Is prohibiting female church leadership (over men) legalistic?

[ICONO'CLAST]

bekkilyn,
[the fact that God has called many women to be pastors and that he is still calling women to be pastors today makes it very clear that God himself has no issues with the idea]
God has not called any woman to be a pastor when the scripture is clearly saying the exact opposite.
1tim 3, and Titus give the qualifications for men to be pastors.
A person cannot just set aside the scriptures which are our rule for faith and practice.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

bekkilyn,

[God certainly *does* have the capability to do as he deems fit, and he deems it fit to continue to ordain both women ]

And yet you have not shown any verse of scripture to support this mistaken idea.

[The bible is composed of letters and other books written by a number of different people. ]
It seems many people here have a defective view of scripture
Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures
1._____ The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; Hebrews 1:1; Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20 )

4._____ The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
( 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9 )

5._____We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
( John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27)

6._____The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Galatians 1:8,9; John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9-12; 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26,40)

7._____All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.
( 2 Peter 3:16; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130)



[Yes, it is authoritative in instructing us about God and his character and in showing us the gospel and way of salvation through Christ, but it is *not* God himself. We do not worship "the bible". We worship Christ. Christ existed long before any books of the bible were ever written, and would continue to exist even if all of the books of the bible were destroyed tomorrow. Christianity is not based on the bible, but on the living *person* of Jesus Christ.]

The bible is the greatest gift from God to man, without it we would not know God, or the eternal purpose of God.
[

In almost every language into the mid 20th century, male gender was used to address both male and female.

3 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

How would a woman fulfill this condition if the language does not mean what it says, as you seem to suggest?

Am I not understanding your post correctly when you suggest it could be a man or a woman? Do you see how that would be quite foolish here?

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

then in the same context it mentions wives;
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

 

[~Zao~]

The only person identified with anything close to the title of deacon in the Bible is a woman,

Romans 16:1-2

16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon[a] of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.

Footnotes:

1. 
   
   
   • Romans 16:1 Or servant
   • Romans 16:1 The word deacon refers here to a Christian designated to serve with the overseers/elders of the church in a variety of ways; similarly in Phil. 1:1 and 1 Tim. 3:8,12.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Pork still cause inflammation... If a man watch a female trying to lead him there is of course the risk that he sees her either as a motherfigure or wifefigure or simply as a sexual being - and forgets everything she says, he only remembers the visual. So how will then his wife and mother feel about that. But if he does not see her that way maybe it might be of some good use, of course the female leader should be responsible for what impression she want to make too. So yes somewhat times change but still men and women are going to feel attracted by each other and often men are the visual ones. Women often need to feel loved, touched and kissed. Say if I am to having a discussion with a group that has both women and men, middleaged or older then I prefer not wearing makeup and dress respectably or use makeup sparingly because I want to be taken seriously. If it is basically women or young people or fashionistas, singers, artists, actors or hairdressers or that kind of people I might add more makeup. Because otherwise they might get bored by my natural looks. I might use more colour in my clothes too. A female leader however should no matter looks think of the people the congregation the church and not be tied down with family and housechores so I suspect a woman has hands full of kids unless it is grandkids and housechores. Who will take over for her if she leads? Will her husband do that? Will they share the responsibility? Can the church be like an extended relative of brothers and sisters where noone really feel they are the greatest or the most worthy leader? Was it not so that the leader should be ready to do eaven the pettiest chore and serve even the smallest of them without having lofty thoughts of himself or herself. But I would say that because the world is as it is today I think it is a need to have at least one feamel leader in the church that has as much rights and knowledge as a pastor or priest because there are a few women that dare not talk to or do not think a male priest understand them In some particular christian struggles that maybe women understand better. Not that all women are understanding either, I am not saying that. I also think that a how did You like our church today responce box for the church leaders is good selfevaluation. And a box on anonomous ideas how to improve. You never know what people can write that they otherwise are too scared to stand for to say to a leader. And the leader might not approve of it because the idea came from a particular person so it better be anonomous. It is a follow up of good ideas, and peoples wellbeing and if an idea is tried once or twice and many people dislike it then try another for awhile. You can not please everyone but I suppose people mostly leave church because they either are upset or bored.

Nice. I have noticed a lot of opinions that don't rely on scripture, but these are usually in support of female leaders (having authority over men). Yours seems to be an opinion piece also, but in support of women not being leaders.

I have to confess, if it were only up to my opinion, I would probably grant women authority over men, either because I know of a few women who I do believe would be good leaders, or maybe due to the incessant calls of feminists to allow women in charge. Fortunately, the Word of God doesn't leave it up to my opinion, and spells it out very clearly.

The best scriptural arguments I have seen so far in support of women leaders over men focus on Deborah, and her being a (respectful) exception, rather than the rule. Note also that Deborah had a husband, and as she was quite respected in Israel, no doubt honoured her husband also. I think this criteria alone would rule out many women who believe they are ordained by God to be pastors.

 

[Dave-W]

Am I not understanding your post correctly when you suggest it could be a man or a woman? Do you see how that would be quite foolish here?

In the first century, gender usage in most every language including Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin used the generic masculine unless something was COMPLETELY female. IOW, if you had a group of a thousand women and only one man, they were referred to in the masculine.

So yes, that is EXACTLY what I am saying.
And no, I do not see that as foolish.


Both men and women were made in God's image. Not just males. In fact, most of the OT descriptions of God other than "Father" are rather feminine and even motherly. To exclude women from congregational leadership robs the body of that part of God's character being exampled to the congregation.

 

[Paidiske]

Note also that Deborah had a husband, and as she was quite respected in Israel, no doubt honoured her husband also. I think this criteria alone would rule out many women who believe they are ordained by God to be pastors.

Why would you think that?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

How so? Do we ever see women priests in the OT? No. Save for Deborah, do we ever see women prophets in the OT? No. She was, by the singular nature of her situation as a female prophetess, a very rare exception rather than the rule. Do we ever see a woman set up by God as Queen over Israel? No. While some laws might have been violable in the OT in certain circumstances, not all of them were.

I think this might be key. I would argue that Deborah was a prophetess, and not a leader (as the kings were), of Israel. This was why she summoned Barak (rather than led Israel herself). He was to lead the men of Israel (effectively acting as a temporary king). When Barak asked Deborah to come with him, she acquiesced to his request (as would be proper for a prophet to obey a king), but God gave the battle glory to a woman because of Barak's fear (and asking a woman into a role not for her). The lengths God (and Deborah) went to in this event indicate to me that God might use women in leadership over men (rarely, if ever), but such would be special cases, and as in the case with Deborah, a Godly woman would go to lengths to assign the authority where it was due (i.e. to a man).

Well, their absence - or almost total absence - in these roles supports/sets a very clear precedent for Paul's prohibitions of women in places of spiritual authority over men.

Agreed. The rule is for women not to lead men. God may permit exceptions on rare occasions, but unless God has revealed to us that the particular case in an exception, we should rely on scripture.

Your unfounded speculation aside, the woman described in the chapter was not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And she is set up as model for women in the OT.

It may have been an exaggeration, but she certainly bore children. And judging by the respect she is given by her husband, her children, and the townspeople, it's likely she had quite a few more than 2, so the exaggeration wasn't all that unrealistic. Refer also to Proverbs 31:23 and Psalm 127:4-5. In those times (and by Godly people today, in my view), children were considered a blessing, and the Proverbs 31 wife would have known this, and not held back from her duty to bear them for her husband.

Proverbs 31
11 Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

Psalm 127:4 - 5
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth.
Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

Says the never-to-be-pregnant man.

This is the genetic logical fallacy. It's not logical to judge the truth of a statement from it's source.

It's not merely my opinion that the description of women you've adopted is/was commonly used to describe an oppressive state of affairs.

Modern society and I often have contrary opinions, but in most cases, my opinion is the correct one.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Why would you think that?

Many of the women I have seen clamouring to get a church leadership position are either single, divorced, or do not respect their husbands.

 

[Paidiske]

And many of the women I've known in church leadership do respect their husbands.

Anecdata doesn't prove anything.

Actually, even more than that... for some denominations, at least, the spouse is also interviewed prior to ordination, to ensure their willing support of their spouse in ministry, and that it isn't going to put undue strain on the marriage etc. Certainly my husband was interviewed with me, by both a bishop and a psychologist. So there is even a form of screening for dysfunctional marriage in that kind of way.

 

[~Zao~]

Many of the women I have seen clamouring to get a church leadership position are either single, divorced, or do not respect their husbands.

I see you using this thread for your own agenda rather than facilitating a discussion.

 

[RDKirk]

And on what basis, exactly, do you supersede all of God's universal moral laws with the Golden Rule? Christ himself condemns all manner of sinful behaviour: hypocrisy, sexual sin, pride, etc. Is he in violation of the Golden Rule in doing so? Obviously not.

Except that female leadership in a congregation is not listed as sinful behavior.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I see you using this thread for your own agenda rather than facilitating a discussion.

I apologise if I have overlooked where you have used scripture as evidence to support your position. The only arguments I hear from those who support female leadership over men is either that scripture was wrong, Paul (and therefore scripture) was wrong, or that it was a cultural issue (refuted by scripture itself). The first two arguments are intolerable to me - I asked to argue from scripture. Even if proven true in another thread, refuting scripture would only invalidate the authority of any in the church (men and women), as a God who is wrong is no God at all. If this were a cultural issue, the scripture wouldn't refer to Adam and Eve, and Eve being deceived and sinning. That leaves opinion.

Feel free to correct me if this is an inaccurate summary, but I don't believe it is.

 

[Paidiske]

I apologise if I have overlooked where you have used scripture as evidence to support your position. The only arguments I hear from those who support female leadership over men is either that scripture was wrong, Paul (and therefore scripture) was wrong, or that it was a cultural issue (refuted by scripture itself). The first two arguments are intolerable to me - I asked to argue from scripture. Even if proven true in another thread, refuting scripture would only invalidate the authority of any in the church (men and women), as a God who is wrong is no God at all. If this were a cultural issue, the scripture wouldn't refer to Adam and Eve, and Eve being deceived and sinning. That leaves opinion.

Feel free to correct me if this is an inaccurate summary, but I don't believe it is.

The problem is that your argument has descended to denigrating women in ministry (as, for example, not honouring their husbands) rather than debating Scripture.

I'm not arguing that Scripture was wrong. I'm arguing that the Scriptural evidence is that the earliest church did have women in leadership, and therefore that the verses commonly cited against it cannot be taken as an absolute prohibition, when Paul himself commended women in leadership roles.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

The problem is that your argument has descended to denigrating women in ministry (as, for example, not honouring their husbands) rather than debating Scripture.

Actually, it hasn't. You asked me for my opinion on why I said I believed many women would be disqualified on criteria for leadership simply by looking at Deborah, and I answered you with what I had personally experienced. No denigration to women in ministry at all - simply my experience with those I've observed.

I'm not arguing that Scripture was wrong. I'm arguing that the Scriptural evidence is that the earliest church did have women in leadership, and therefore that the verses commonly cited against it cannot be taken as an absolute prohibition, when Paul himself commended women in leadership roles.

Scripture does not support this statement. You have argued that a few names mentioned in scripture were names of women. Scripture does not indicate these had authority over men, and it would be inconsistent to believe they did, given most of the women were referenced by Paul, and it was he himself who spoke against women leading men. You can claim what you like, but your argument doesn't logically follow. Feel free to post the relevant scriptures if you disagree, but I'm certain any unbiased onlooker who knows anything of logic will come to the same conclusion as I state here.

 

[Paidiske]

Actually, it hasn't. You asked me for my opinion on why I said I believed many women would be disqualified on criteria for leadership simply by looking at Deborah, and I answered you with what I had personally experienced. No denigration to women in ministry at all - simply my experience with those I've observed.

Which was a denigrating comment that women "clamouring" for church leadership don't respect their husbands.

Scripture does not support this statement. You have argued that a few names mentioned in scripture were names of women. Scripture does not indicate these had authority over men, and it would be inconsistent to believe they did, given most of the women were referenced by Paul, and it was he himself who spoke against women leading men. You can claim what you like, but your argument doesn't logically follow. Feel free to post the relevant scriptures if you disagree, but I'm certain any unbiased onlooker who knows anything of logic will come to the same conclusion as I state here.

Phoebe is mentioned as a deacon; a position of authority. Junia as an apostle. Many other women who hosted (and therefore, given the conventions of the day, led the gatherings of) house churches.

You can dismiss them, but there they stand, as evidence that Paul wasn't making a universal rule against women in leadership roles.

And it will take only a quick survey of the available literature for you to realise that not everyone does come to the same conclusion as you have; and it would be unfair of you to dismiss all of that scholarship as "biased."

 

[~Zao~]

Unsubscribed

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nice. I have noticed a lot of opinions that don't rely on scripture, but these are usually in support of female leaders (having authority over men). Yours seems to be an opinion piece also, but in support of women not being leaders.

I have to confess, if it were only up to my opinion, I would probably grant women authority over men, either because I know of a few women who I do believe would be good leaders, or maybe due to the incessant calls of feminists to allow women in charge. Fortunately, the Word of God doesn't leave it up to my opinion, and spells it out very clearly.

The best scriptural arguments I have seen so far in support of women leaders over men focus on Deborah, and her being a (respectful) exception, rather than the rule. Note also that Deborah had a husband, and as she was quite respected in Israel, no doubt honoured her husband also. I think this criteria alone would rule out many women who believe they are ordained by God to be pastors.

Does the Bible say that Deborah's husband was "honored" in the same way that she was? Now who's offering an opinion that doesn't "rely" upon Scripture?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Which was a denigrating comment that women "clamouring" for church leadership don't respect their husbands.

Note the "I have seen" in my statement. If the comment was denigrating, it was to the women I had observed in church leadership. Not to all. Please don't misrepresent me.

Many of the women I have seen clamouring to get a church leadership position are either single, divorced, or do not respect their husbands.

Phoebe is mentioned as a deacon; a position of authority. Junia as an apostle. Many other women who hosted (and therefore, given the conventions of the day, led the gatherings of) house churches.

Deacons, or hostesses (e.g. caterers). If there was reference to a female apostle, this is simply one who had seen Christ. No one denies women saw Christ. Note that deacons are servants, and do not have the authority of pastor (leadership over men). Paul would not give a command from the Lord, then commend those who are breaking it. This would be logically absurd.

You can dismiss them, but there they stand, as evidence that Paul wasn't making a universal rule against women in leadership roles.

I don't dismiss them, but a deacon is not an elder (I believe the word means servant), and nowhere does scripture indicate these (female) servants had authority over men.

And it will take only a quick survey of the available literature for you to realise that not everyone does come to the same conclusion as you have; and it would be unfair of you to dismiss all of that scholarship as "biased."

I don't deny that not everyone comes to the same conclusion as I have. My argument is that such conclusions (allowing women to have authority over men) are logically inconsistent with scripture, and therefore incorrect.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Does the Bible say that Deborah's husband was "honored" in the same way that she was? Now who's offering an opinion that doesn't "rely" upon Scripture?

Do people go to a judge they don't respect, for judgement?
Judges 4:4-5
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Do you respect your mom?
Judges 5:7 The villagers ceased in Israel;
they ceased to be until I arose;
I, Deborah, arose as a mother in Israel.

 

[aiki]

Except that female leadership in a congregation is not listed as sinful behavior.

And what would it be when a woman, in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture, assumes a position of spiritual authority and instruction over men as their pastor?

In any case, my point concerning the Golden Rule was a more general one. Skywriting seems to think it supersedes all other moral injunctions but I don't see good grounds from Scripture for such a view - as Jesus demonstrates.