What does the Bible say on women becoming pastors?

[Robin Mauro]

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 sorry, part of my reply wound up within your post. It was unintentional.

 

[oldhermit]

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

That simply is not true. The scriptures confirm that the Church met regularly on the first day of the week for worship, the public reading of scripture, and the breaking of bread. Even in the text we are examining, Paul confirms not only the first century practice of the Church coming together for the purpose of collective worship but also, the problems that needed to be corrected and how they were to conduct themselves when they assembled. If you would like some other examples, consider the following.

Acts 2:42, 46 tells us that the Christians "were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. …And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple...."

Acts 20:7 says that "on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."

In 1 Corinthians 11:18 Paul charged the Church at Corinth for having divisions among them when they came together. "When you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it."

The Christians were encouraged in Hebrews 10:24-25 not to forsake the assembly of the saints. "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." Forsaking the assembly in the first century had become a habit for some and it was a problem they needed to correct. ​

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

he went his own way anyway.

Re-double check this.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

we are still commanded to keep the bulk of the law, but not the letter...meaning not getting hung up on every fine detail

The details are important. Not 'trusting' the Torah as if to be saved by keeping the law, is the difference/ the issue.
Keep Torah, down to the smallest letter of the Torah, when Yahuweh Grants proper understanding of it , as He is well pleased so to do for little children.
He delights over us with singing and dancing !
Let us delight in His Word, rejoicing in great thanksgiving and praise to Him all day every day !

 

[Strong in Him]

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

No he doesn't, and this doesn't make sense.
Why would women be allowed to speak and prophesy outside of a church gathering but not when Christians came together? Are you saying that God had different rules for different occasions?
Where does it say that God commanded?
If it did say that, then God would be breaking his own word today.

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.

Of course I believe that what the Apostles taught was true and from the Lord - but not that every single word they uttered was taken literally, nor that it should be done so by us today.
As well as preaching the Gospel and teaching the faith, Paul and others wrote letters to churches to answer the specific problems they had and to answer their questions. Some of the letters contain personal remarks and are not doctrine for everyone.

For example, when speaking of false teachers, Paul said "I wish those agitators would go and castrate themselves", Galatians 5:12. The false teachers wouldn't have done this, but how many Galatians said, "Oh, this is God's command through the mouth of the apostle; we'd better find some false teachers and make them obey or do the job for them"? Or how many Christians today believe they are called to go and castrate JWs or other cult leaders and members, because the Apostle Paul said so?
Paul also asked Timothy to bring his cloak and his scrolls to him - these are words spoken through an Apostle; yet how many times have you been to Carpus to look for Paul's belongings so that you can return them to him, 2 Timothy 4:13?
Paul told Timothy to stop drinking water and to drink some wine for his frequent illnesses? How many time have you told sick people, and alcoholics, that they should drink wine to cure their illnesses because the Apostle Paul said so? I don't drink - and I'm not starting because this is what Paul said to Timothy.

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.

Accepting the word of Paul and believing it has to be applied to us today, are two very different things.
I believe and accept that Paul wrote "I wish all men were as I am" - i.e unmarried. That doesn't mean that I believe that marriage is wrong.

This teaching is very clear

No, it's not.
Unless you are saying that all those who believe differently from you are all wrong and deliberately claiming to misunderstand it so that they can ignore and disobey it?

The problem is not with the ambiguity of scripture.

The problem is with how people interpret Scripture.
The Bible does not contradict itself. There were prophetesses in the OT - women who gave God's word to men. In one case, the male priests chose to consult a woman, 2 Kings 22:14. Deborah was also a judge over all Israel.
In the NT, Jesus allowed women to take his word to men, and chose a woman to be the 1st witness to the resurrection.
Woman played a big part in the life of the early church; they were in the upper room before Pentecost, Acts of the Apostles 1:14. Lydia and others were at the place of prayer when Paul went to Philippi. He converted, and then stayed with them, and the Philippian church, which may have been co-founded by women, had deaconesses, Philippians 4:2. Paul also had a number of female co-workers, who he commended highly, see Romans 16.
Nowhere do we read in the NT that women were a problem, that if women spoke God's word they were to be ignored, that those who allowed women to minister were false teachers.
Yet some people look at a verse in one of the last letters that Paul ever wrote, seem to say, "that's it; women speakers forbidden" and ignore the rest of the NT.

As to women who disregard this prohibition, yes, they are willful and disobedient.

In your opinion.

Women who take upon them selves roles of preachers or pastors

I can assure you that I did not "take the role of preacher upon myself".
If I did not believe that God had called me to do it, there's no way I would be doing it. Spend hours reading, writing sermons and going to training days when I could be doing other things? No thanks.

but in spite of it

So you're saying that your sisters in Christ are deliberately disobeying the Lord we serve, and choosing to oppose and reject his word?

and the Lord will deal with them in his own time as he sees fit.

I am pretty sure that in most cases the words they/we will hear will be "well done good and faithful servants."

What if you are wrong and the Lord asks you why you have oppressed his daughters and tried to discourage them from fulfilling their calling? Your answer will be ......?

Must go - have a sermon to finish.

 

[oldhermit]

No he doesn't, and this doesn't make sense.
Why would women be allowed to speak and prophesy outside of a church gathering but not when Christians came together? Are you saying that God had different rules for different occasions?
Where does it say that God commanded?
If it did say that, then God would be breaking his own word today.



Of course I believe that what the Apostles taught was true and from the Lord - but not that every single word they uttered was taken literally, nor that it should be done so by us today.
As well as preaching the Gospel and teaching the faith, Paul and others wrote letters to churches to answer the specific problems they had and to answer their questions. Some of the letters contain personal remarks and are not doctrine for everyone.

For example, when speaking of false teachers, Paul said "I wish those agitators would go and castrate themselves", Galatians 5:12. The false teachers wouldn't have done this, but how many Galatians said, "Oh, this is God's command through the mouth of the apostle; we'd better find some false teachers and make them obey or do the job for them"? Or how many Christians today believe they are called to go and castrate JWs or other cult leaders and members, because the Apostle Paul said so?
Paul also asked Timothy to bring his cloak and his scrolls to him - these are words spoken through an Apostle; yet how many times have you been to Carpus to look for Paul's belongings so that you can return them to him, 2 Timothy 4:13?
Paul told Timothy to stop drinking water and to drink some wine for his frequent illnesses? How many time have you told sick people, and alcoholics, that they should drink wine to cure their illnesses because the Apostle Paul said so? I don't drink - and I'm not starting because this is what Paul said to Timothy.



Accepting the word of Paul and believing it has to be applied to us today, are two very different things.
I believe and accept that Paul wrote "I wish all men were as I am" - i.e unmarried. That doesn't mean that I believe that marriage is wrong.



No, it's not.
Unless you are saying that all those who believe differently from you are all wrong and deliberately claiming to misunderstand it so that they can ignore and disobey it?



The problem is with how people interpret Scripture.
The Bible does not contradict itself. There were prophetesses in the OT - women who gave God's word to men. In one case, the male priests chose to consult a woman, 2 Kings 22:14. Deborah was also a judge over all Israel.
In the NT, Jesus allowed women to take his word to men, and chose a woman to be the 1st witness to the resurrection.
Woman played a big part in the life of the early church; they were in the upper room before Pentecost, Acts of the Apostles 1:14. Lydia and others were at the place of prayer when Paul went to Philippi. He converted, and then stayed with them, and the Philippian church, which may have been co-founded by women, had deaconesses, Philippians 4:2. Paul also had a number of female co-workers, who he commended highly, see Romans 16.
Nowhere do we read in the NT that women were a problem, that if women spoke God's word they were to be ignored, that those who allowed women to minister were false teachers.
Yet some people look at a verse in one of the last letters that Paul ever wrote, seem to say, "that's it; women speakers forbidden" and ignore the rest of the NT.



In your opinion.



I can assure you that I did not "take the role of preacher upon myself".
If I did not believe that God had called me to do it, there's no way I would be doing it. Spend hours reading, writing sermons and going to training days when I could be doing other things? No thanks.



So you're saying that your sisters in Christ are deliberately disobeying the Lord we serve, and choosing to oppose and reject his word?



I am pretty sure that in most cases the words they/we will hear will be "well done good and faithful servants."

What if you are wrong and the Lord asks you why you have oppressed his daughters and tried to discourage them from fulfilling their calling? Your answer will be ......?

Must go - have a sermon to finish.

I think I have been very clear on this matter, and Paul has been equally clear. I think it may be better if you had I took a break on this since we are clearly not going to agree.

 

[oldhermit]

No, it's not.
Unless you are saying that all those who believe differently from you are all wrong and deliberately claiming to misunderstand it so that they can ignore and disobey it?

That is precisely what I am saying!​

 

[Strong in Him]

That is precisely what I am saying!​

I disagree.
I think it very unlikely that a lot of clergy, theologians, commentators and women who KNOW God and recognise his voice are all wrong, and you are correct.

It's also very brave of you to accuse your fellow Christians of wanting to ignore and disobey Scripture. I hope you don't regret those words one day.

 

[Strong in Him]

I think I have been very clear on this matter, and Paul has been equally clear. I think it may be better if you had I took a break on this since we are clearly not going to agree.

If you wish.
I haven't seen a lot of reasoned debate though -only the assertion that those who disagree with you are wrong. And it would be interesting to debate it properly.
But maybe not.

 

[oldhermit]

If you wish.
I haven't seen a lot of reasoned debate though -only the assertion that those who disagree with you are wrong. And it would be interesting to debate it properly.
But maybe not.

Perhaps we will discuss this again in time.

 

[hedrick]

I could have worded it to sound less harsh but the message would still be the same.

The problem isn’t so much that the argument is impolite as that it’s reversible. It’s not like the whole world considers women equal. That’s actually pretty recent in the US and still incomplete. There are plenty of contexts that retain the older traditions. I can just as well suspect you of being influenced by the long tradition of rejecting female leadership, and failing to see the actual implications of Scripture.

“He’s just following the world” really doesn’t settle anything. It's an excuse anyone can make, no matter what their position, to avoid considering carefully whether they are really seeing what’s there in Scripture. The NT use "the world" to refer to those who reject Christ, not for people within the Church who disagree with each other.

 

[The Liturgist]

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

Forgive me, I believe you misunderstood me. My post was only intended to provide information on the beliefs of different groups of churches on the subject, from a neutral perspective, so that members could be aware of the opinions of different churches on the ordination of women.

Since you asked about my own views, however, I accept the interpretation of certain traditional churches of the Pauline epistles concerning ordination.

You see, I myself am a high-church traditionalist with views on ordination taken from the Apostolic Canons, and certain later canon law, which is extremely strict and exacting in its requirements and disqualifications, for example Canon I of the Council of Nicea (which precludes men who have castrated themselves from being ordained). These canons are the interpretation of the early church of the Pauline epistles and Pastoral epistles (to Timothy, for example), concerning the ministry and holy orders; these do explicitly allow female deacons, and which also impose numerous restrictions on male ordinands which I think are generally proper, for example, a man who has murdered another, or who is an adulterer, after baptism, is inelligible for ordination even to the rank of reader, but is not said to be denied salvation or precluded from becoming a monk. These sins can be set aside if they occurred before baptism, as baptism is regarded in the early Church as an act of complete absolution, purification, regeneration and illumination in Christ Jesus.

The same canons also set in place a code of conduct for clergy which I view as being something to aspire to as a matter of practicality. In general, the overriding principle is that clergy should not indulge in worldly pleasures that are contrary to Christian moral principles as outlined by our Lord and His apostles in the New Testament.

I do enjoy very good relations with female clergy and seminarians, and I have also worked with them in the UCC, and there are many women who have a legitimate call to ministry (and a vast range of ministries are available to them, some uniquely, in some of the ancient churches of the East that view ordination as a sacrament). I attended several beautiful midweek services of vespers and the “Typika” (which is something like Anglican Ante-Communion; the Liturgy of the Word without Holy Communion), which were led by a female cantor, who together with a choir consisting of three women and one Russian man who sang basso profundo, although his speaking voice was remarkably in the upper range of a tenor, sang these services incredibly beautifully (the services in question are entirely sung including the reading of scripture)

I myself am leaning towards the idea of ordination being a sacrament, as it seems to me the qualities the Book of Common Prayer assigns to baptism and communion also attach to it, if not in precisely the same capacity, perhaps it at the very least is sacramental.

My arch-traditionalism notwithstanding, I enjoy to a very great extent working with female clergy and seminarians in different roles. I particularly love the enthusiasm for early church studies I find among female seminarians which is sometimes lacking among men. Since joining CF.com I have been especially delighted to make the acquaintance of @Paidiske, who is an exemplary minister.

One final point, which I think is important, is that it is my experience that when it comes to attendance at the divine services, enthusiasm for learning, and commitment to the church, women tend to be there reliably moreso than many male congregants, especially middle aged men for various reasons are disappointing in terms of attendance.

 

[The Liturgist]

That simply is not true. The scriptures confirm that the Church met regularly on the first day of the week for worship, the public reading of scripture, and the breaking of bread. Even in the text we are examining, Paul confirms not only the first century practice of the Church coming together for the purpose of collective worship but also, the problems that needed to be corrected and how they were to conduct themselves when they assembled. If you would like some other examples, consider the following.

Acts 2:42, 46 tells us that the Christians "were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. …And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple...."

Acts 20:7 says that "on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."

In 1 Corinthians 11:18 Paul charged the Church at Corinth for having divisions among them when they came together. "When you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it."

The Christians were encouraged in Hebrews 10:24-25 not to forsake the assembly of the saints. "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." Forsaking the assembly in the first century had become a habit for some and it was a problem they needed to correct. ​

It is true however that when Christianity was illegal and persecuted in the Roman Empire, starting under Nero, the worship of the church moved (often literally) underground. In the second century as the persecution relaxed a bit, worship was more public, then moved underground again during the persecutions under Commodus, then became very public during the “Little Peace of the Church”, which had the unfortunate result of allowing Diocletian’s goons to easily round up Christian bishops and other ministers.

As far as I am aware, Christianity was generally legal in Edessa and certain other parts of Mesopotamia and Persia, and from its inception around 45 AD, always legal in India, after the martyrdom of the Apostle Thomas and the subsequent change of heart among the local rulers which allowed the Judeo-Syrian Christian community to thrive and convert members of the local population (a privilege famously voluntarily renounced by the Zoroastrian Parsees of India, who to gain admission and escape severe conditions under Islam, in the 9th century, promised not to convert anyone or receive anyone by marriage into their religion). In fact, the Hindus with their bizarre caste system were quick to define Christianity as a caste, the “Nasranis”, and Nasranis were considered a desirable caste in the Malabar Coast, a caste whose population would be positioned to “offset” the undesirability of other castes. The caste system as you can guess did later interfere with evangelism, but not before the great majority of St. Thomas Christians were of Indian ethnicity (with some descending from the Kochin Jews of Kerala, whose most famous scion was Vidal Sassoon, and others a part of an endogamous minority within the Nasrani community descended from the Jewish survivors of a shipwreck in, I think - the third century, or thereabouts, who embraced Christianity but marry only among themselves, to preserve the ancient lineage, and have their own parishes, which are open to others, but which primarily serve this community).

I would also note the St. Thomas Christians nowadays include three surviving ancient Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions, a Uniate/Eastern Catholic church established during Portuguese rule, another Uniate church founded in the 20th century, a province of the Assyrian Church of the East, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, which is liturgically Protestant and a member of the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and also the only Anglican church to be in communion with an Orthodox church (one of the three Oriental churches mentioned above), various specifically Nasrani Protestant and Charismatic churches (which like the rest I have mentioned, mainly worship in the Malayalam language and to a diminishing extent among the Catholics, Orthodox and Assyrians, Classical Syriac Aramaic), some Western Rite Roman Catholics and Anglicans of the Church of South India, although these are not very popular among the St. Thomas Christians, consisting mainly of Indian converts to Christianity from elsewhere (Christianity is the third largest religion in India, with twice the members of Sikhism or Jainism, and more than four times the members of the Buddhists; only Islam, and the vast array of Hindu sects, represent larger religious groups).

These traditional St. Thomas churches (Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Syro Malabar Catholic, Malankara Catholic, Mar Thoma Syrian Church (Anglican) all hold to a traditional view on women’s ordination, and several of them have continued to have deaconesses, which is an office which for unknown reasons disappeared from some of the other ancient churches prior to the Great Schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

So India is an interesting example of a place where Christianity survived from antiquity with minimal persecution, in the region of the Malabar Coast, and also, in the past, in Sri Lanka (unfortunately, the St. Thomas Christians there died off, although there still are churches, unlike the island of Socotra near Yemen, which once had a thriving Christian community and is now nearly uninhabited since the Christians were martyred in a genocide about 650 years ago). And it is also a place where we see a traditional Anglican church in communion with an Orthodox Church and Lambeth Palace, which is pretty...unique, and it is a place where the ancient canons on ordination I mentioned in my previous post have always been in place among these traditional churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

Given that the shepherd dates to a time not much later than the latest NT works, it demonstrates how things were actually done in the communities which produced those works (or, more accurately at least, in the church in Rome). Therefore, when it shows a church in which prophecy was confined to the gathered community, it is reasonable to think that that was not a very recent development but that NT churches would also have had prophecy in the gathered community (including from women). Nothing in the NT contradicts this.



The Biblical text gives me Phoebe the deacon and Junia the apostle. It gives me women who led and presided over the worship of churches which met in their homes. It gives me women who taught, women who prophesied, women who evangelised. Women I can look to as role models and exemplars of faithful Christian women in leadership.

I know people try to explain all of those women away, downgrade their roles to the ancient equivalent of doing the photocopying and pouring the tea, in an effort to keep women quiet and disempowered in the church today, but their explanations are unconvincing. Women who lead, teach, preach, prophecy, plant churches and all the rest today follow in the footsteps of our New Testament sisters.

Indeed. One fourth century example of this is a woman venerated in the Eastern Orthodox Church, St. Nino Equal to the Apostles. Now, in accordance with the liturgical praxis that had come into being, St. Nino was not a priest or a bishop, but rather a devout Armenian Christian, but she did evangelize all of Georgia and convert the entire Georgian nation fo Christian. This is of course an extreme accomplishment. Georgia was only the fifth sovereign state to adopt Christianity as its official religion (after Ethiopia, Rome, Armenia and Edessa), and of the ancient churches (predating the fall of the Western Roman Empire), it is the only one evangelized and converted solely by a woman, but this still amounts to twenty percent of all Christian nations!

And Georgia has remained Christian ever since. They also have incredibly beautiful church music, very different from the music of the neighboring Armenian, Syriac/Assyrian or Russian churches, which is sung uniquely in three part harmony.

The Eastern Orthodox also venerate St. Theclas as “Equal to the Apostles”; she was notably a co-evangelist working with the Apostle Paul; their joint ministry is recorded in the “Acts of Paul and Theclas” (which is less NT apocrypha and more of a case of legitimate supplemental material, like the Shepherd of Hermas; I also believe it escaped condemnation by Pope Gelasius of Rome in his endorsement of the Athanasian canon, also Athanasius did not mention it, whereas he did endorse the Shepherd of Hermas for catechesis, but this could simply indicate the work was regarded as a historical record. But some people think it is NT apocrypha for some reason).

 

[oldhermit]

It is true however that when Christianity was illegal and persecuted in the Roman Empire, starting under Nero, the worship of the church moved (often literally) underground. In the second century as the persecution relaxed a bit, worship was more public, then moved underground again during the persecutions under Commodus, then became very public during the “Little Peace of the Church”, which had the unfortunate result of allowing Diocletian’s goons to easily round up Christian bishops and other ministers.

As far as I am aware, Christianity was generally legal in Edessa and certain other parts of Mesopotamia and Persia, and from its inception around 45 AD, always legal in India, after the martyrdom of the Apostle Thomas and the subsequent change of heart among the local rulers which allowed the Judeo-Syrian Christian community to thrive and convert members of the local population (a privilege famously voluntarily renounced by the Zoroastrian Parsees of India, who to gain admission and escape severe conditions under Islam, in the 9th century, promised not to convert anyone or receive anyone by marriage into their religion). In fact, the Hindus with their bizarre caste system were quick to define Christianity as a caste, the “Nasranis”, and Nasranis were considered a desirable caste in the Malabar Coast, a caste whose population would be positioned to “offset” the undesirability of other castes. The caste system as you can guess did later interfere with evangelism, but not before the great majority of St. Thomas Christians were of Indian ethnicity (with some descending from the Kochin Jews of Kerala, whose most famous scion was Vidal Sassoon, and others a part of an endogamous minority within the Nasrani community descended from the Jewish survivors of a shipwreck in, I think - the third century, or thereabouts, who embraced Christianity but marry only among themselves, to preserve the ancient lineage, and have their own parishes, which are open to others, but which primarily serve this community).

I would also note the St. Thomas Christians nowadays include three surviving ancient Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions, a Uniate/Eastern Catholic church established during Portuguese rule, another Uniate church founded in the 20th century, a province of the Assyrian Church of the East, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, which is liturgically Protestant and a member of the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and also the only Anglican church to be in communion with an Orthodox church (one of the three Oriental churches mentioned above), various specifically Nasrani Protestant and Charismatic churches (which like the rest I have mentioned, mainly worship in the Malayalam language and to a diminishing extent among the Catholics, Orthodox and Assyrians, Classical Syriac Aramaic), some Western Rite Roman Catholics and Anglicans of the Church of South India, although these are not very popular among the St. Thomas Christians, consisting mainly of Indian converts to Christianity from elsewhere (Christianity is the third largest religion in India, with twice the members of Sikhism or Jainism, and more than four times the members of the Buddhists; only Islam, and the vast array of Hindu sects, represent larger religious groups).

These traditional St. Thomas churches (Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Syro Malabar Catholic, Malankara Catholic, Mar Thoma Syrian Church (Anglican) all hold to a traditional view on women’s ordination, and several of them have continued to have deaconesses, which is an office which for unknown reasons disappeared from some of the other ancient churches prior to the Great Schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

So India is an interesting example of a place where Christianity survived from antiquity with minimal persecution, in the region of the Malabar Coast, and also, in the past, in Sri Lanka (unfortunately, the St. Thomas Christians there died off, although there still are churches, unlike the island of Socotra near Yemen, which once had a thriving Christian community and is now nearly uninhabited since the Christians were martyred in a genocide about 650 years ago). And it is also a place where we see a traditional Anglican church in communion with an Orthodox Church and Lambeth Palace, which is pretty...unique, and it is a place where the ancient canons on ordination I mentioned in my previous post have always been in place among these traditional churches.

Regardless of the conditions, whether openly or in secret, the Church continued to meet. There are many other examples from scripture to show that during the first century, the time in which Paul wrote this letter to Corinth, the Church met both in synagogues and in private homes as in the case of Priscilla and Aquila as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 16:19. Regardless of how or where the Church assembled together, Paul lays down the standard of behavior that was to be honored.

 

[The Liturgist]

Regardless of the conditions, whether openly or in secret, the Church continued to meet. There are many other examples from scripture to show that during the first century, the time in which Paul wrote this letter to Corinth, the Church met both in synagogues and in private homes as in the case of Priscilla and Aquila as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 16:19. Regardless of how or where the Church assembled together, Paul lays down the standard of behavior that was to be honored.

I think what the Apostle Paul laid down, to be precise, was a standard for the operation of parishes which had the effect of defining the exacting qualifications for ordination in the canons of the early Church (which do not mention women, except to provide the requirements for women wishing to serve in the diaconate). Several churches still follow this Pauline model today.

However, this approach does not bar women from the ministry, as witnessed by the work of Theclas and Paul together, the evangelization of Georgia by St. Nino of Armenia, and also the extreme importance of the female diaconate in the early church; all adult women who were baptized were immersed in the water by deaconesses. Before the national conversions of Edessa, Armenia, the Roman Empire and Georgia, this actually accounted for a majority of conversions, since we know that a preponderance of early Christian converts were women.

 

[The Liturgist]

If you are attempting to use the practices of the Eastern Orthodox Church to justify the ordination of women, I am afraid you are wasting your time. The only thing that concerns men is the language of the biblical text. What does the text say about this. Nothing else matters.

My point is simply that Georgia was evangelized by a woman, St. Nino, who happens, coincidentally, to be venerated for this accomplishment with the honorific “equal to the Apostles”, by the Eastern Orthodox, but that is not central to my statement, instead, merely an observation. I like to comment on the history of the Church, particularly those churches in remote lands which people in the West may be less familiar with. For example, the ancient Christian community in Tibet, China and Mongolia, or the obscure Kurishitans of Japan.

But my point, to be clear, is that without being an episcopi or a presbyter, St. Nino nonetheless converted an entire country to Christianity, and that country remains Christian. And there are many different churches in Georgia, it is a small but beautiful country in the Caucaucus Mountains.

I am also not attempting to justify anything to anyone; I outlined my personal views on ordination earlier, and these views are those of traditional churches and not mainline churches, although I do greatly respect and enjoy working with my female colleagues.

 

[Romans 8]

It’s not like the whole world considers women equal. That’s actually pretty recent in the US and still incomplete.

Men and women are not equal.

“He’s just following the world” really doesn’t settle anything. It's an excuse anyone can make, no matter what their position, to avoid considering carefully whether they are really seeing what’s there in Scripture. The NT use "the world" to refer to those who reject Christ, not for people within the Church who disagree with each other.

We as Christians can stumble when it comes to understanding what scripture means, and discerning the difference of what the world believes. The world is deceived by the enemy and some Christians allow themselves to also. Feminism is one of the lies that sounds good on the surface, as if it's coming from a place of peace and love, but actually it is a tool of the enemy and designed as an attack on the family. Until you understand this, you will continue fighting FOR the enemy. Feminism is not a biblical tenet and it's not supported by the bible. Woman and men are equal before God but we have different roles. This is why you read these different passages in the bible. The bible is Truth, and many reject His Truth.

 

[oldhermit]

I think what the Apostle Paul laid down, to be precise, was a standard for the operation of parishes which had the effect of defining the exacting qualifications for ordination in the canons of the early Church (which do not mention women, except to provide the requirements for women wishing to serve in the diaconate). Several churches still follow this Pauline model today.

However, this approach does not bar women from the ministry, as witnessed by the work of Theclas and Paul together, the evangelization of Georgia by St. Nino of Armenia, and also the extreme importance of the female diaconate in the early church; all adult women who were baptized were immersed in the water by deaconesses. Before the national conversions of Edessa, Armenia, the Roman Empire and Georgia, this actually accounted for a majority of conversions, since we know that a preponderance of early Christian converts were women.

Paul said that what he laid down regarding the behavior of both men and women in the assembly was "the Lord's commandments" and that these commandments from the Lord were to be the standard "in ALL the churches of the saints." This commandment had nothing to do with "defining the exacting qualifications for ordination." No such idea is presented anywhere in the context. That idea is not a Pauline model and no such model can be found anywhere in scripture. How this commandment from the Lord came to be disregarded in later years in no way nullifies the commandment.

 

[Paidiske]

That simply is not true.

Regardless of the conditions, whether openly or in secret, the Church continued to meet.

My point was that when Christians gathered privately in people's homes, this was not "public worship" as later came about. It was governed as much or more by the customs of hospitality (which would see the host presiding over worship in his/her own home) than by later liturgical sensibilities about clerical rank.​

That is precisely what I am saying!

That is a terrible slander of your sisters. You may believe us to be wrong, but it would be charitable of you to think that we might be sincerely wrong, rather than deceitful and manipulative.

Since joining CF.com I have been especially delighted to make the acquaintance of @Paidiske...

Thank you, my brother. After the morning I've had, I really appreciated this!