What does the Bible say on women becoming pastors?

[jahel]

How do you work that one out?
Jesus did much to restore women. He healed them, forgave them, was anointed by them, Luke 7:37, John 12:3, supported financially by them, Luke 8:3, and allowed Mary to sit at his feet in the place reserved for male student Rabbis.

I don’t agree of course. The literal implication that "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” implies that just the man is the image pf God, not the woman. And the reference shows that implication.
Or worst case scenerio is that God does not glory in women, only men. Leaving women out of growth, from glory to glory.

In all these ways, Jesus restored women.
And also by deliberately choosing a woman to be the first witness to his resurrection. Note, he didn't choose the future leaders of the church, but a woman, a so called unreliable witness who was not allowed to testify in a court of law.
Eve lost the Lord in a garden; Mary found the Lord in a garden.

 

[The Liturgist]

Allowed by whom? It's no different than men not wanting to give voting privileges or slaves the right to be free. Slaves are now free and women can vote and their are ordained females. It’s not progress buddy, but it sure is about time. Oppression isn’t good for anyone and does no one else any good either, unless of course, you have a stake in it.

We aren’t talking about oppression but about the preservation of ancient traditions considering these two offices, which by their nature are not desirable but rather literally the most servile offices in Christianity. If you become a presbyter or especially a bishop (or the elder of a congregational church, who has a quasi-episcopal function, especially if he has subordinate ministers), assuming you intend to do your job properly, you have to literally sacrifice yourself; all of your personal desires, pride, ambition, creature comforts and so on are displaced from primary consideration. Even your own family becomes, while not secondary to your congregation, at the very least, only slightly more important, although the best priests in my opinion are the few who make the congregation entire their family. It is a brutal and miserable job. Even the vestments worn in some denominations are not there to beautify the priest but rather so that the priest might decrease and Christ might increase.

My own view is the ancient tradition makes sense in the modern world because the office of the priesthood or episcopate can be potentially degrading for women. It is an undeserved burden. But for this reason I greatly respect the female clergy who have made this sacrifice. My respect for them would not be lessened if they adopted another leadership or ministerial role in the church such as an evangelist of nations or the diaconate, which does not involve the kind of brutal subjugation that the priesthood represents.

Seriously, as the priest, our job is to serve janitors. And many of us in smaller churches have to clean our own lavatories, or it won’t get done.

 

[jahel]

By the Christian churches.
.

Really, very few now. That’s no where near a blanket statement.

 

[jahel]

We aren’t talking about oppression but about the preservation of ancient traditions considering these two offices, which by their nature are not desirable but rather literally the most servile offices in Christianity. If you become a presbyter or especially a bishop (or the elder of a congregational church, who has a quasi-episcopal function, especially if he has subordinate ministers), assuming you intend to do your job properly, you have to literally sacrifice yourself; all of your personal desires, pride, ambition, creature comforts and so on are displaced from primary consideration. Even your own family becomes, while not secondary to your congregation, at the very least, only slightly more important, although the best priests in my opinion are the few who make the congregation entire their family.

Oh you mean a normal Christian life? Hierarchy just displays how leaders are seen in “grace’ and the others are not.

 

[Albion]

Really, very few now.

The majority of Christians belong to churches that do not ordain women. Fact.

 

[jahel]

The majority of Christians belong to churches that do not ordain women. Fact.

Fact, the women are fighting to get out from under the oppression everywhere.

 

[The Liturgist]

Oh you mean a normal Christian life? Hierarchy just displays how leaders are seen in “grace’ and the others are not.

No, because a normal Christian is not expected to condemn himself to brutal servitude or take personal responsibility for the salvation of his congregation, whereas a priest is. If this office were actually one of legitimate power and prestige (as opposed to inappropriately assumed prestige and exploited power, for example, the Borgias or Pope Julius II, or in ancient times, Bishop Paul of Samosata, and also the false hierarchy of Gnostics started by Simon Magus after the Apostles told him off), then I would agree this would be an issue of oppression.

But any power or prestige that attaches itself to the presbyterial or episcopal offices cannot be legitimately used or exploited in any way by the incumbent, except to serve the people in the case of the former, which negates any temporal benefit thereof, or to glorify Christ in the case of the latter, which negates the personal benefit.

Whereas an airline pilot or a senator can legitimately enjoy the prestige and power their respective offices provide, and use them for their benefit.

 

[jahel]

No, because a normal Christian is not expected to condemn himself to brutal servitude or take personal responsibility for the salvation of his congregation.

Personal response-abilty can only be toward promptings from the Holy Spirit. Something every Christian must place before everything else.
Those with the gift of administration like Paul was, have a more refined responsibility. But as far as shepards go, biblically most were women. David was an exception because of being the youngest.

 

[The Liturgist]

Personal response-abilty can only be toward promptings from the Holy Spirit. Something every Christian must place before everything else.
Those with the gift of administration like Paul was, have a more refined responsibility. But as far as shepards go, biblically most were women. David was an exception because of being the youngest.

This is a difference of theological opinion; it is my firm conviction that clergy are responsible for the cure of souls entrusted to them and will have to answer for this on the day of judgement.

 

[jahel]

This is a difference of theological opinion; it is my firm conviction that clergy are responsible for the cure of souls entrusted to them and will have to answer for this on the day of judgement.

They are response-abled for giving them everything that the HS gives to give, but not for the cure because some refuse the cure.

 

[The Liturgist]

They are response-abled for giving them everything that the HS gives to give, but not for the cure because some refuse the cure.

I can agree with that provided the refusal was not their fault but the free choice of the person rejecting grace (or if we follow a Calvinist interpretation, I myself being Arminian, so I do not, but I respect and enjoy working with Calvinists, if that person was a reprobate and not a member of the Elect).

 

[jahel]

I can agree with that provided the refusal was not their fault but the free choice of the person rejecting grace (or if we follow a Calvinist interpretation, I myself being Arminian, so I do not, but I respect and enjoy working with Calvinists, if that person was a reprobate and not a member of the Elect).

Then why put forth other’s opinion if they are not your own? I think that’s actually against forum rules. And it’s hypocritical.

 

[hedrick]

It does. As I have said before, though, that is one of the lesser arguments against women's ordination and it plays virtually no part in the dispute when it comes to the mainstream, the large, the historic Christian communions. If it is knocked down, therefore, that doesn't do much for the argument that women should be allowed to be pastors.

But the largest historic community takes the position that "the Church never did it, so it must be wrong." Of course the Church probably did do it in the early days (there's reasonable evidence for that) and definitely did it during World War II.

 

[Albion]

But the largest historic community takes the position that "the Church never did it, so it must be wrong." Of course the Church probably did do it in the early days (there's reasonable evidence for that) and definitely did it during World War II.

There is no reasonable evidence that there were women clergy in the early church. As for the WW2 note, I am not familiar with that event...if it's the RCC you are referring to.

 

[jahel]

There is no reasonable evidence that there were women clergy in the early church. As for the WW2 note, I am not familiar with that event...if it's the RCC you are referring to.

There’s no reasonable evidence that there were clergy in the early church at all. Certainly not if your including synagog meetings.

 

[hedrick]

I don’t agree of course. The literal implication that "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” implies that just the man is the image pf God, not the woman. And the reference shows that implication.
Or worst case scenerio is that God does not glory in women, only men. Leaving women out of growth, from glory to glory.

The quote is 1 Cor 11:7. Let's hope what he means is that woman is the image of God through the man. I.e. that although the image went to woman through man, in the end they are both in the image of God. The phrase in Genesis is from 1:27, which clearly applies to both. However it's not so clear to me that this is actually what Paul says.

 

[jahel]

The quote is 1 Cor 11:7. Let's hope what he means is that woman is the image of God through the man. I.e. that although the image went to woman through man, in the end they are both in the image of God. The phrase in Genesis is from 1:27, which clearly applies to both. However it's not so clear to me that this is actually what Paul says.

The image of God as the Father and Christ as the Son is the example that Paul basis his teaching on. In Christ is the mandate. So your reference does include that. But as to being in the image of God that is what is being made new in both.
I don’t believe there is any ‘hopefully Paul meant that’ either. It can only be plain teaching when looked at as Paul talking for the Father to the Son in us.
While there is the shadow that points to the substance there is also maturity where one is not under a child-government. The churches have not allowed for that in many cases.

 

[Robin Mauro]

Where do you suggest that might be?
WE are the church; a group of Christians meeting in a house group, an office Christian Union or in a cafe for coffee is a church gathering. A larger event like a Bible convention or week is a church gathering - i.e gathering of the Church.
It would be inconsistent to allow women to prophesy in these smaller gatherings only to tell them to sit down and shut up once they step into a building that is known as a church.

I agree. That's why I think Paul was writing to specific women in some cases, and we are missing something, or taking things out of context in others. Or maybe when he said women should not speak in church he was adressing certain women who were arguing, or inserting their views, while the peacher was preaching, which no one should do.
Some sisipture is hard ro understand. Like the head covered thing. When I read it, it seems to be talking about a head covering (which no one, or hardly anyone does today) but then you get to the bottom, the last part, and it seems to be talking about long hair...which is also relative...what is long or short, and cultural. God made room for different cultures and differing views on debatable matters, and I really doubt God cares that much about the length of a woman's hair. It is our hearts and behavior that matters.

 

[hedrick]

There is no reasonable evidence that there were women clergy in the early church. As for the WW2 note, I am not familiar with that event...if it's the RCC you are referring to.

Here's one example of evidence from the early church: Researcher: Artifacts show that early church women served as clergy

There were several during world war 2. I've seen accounts of two, but this is the only one I can find currently: The priest Rome can't embrace I think it's pretty widely accepted that this ordination actually happened. The bishop appears to have been a valid Catholic bishop. She continued as a regular Catholic, i.e. not in some kind of heretical group.

 

[jahel]

I agree. That's why I think Paul was writing to specific women in some cases, and we are missing something, or taking things out of context in others. Or maybe when he said women should not speak in church he was adressing certain women who were arguing, or inserting their views, while the peacher was preaching, which no one should do.
Some sisipture is hard ro understand. Like the head covered thing. When I read it, it seems to be talking about a head covering (which no one, or hardly anyone does today) but then you get to the bottom, the last part, and it seems to be talking about long hair...which is also relative...what is long or short, and cultural. God made room for different cultures and differing views on debatable matters, and I really doubt God cares that much about the length of a woman's hair. It is our hearts and behavior that matters.

How about women only being saved in child-birth? Does that mean the barren are unsaved?
No.
But it does show that those who have the Spirit can beget others from hearing the word spoken. Paul attests to that too.