What does the Bible say on women becoming pastors?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

IF he has forbidden us to say anything that might be construed as leading/teaching men, that should apply everywhere.

Yes. This is Truth. As Written.
('cept 'construed' that is - 'construed' may not matter - if someone watching a woman speak properly, and 'construes' obedience as something else, for example, doesn't change the obedience nor the need and blessing of being obedient) i.e. also do what the Father in heaven directs, always what He Says, always what is right, no matter what it costs, or what people think.

 

[oldhermit]

There is a broad universal consensus among traditional churches such as continuing Anglicans, traditional Lutherans, and several of the Orthodox churches, and several other Protestant churches, that women can serve as deaconesses, which is a vital ministerial role, and also, in the Eastern churches, the wives of married priests (Presbyters) serve as Presbyteras in a maternal role over the entire congregation.

Many other traditional churches license women as lay speakers or as readers. In Anglican and even Orthodox churches it is not uncommon to hear the Epistle and any Old Testament lesson read by women.

Some traditional denominations like ACNA have female priests, but not female bishops; only recently and under some external pressure did the Church of England agree to having women serve in the episcopate.

The “mainline” churches such as the UMC, Episcopal Church, ELCA, PCUSA, Christian Church / Disciples of Christ, the Moravians, the American Baptist Convention, and the United Church of Christ, generally allow women to serve in all ministries.

The same is also true of some of the semi-traditional churches that broke away from the mainline churches due to homosexuality, such as the Evengelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians and the North American Lutheran Church.

How does any of this overturn the prohibition of 1 Cor 14? Which do you accept as the authority, traditional churches or scripture?

 

[Strong in Him]

No, Paul is very explicit. This prohibition was to be exercised when the whole church was assembled.

Presumably then, a woman would have been allowed to teach, preach and prophesy when only part of the church were assembled??
Either God has forbidden a woman to speak/preach or he hasn't; why do numbers make a difference?

All you are trying to do is to create some scenario that, in your mind, will nullify this revealed prohibition.

No; it's your interpretation that it is a "repeated prohibition"; I do not agree.
Show me the verse that says "God commands that no woman be allowed to preach the Gospel in the church, ever" - in those words so there is no ambiguity. Show me where Jesus taught this and where his teaching on the subject appears in Scripture, and I will agree that as Jesus taught and commanded it, it is indisputable and final.

This is not a clear teaching - hence the many, heated debates on the subject.
Unless you are implying the some Christian women are disobedient, do whatever they want to do and the Lord is powerless to stop them.

If your argument is sound then by extension, the restriction Paul placed upon men under the same conditions would also not apply when small groups met together.

I am pretty sure the argument was that women should not preach/prophesy IN CHURCH. All I said was that it is the people who are the church, not the building. So if you have a small group, or even half the congregation, meeting together in a home or another building for worship; those people are part of the church. Not ALL of it because that is all Christians.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes. This is Truth. As Written.

Many disagree that it is, though; that's why these debates get so heated.
And if you really believed that, surely you would not read a book/sing a hymn that had been written by a woman in case you learnt something?

In the 1300s, the Pope asked Catherine of Siena to teach his cardinals, and many other women wrote books and meditations. A number of mystics were women.

 

[Strong in Him]

How does any of this overturn the prohibition of 1 Cor 14?

Who says that there is a prohibition in 1 Corinthians 14 - that Paul's words there are for us and to be applied to us?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And if you really believed that, surely you would not read a book/sing a hymn that had been written by a woman in case you learnt something?

Does not apply, has nothing to do with what the topic is in Scripture.
===================================================
Does not apply, has nothing to do with what the topic is Scripturally.

In the 1300s, the Pope asked Catherine of Siena to teach his cardinals, and many other women wrote books and meditations. A number of mystics were women.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As always, (should be), ask the Father. He Reveals this to all His children.

Who says that there is a prohibition in 1 Corinthians 14 - that Paul's words there are for us and to be applied to us?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Either God has forbidden a woman to speak/preach or he hasn't; why do numbers make a difference?

Mixed messages in one sentence here.
There is A HUGE DIFFERENCE, in speaking, and preaching.

 

[Deidre32]

Looks I need to reread certain parts of the Bible as a refresher, for I didn't realize that the Bible teaches ''women are the glory of men, but men are the glory of God.'' The Bible specifically states that we (men and women) are made in God's image, not just man. While I take the Bible literally, not everything we read in the Bible, was ordained or approved by God. Am I to cover my head when praying and when at church? Why do we cherry pick what certain passages of Scripture are telling us?

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has {something} on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have {a symbol of} authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man {has his birth} through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God {with head} uncovered. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (NASB)

 

[oldhermit]

Presumably then, a woman would have been allowed to teach, preach and prophesy when only part of the church were assembled??
Either God has forbidden a woman to speak/preach or he hasn't; why do numbers make a difference?

No; it's your interpretation that it is a "repeated prohibition"; I do not agree.
Show me the verse that says "God commands that no woman be allowed to preach the Gospel in the church, ever" - in those words so there is no ambiguity. Show me where Jesus taught this and where his teaching on the subject appears in Scripture, and I will agree that as Jesus taught and commanded it, it is indisputable and final.

This is not a clear teaching - hence the many, heated debates on the subject.
Unless you are implying the some Christian women are disobedient, do whatever they want to do and the Lord is powerless to stop them.

I am pretty sure the argument was that women should not preach/prophesy IN CHURCH. All I said was that it is the people who are the church, not the building. So if you have a small group, or even half the congregation, meeting together in a home or another building for worship; those people are part of the church. Not ALL of it because that is all Christians.

Women were not forbidden to teach or prophesy except when the Church was ASSEMBLED. In other words, when the Church came together for worship, the women were commanded to remain silent. Paul says this command was from the Lord and that anyone who does not accept this command is to be ignored. In John 17:28, Jesus said that belief in him was to be attained through the words of the apostles. You do not seem to be willing to accept this. In Luke 10:16, Jesus told those whom he sent out in his name, "He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” Those who will not accept the word of Paul are rejection the word of the Lord.

This teaching is very clear and impossible to misunderstand. The problem is not with the ambiguity of scripture. The problem is with one's willingness to obey what is written.

As to women who disregard this prohibition, yes, they are willful and disobedient. Women who take upon them selves roles of preachers or pastors do so not because of what scripture teaches but in spite of it and the Lord will deal with them in his own time as he sees fit.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why do we cherry pick what certain passages of Scripture are telling us?

Who is "we" here ?

It does not apply to , for instance, Ekklesia in the NT, or those living right today.

 

[Strong in Him]

Mixed messages in one sentence here.
There is A HUGE DIFFERENCE, in speaking, and preaching.

I'm aware of that.
But there are, and have been, those who believe 1 Timothy 2:12 is to be taken literally - so if women can't speak in church, they certainly can't preach.

 

[Strong in Him]

As always, (should be), ask the Father. He Reveals this to all His children.

The answer's in Scripture if you read the verses in the context of the passage, and don't try to form a doctrine from one verse on its own.

 

[Strong in Him]

Does not apply, has nothing to do with what the topic is in Scripture.
===================================================
Does not apply, has nothing to do with what the topic is Scripturally.

I said, "IF God is saying that women cannot teach ...", and you replied, "yes - as it is written."

I was firstly asking you how you define "teach", and then giving examples of Godly women who have taught others.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Corrie ten Boom was /is a perfect example testimony of Jesus in her life and words and speaking engagements arranged by the Father. (I think in 63 countries over decades after wwII)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm aware of that.
But there are, and have been, those who believe 1 Timothy 2:12 is to be taken literally - so if women can't speak in church, they certainly can't preach.

Could you print out the text of short Scripture references used in the posts? They don't render.

 

[Albion]

I'm aware of that.
But there are, and have been, those who believe 1 Timothy 2:12 is to be taken literally - so if women can't speak in church, they certainly can't preach.

Which might resolve the problem...but only with regard to that small minority which makes this particular verse their justification. For that reason, I always resist having it be front and center in any discussion of women's ordination.

 

[Robin Mauro]

So, when Paul said that ALL scripture is by inspiration from God, you believe he is wrong? Please elaborate how one applies the acid test for truth if not accepting of all that is written by the hands of the men who were inspired by the Most High. Do you believe society and culture define morality and ethics. Please clarify.



And yet the Lord chose imperfect men to write down what He inspired them to write. Paul had clearly stated when something was from himself rather than the Lord, and stated that all else is from the Lord. Are you now saying that we are all qualified to differentiate, on some unnamed, undefined, subjective basis, what is acceptable and what is not as originating from God?

Jr

I need to do an intensive study on this, and this discussion has inspred me to do so, but that will take some time.
For now I will say, in at least one instance, Paul is addressing a church that is out of line; too many people speaking at once, prophesying without an interpreter, getting drunk, leaving some hungry...
We may be taking Paul's letter out of context, and there also may be things left unsaid. In the context of a disorderly church, some women may have been speaking out and possibly arguing or questioning ( thus, ask your husbands at home) the speaker during the service, which no one, neither man nor woman should do.
God showed me this very thing once when during a church service, the Pastor's wife began arguing with the Pastor, her husband, about his teaching on tithing. It was inappropriate, and extremely rude. So Paul may have been addressing a certain church with certain problems going on, which when you look at the order he gives for speaking in tongues, it is clear he was.
In another instance, he specified "I", making it clear it was his view, not everyone's, and I suspect there is some further debate going on which we are not privy to.
When Paul was determined to go to Rome, and everyone told him not to, including 4 virgin prophetsses (implied in context, not absolute), and everyone told him the Spirit was telling him not to go, he went his own way anyway.
Who was right?
I do not know.
I point this out to say everything is not cut and dried in the Bible, like when Peter got the vision that everything was okay to eat, turning God's previous law on it's head.
God does not change, but sometimes his requirements do...best case in point, Jesus' sacrifice and faith replacing keeping the law to be saved. And yet, we are still commanded to keep the bulk of the law, but not the letter...meaning not getting hung up on every fine detail

 

[Paidiske]

Presumably, he is talking about when the Church assembles for public worship.

Except in Paul's day, there was no Christian "public worship." That didn't come until later, when Christianity was legal.

And I would just generally remind folks that it's one thing to disagree, it's quite another to flame those with whom you disagree; and some posts are tipping over into flaming territory.

 

[Robin Mauro]

So, when Paul said that ALL scripture is by inspiration from God, you believe he is wrong? Please elaborate how one applies the acid test for truth if not accepting of all that is written by the hands of the men who were inspired by the Most High. Do you believe society and culture define morality and ethics. Please clarify.



And yet the Lord chose imperfect men to write down what He inspired them to write. Paul had clearly stated when something was from himself rather than the Lord, and stated that all else is from the Lord. Are you now saying that we are all qualified to differentiate, on some unnamed, undefined, subjective basis, what is acceptable and what is not as originating from God?

Jr

So I accidentally hit post before I was done and I'm not sure where it went. Assuming you can read what I already wrote, to continue...not getting hung up on every fine detail, like eating and drinking. We are not under the law anymore. And God does new things. But I am just trying to understand, as I am sure you are too.
No I do not think man gets to make up his own rules; those come from God. But not everything is cut and dried. Black churches are interactive, with people responding to the preaching as it is going on. I find it inspiring. Do you think God opposes this? I do not. God has room for different cultures

So, when Paul said that ALL scripture is by inspiration from God, you believe he is wrong? Please elaborate how one applies the acid test for truth if not accepting of all that is written by the hands of the men who were inspired by the Most High. Do you believe society and culture define morality and ethics. Please clarify.



And yet the Lord chose imperfect men to write down what He inspired them to write. Paul had clearly stated when something was from himself rather than the Lord, and stated that all else is from the Lord. Are you now saying that we are all qualified to differentiate, on some unnamed, undefined, subjective basis, what is acceptable and what is not as originating from God?

Jr[/cultures
Dang! Hit reply again by accident. If you can follow, to continue, like eating in an idol's temple.
We learn from God, not the other way around. But we are to search and study scriptute to understand, because it is not all simple. Was it James who said Paul's teaching was difficult to understand? That is why we discuss/debate.
Please pray for me and I will pray for you too.
I have like 8 other responses, and am getting burned out on this for now.