Why are women not allowed to be ministers in some churches?

[Albion]

False witness? Is that how we proceed here?

I don't recall any mention of that in my post. I merely hoped that the discussion had not turned from the reasons that the Christian churches have maintained a male clergy
to, instead, a vilification or belittling of people for upholding that practice.

 

[Freedom~Sprite]

I don't recall any mention of that in my post. I merely hoped that the discussion had not turned from the reasons that the Christian churches have maintained a male clergy
to, instead, a vilification or belittling of people for upholding that practice.

You appear to be confused when thinking this thread began as a discussion about the Roman Catholic Church and its priesthood.
Maybe go back to page one post one and understand what we're actually talking about.
Furthermore, it is false that Christian churches have maintained a male clerty when there are females serving as clergy in churches.

 

[Albion]

You appear to be confused when thinking this thread began as a discussion about the Roman Catholic Church and its priesthood.

Perhaps it is not I who is confused. I said nothing to you about the Roman Catholic Church, and the title of this thread is "Why are women not allowed to be ministers in some churches!?" I feel, therefore, that the topic is indeed "Why are women not allowed to be ministers in some churches?"

Furthermore, it is false that Christian churches have maintained a male clerty when there are females serving as clergy in churches.

Please do read what I wrote before declaring it false.

Yes, a few very small denominations had women ministers beginning a couple of centuries ago (about 1700 years after the founding of Christ's church, that is), but the drive to ordain women only began in earnest a couple of generations ago; and yet the majority of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, still belong to churches which are convinced that Scripture (and Sacred Tradition, for those to whom that applies) restrict ordination to males. The point there is not to say that there isn't an argument to be made on each side, but that it certainly is not because men are meanies that women are not ministers in most churches.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

You appear to be confused when thinking this thread began as a discussion about the Roman Catholic Church and its priesthood.

The question was about the reason for some churches not ordaining women. That would presumable include the Catholic Church. What I do not recall the OP asking about is any reasons for ordaining women.

 

[FireDragon76]

My denomination sees no ontological distinction between clergy and laity. Clergy are simply laity called by God to fulfill the role of being a pastor. Therefore, women are just as capable of being called by God to be pastors as men, because we recognize the priesthood of all believers.

 

[Dave-W]

It's unbiblical. There were women disciples, but never any women priests/pastors. Sexism has nothing to do with it.

There were women bible teachers; Prisca/Priscilla was one of them.
And there was a female apostle: Junia.

 

[Dave-W]

She wasn't a priest, so your point is moot. No one ever said women can't have secular authority or that they have no part to play in the Church. But they cannot be priests. It's an ontological impossibility.

So what about Junia?

Rom 16.7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Some later manuscripts changed the Latin feminine Junia to the Greek masculine Junias, but that has all the earmarks of an editorial change at some point. (perhaps to disguise a female apostle)

 

[Albion]

There were women bible teachers; Prisca/Priscilla was one of them.
And there was a female apostle: Junia.

We all agree to this. They also held other positions of importance--leadership positions, some would say. BUT that is not the same as being ordained a deacon, presbyter, or bishop (all mentioned in the NT) or what most people recognize as a 'pastor.'

 

[Dave-W]

That's all OT Levitical law, and has been superseded by the NT.

No that is not ALL levitical law (like Lot offering his daughters); and only certain specifics of the Law have been superseded.

 

[Dave-W]

We all agree to this. They also held other positions of importance--leadership positions, some would say. BUT that is not the same as being ordained a deacon, presbyter, or bishop (all mentioned in the NT) or what most people recognize as a 'pastor.'

What about Junia being an apostle - having authority over bishops and pastor/elders?

 

[Albion]

What about Junia being an apostle - having authority over bishops and pastor/elders?

You don't think that Junia was one of the Twelve called by Christ, I assume.

No, the word there is used in the generic sense, meaning one who is sent forth. Yes, there have been women who played significant roles as messengers or in spreading the Gospel. But again, that's not the subject of this thread.

 

[Dave-W]

You don't think that Junia was one of the Twelve called by Christ, I assume.

No. But being among the (small a) apostles, she would have been ordained (in what ever way they did it then) to exercise authority over pastors and congregations.

So I submit that is EXACTLY what this thread is about. Women being placed in spiritual authority over flocks (congregations) of God's people.

 

[Albion]

No. But being among the (small a) apostles, she would have been ordained (in what ever way they did it then) to exercise authority over pastors and congregations.

There's absolutely no reason to assume that.

So I submit that is EXACTLY what this thread is about. Women being placed in spiritual authority over flocks (congregations) of God's people.

Well, if you read the title of the thread again, you will see that it asks about women being allowed to be ministers, which according to the OP, has the ordained ministry in mind. Incidentally, it is possible to be "in charge" of a group of Christians but NOT be an ordained minister.

 

[Humble me Lord]

It's for the same reason women aren't set up to be the head of the household.
Women in a position of authority over men is not biblical. We were made different for a reason. It does not demean women, God made everything for a purpose.

 

[Albion]

But, FWIW, that's a completely different perspective on the issue.

 

[Willing-heart]

Men and women are EQUAL as humans but entirely UNIQUE as creatures. They are not only distinct genders sexually but almost every aspect of their natures is different. There is no superiority or inferiority between men and women in the Christian faith. The only difference is that of their roles and functions. Just as the God the Father and God the Son are absolutely equal in essence within the Godhead in every way, but have different functions, so it is between men and women. Men are totally dependent upon women and women are totally dependent upon men.

God’s Word does not contradict itself, and even though in the Old Testament God used Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah (who are all women), that does not in anyway invalid that there is an order God has set out for us to live by today. Paul’s instruction was given to us in the New Testament and not the Old. Perhaps knowing some might be in disagreement with him, Paul even said God has chosen him to proclaim the truth, so don’t shoot the messenger (I Timothy 2:7). Above all, what truly matters is that our hearts are set right with God in all we do because, in the end, God will judge us by His standard and not our own.

Uncompromising Biblical Truth {Part I}

 

[Zoii]

I could hardly think of a greater compliment to give a church than to say it's stuck in the first century AD.

I'm hardly going to joust with you on this - but can you see where the divide is? Im sure many Christians are totally of your view that retaining practices and ethics of the first century is positive. Then there's other Christians who don't see that positively at all for a host of reasons.

It might be useful for both views to understand the other and so on that note - what is it about 1st century ethics/paradigm within Christianity that are cornerstones as opposed to a paradigm that embraces the 21st century?

 

[Albion]

I'm hardly going to joust with you on this - but can you see where the divide is? Im sure many Christians are totally of your view that retaining practices and ethics of the first century is positive. Then there's other Christians who don't see that positively at all for a host of reasons.

It might be useful for both views to understand the other and so on that note - what is it about 1st century ethics/paradigm within Christianity that are cornerstones as opposed to a paradigm that embraces the 21st century?

There is a presumption that the first Christians were closer to the original intentions of Christ and the Apostles than people living 20 centuries later, and were, therefore, more likely to be correct as regards doctrine and religious practices.

But that's not the whole of the picture. The Bible is a record of the first Christian churches as well as the teachings of Christ. No amount of being close to the origins of the religion would settle this matter...if the word of God were not also in accord with the practices we are discussing.

On that score, the Bible is almost totally on the side of an all-male clergy. Consequently, the Christians of our time who want a change because society has changed around the church have almost nothing BUT that argument (society has changed, so the church must adjust to it) to offer in support of their position.

 

[Paidiske]

It's very difficult to argue for a consistent, settled structure and order for clergy in the New Testament. It's clear that they had a number of roles involved with leadership, teaching and exercising authority; some that we now consider clergy (deacons, elders/priests and overseers/bishops) and some that would now possibly be "lay ministries" (such as that of prophet or teacher or evangelist etc). But the distinction made between clergy and laity itself comes later than the New Testament; at the time these various roles were much more in flux.

And what people in all of these roles actually did was also much more flexible and less settled; there is no possibility, for example, that New Testament deacons had a liturgical role of reading the gospel... when the gospels had not been written yet! But it is entirely possible that women in various roles did the things we now consider to be particularly priestly or diaconal or even episcopal, with or without carrying the title or being officially in those roles (especially when those women were hosting the church in their homes, which would generally come with the social function of presiding over its worship).

The evidence from first-century sources does not allow us to read back later settled structures, roles and distinctions into a situation where those had not developed yet.

 

[Zoii]

There is a presumption that the first Christians were closer to the original intentions of Christ and the Apostles than people living 20 centuries later, and were, therefore, more likely to be correct as regards doctrine and religious practices.

But that's not the whole of the picture. The Bible is a record of the first Christian churches as well as the teachings of Christ. No amount of being close to the origins of the religion would settle this matter...if the word of God were not also in accord with the practices we are discussing.

On that score, the Bible is almost totally on the side of an all-male clergy. Consequently, the Christians of our time who want a change because society has changed around the church have almost nothing BUT that argument (society has changed, so the church must adjust to it) to offer in support of their position.

I have a question for you: Rather than people of the 1st century AD being closer to Christ's intentions, Is it possible that Christ spoke to people, and behaved with people, in a manner that was consistent with the contemporary society of that time - and if that's possible, is it reasonable to argue that he would speak and interact with us today in a way that was contemporary as well...ie consistent with the norms and ideals and prevailing issues of the 21st century.