women being mistreated throughout Christian history, because that's what everyone says, so I was surprised by how positive he was except for a couple of lines that might have been added in later anyway.

 

[hedrick]

I see Paul complimenting women right and left, always mentioning Priscilla before Aquila, and so forth and so on. I'd assumed that he was pretty much responsible for women being mistreated throughout Christian history, because that's what everyone says, so I was surprised by how positive he was except for a couple of lines that might have been added in later anyway.

I was interested primarily in how churches understand this, and how it connects with their view of Scripture. I was hoping not to have it a debate on the issue.

 

[Tree of Life]

Right. I should have thought about that. How common is that?

Uncommon.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

This is a liturgical forum I gather from what then ... if you want answers pertaining to individuals try the cult next door. Liturgical answers are for the nations

 

[Silmarien]

I was interested primarily in how churches understand this, and how it connects with their view of Scripture. I was hoping not to have it a debate on the issue.

I didn't mean to debate. Just commenting.

I think biblical inerrancy is mostly just a Protestant thing, though. With the Catholics and Orthodox, it seems to be at least as much an issue of what the Church Fathers said and how they interpreted things. When people start arguing about ontological impossibilities, the issue is really not what the Bible said.

 

[Tallguy88]

After watching a number of debates on women's leadership, it seems to me that acceptance of women leaders is closely tied to inerrancy. Inerrancy in practice seems to mean not just no factual errors, but that Paul's advice to 1st Cent churches applies directly to us.

Are there churches that hold inerrancy and also have women as ordained leaders? Are there churches that don't accept inerrancy that don't?

Pentecostals believe in Biblical inerrancy and have female pastors.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Pentecostals believe in Biblical inerrancy and have female pastors.

The old time Pentecostals were against any form of theological education. They felt that academic training was of the flesh and not a dependence on the Holy Spirit. This could also have been a reaction against the traditional churches that have seminary trained priests and ministers. In the Assembly of God church where I was converted, it was not until the late 1960s that they decided to set up a Bible college to train their pastors. I was brainwashed into believing that it was not consistent with the Holy Spirit to do theological training, and it was not until I was 66 before I started on my MDiv. Once having completed it, and found what an amazing three year journey it was, I know now that I should have done it 30 years ago!

Actually, in my late 20s, I discovered Banner of Truth Trust Puritan literature and read many books from that publisher. It gave me a solid foundation. But many of my Pentecostal friends looked sideways at me when I started to share what I was discovering. Of course Puritan theology is largely Calvinist, and the Pentecostal circles I was moving in were Arminian, so I am not surprised at that.

It is probably the reason why, in my last Pentecostal church (in the 1970s) that I was not invited to be part of the "in" group who got most of the preaching and ministry opportunities.

I firmly believe in a well-trained and educated clergy to run our churches. The reason why there are so many weird and wonderful doctrines in the Pentecostal movement is that the theological training of many pastors and church members is limited and deficient. I left the Pentecostal movement because I got sick of hearing the same old sermons about the baptism and gifts of the Spirit time after time, and I wanted to hear ministry that went a bit deeper than that. Over the last 20 years, I have enjoyed the richness of the Anglican, Baptist and Presbyterian parts of the Church and I think that I would be poorer in my faith if I had not have had fellowship and experiences in those churches.

My theology is Westminster Confession plus the continuance of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit. I have a good text on Pentecostal Theology which reflects that. But I would not go back and join a Pentecostal church. The last time I did, there were too many "spooky spiritual" things going on there that made me want to run a mile from the place. Some of the sensory "spiritual" stuff that goes on in some of our modern Pentecostal churches seems to be more akin to New Age than traditional Christian faith and practice. Sad to say it, but probably quite true.

 

[PloverWing]

I think that the issue of women in leadership is indeed closely tied to inerrancy. There's no good reason to exclude women from leadership roles except for the belief that this is something God has commanded in Scripture and/or sacred tradition.

I don't know the ordination customs of all the conservative denominations, but I do know that a number of individual inerrantist theologians have written books on how St Paul has been misread, and how the New Testament doesn't really command us to exclude women from church leadership. Gilbert Bilezikian is one, but there are others.

 

[~Anastasia~]

After watching a number of debates on women's leadership, it seems to me that acceptance of women leaders is closely tied to inerrancy. Inerrancy in practice seems to mean not just no factual errors, but that Paul's advice to 1st Cent churches applies directly to us.

Are there churches that hold inerrancy and also have women as ordained leaders? Are there churches that don't accept inerrancy that don't?

I don't think it's a question of inerrancy or not for us.

I see Orthodoxy often misunderstood by many. No, we do not ordain women as priests. It's not a leadership role that women are restricted from, but a sacramental one. And I don't think it has much to do with St. Paul. Rather, because God established the priesthood, and specified a male priesthood, which was carried into the presbyters and overseers of the New Testament Church - this is what we maintain.

But - women can perform any tasks or ministry, except for sacramental ones, in the local body. Priests are not generally the "leader" of the parish. Those tasks usually fall to a parish council, elected by the laity from among the laity, and can include women as well as men. Women can teach, can lead various kinds of ministry, and so on.

We regard Christianity as being a faith that equalizes men and women, not subjugating women. And having participated in a fair variety of denominations in my life, I do find it to be much more respectful of women and ready to listen to their ideas and use their full potential for the edification of the body and outreach to others than any I have been involved in before.

 

[FireDragon76]

After watching a number of debates on women's leadership, it seems to me that acceptance of women leaders is closely tied to inerrancy. Inerrancy in practice seems to mean not just no factual errors, but that Paul's advice to 1st Cent churches applies directly to us.

Are there churches that hold inerrancy and also have women as ordained leaders? Are there churches that don't accept inerrancy that don't?

It seems to be more of a conservative/liberal split. Inerrancy is related to that, but not directly.

Low views of the ordained ministry seem to be more compatible with women's ministry. Most churches that have a very high view of the ordained ministry do not allow women to be priests.

 

[Paidiske]

It's not a leadership role that women are restricted from, but a sacramental one.

The problem with this claim, as I see it, is that leadership is often concentrated in the hands of the clergy. Parish councils are one thing, but the local body isn't where a lot of the power really is. Where are the women in synods, in Orthodoxy, since synodical governance is restricted to bishops? (For example).

As long as clericalism pairs leadership and decision making power with sacramental ministry - and it does, even in my denomination - then claiming that refusing to ordain women doesn't deny them leadership rings a bit hollow.

 

[FireDragon76]

The problem with this claim, as I see it, is that leadership is often concentrated in the hands of the clergy. Parish councils are one thing, but the local body isn't where a lot of the power really is. Where are the women in synods, in Orthodoxy, since synodical governance is restricted to bishops? (For example).

As long as clericalism pairs leadership and decision making power with sacramental ministry - and it does, even in my denomination - then claiming that refusing to ordain women doesn't deny them leadership rings a bit hollow.

ArmyMatt informed me that some Orthodox jurisdictions do have lay representation in the synods. Whether that includes women, I do not know. I don't think its an issue of dogma so much as custom.

I agree with your observation, BTW. It's easy to have a romantic image of the ordained ministry as only sacramental servants.