Woman Pastors and Communion

[JackRT]

There's evidence, often obscured and debated, but enough even in Scripture for some of us to say that the earliest church had women as apostles (like St. Junia, whom your church recognises and honours as such) and in other roles. Things changed later, but many of us who support the ordination of women now see this as a return to what the earliest church practiced.

The issue of womens' role in the church is not as clear cut as some people would want to think. The letters of Paul, which date to the middle of the first century AD, provide some clues. For example, Paul greets Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus' sister, who worked and traveled as missionaries in pairs with their husbands or brothers (Romans 16:3, 7, 15) as equals and co-workers. Junia is praised as a prominent apostle, imprisoned for her faith. Mary and Persis are commended for their hard work (Romans 16:6, 12). Euodia and Syntyche are called his fellow-workers in the gospel (Philippians 4:2-3). Women were the leaders of house churches (Apphia in Philemon 2; Prisca in I Corinthians 16:19), Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:15) and Nympha of Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). Women held offices and played significant roles in group worship, such as the deacon Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and women were certainly praying and prophesying during worship (I Corinthians 11). An order of widows served formal roles of ministry (I Timothy 5:9-10). Women prophets included Mary Magdalene, the Corinthian women, Philip's daughters, Ammia of Philadelphia, Philumene, the visionary martyr Perpetua, Maximilla, Priscilla (Prisca), and Quintilla.

 

[hedrick]

So, let's consider the idea that the Patriarchal nature of Scripture is just an historic bias; would Scripture not have used the more generic "men" should not usurp those in authority" rather than women; yet the written word is "women over men". When Scripture uses a word that would not normally be used, it is for meaning and clarity.

Likewise; Husband of one wife: Faithful Monogamy, certainly. Neither is there ambiguity about Genders of both the Bishop and the wife, that too is abundantly clear (unless one applies some form of Biblical Criticism when interpreting the meaning of this passage). If we do apply such criticism, where do we draw the line? Before long these criticisms are being used everywhere and everyone is reading what ever they want out of Scripture; such is why there is such diverse sectarianism within Protestantism today.

I agree that we have different approaches to Scripture, and that we're both trying to be faithful to Christ.

You're right that it's open to discussion how much can be understood generically. However I think it's hard to understand 1 Tim as being consistent with female leaders. You can sort of do it:

• The comment about usurping is a reaction to specific abuses, not a general one about women
• In 1 Tim 2:13-15, the correct translation is "wife" not "woman." The objection is to a wife having authority over her husband. The point of the reference to Adam is that he didn't do his proper role. He simply did what his wife asked.

If you really want, you can find exegetical ways to deny that 1 Tim rejects female leaders. But I think the tone of the passage makes it hard for this argument to be convincing. I think the author understood the Adam story as implying that women aren't to be trusted. Of course no Christian actually believes that, or women wouldn't be allowed to teach children or in secular settings. But I think it's pretty clear that's what 1 Tim 2 would imply.

In my view liberal Christians are willing to be more open about disregarding statements that are in obvious violation of the messages of Jesus and Paul. By applying this passage only to pastors, Christians throughout history have been able to convince themselves that they're obeying Scripture, but without the absurdity that actually following it consistently would produce. I understand why Scripture is important (though my reason may be different than yours, to some extent). But I think there are things within Scripture that we shouldn't obey. Generally we are sensible enough not to. But liberal Christians are willing to be more open about it.

 

[concretecamper]

It more or less started 200 years ago.

Timeline of women's ordination - Wikipedia

With all due respect to all present, there IS NO SUCH THING AS WOMEN'S ORDINATION, but of course we can claim to be anything we want to be, cant we.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Sometimes finding a new Church is a good idea.

I've done it a few times.
Always glad that I moved on.
M-Bob

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I agree that we have different approaches to Scripture, and that we're both trying to be faithful to Christ.

You're right that it's open to discussion how much can be understood generically. However I think it's hard to understand 1 Tim as being consistent with female leaders. You can sort of do it:

• The comment about usurping is a reaction to specific abuses, not a general one about women
• In 1 Tim 2:13-15, the correct translation is "wife" not "woman." The objection is to a wife having authority over her husband. The point of the reference to Adam is that he didn't do his proper role. He simply did what his wife asked.

If you really want, you can find exegetical ways to deny that 1 Tim rejects female leaders. But I think the tone of the passage makes it hard for this argument to be convincing. I think the author understood the Adam story as implying that women aren't to be trusted. Of course no Christian actually believes that, or women wouldn't be allowed to teach children or in secular settings. But I think it's pretty clear that's what 1 Tim 2 would imply.

In my view liberal Christians are willing to be more open about disregarding statements that are in obvious violation of the messages of Jesus and Paul. By applying this passage only to pastors, Christians throughout history have been able to convince themselves that they're obeying Scripture, but without the absurdity that actually following it consistently would produce. I understand why Scripture is important (though my reason may be different than yours, to some extent). But I think there are things within Scripture that we shouldn't obey. Generally we are sensible enough not to. But liberal Christians are willing to be more open about it.

I think your statement has a lot of merit. "husband of one wife"; historic contest takes two things into account: wife is female/husband is male; and "one" when polygamy was somewhat common among certain groups and classes.

 

[hedrick]

I think your statement has a lot of merit. "husband of one wife"; historic contest takes two things into account: wife is female/husband is male; and "one" when polygamy was somewhat common among certain groups and classes.

You can argue that this is generic. "Anthropos," is an obvious generic for person. While sýzygos can be used that way, the NT dictionaries translate it as "yokefellow." In principle, 1 Tim could be using "husband" and "wife" here as generics. Particularly since the previous verse can be argued to give the qualification of female deacons. I just don't think it's likely that 1 Tim would actually say that.

Beyond that we get into questions about how much about practice the Church is allowed to adjust for different situations. That's an area where I don't think we're likely to persuade each other.

 

[Albion]

Sometimes finding a new Church is a good idea.

I've done it a few times.
Always glad that I moved on.
M-Bob

It's true. You do nobody a service by continuing to attend a church that makes you grit your teeth through much of the service, knowing how off-base many of its actions, policies, doctrines, sermon topics, or political activities are.

You might as well move to a better church.

And the worst thing may be to assume (as I think many people do) that they are somehow disloyal or faithless towards that parish/congregation--or to the denomination involved--if they move along.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

@Paidiske @hedrick @JackRT @Endeavourer

Hi there!
I just happened to come across this thread, and thought I would put in my two cents on the whole 'woman pastor' thing.

To start off, I am certainly no theologian and I'm still growing and learning in Christ. Second, I would not consider myself to have a bias as the concept of women being pastors was never really an issue growing up--and I never even gave it serious thought until recently. Nevertheless, here's my two cents.

I think Sola Scriptura is actually a very good way to interpret scripture. To be entirely honest, out of everything I've covered regarding issues interpreting the bible, the only verses I've ever found to be reliant on culture were the one concerning crossdressing(Deut.22:5, since we rely on culture to tell us what is classified as 'men's wear' and 'women's wear')and hair length(1 Corinthians 11:14-16). But apart from that, I've found that cherry-picking verses in almost all cases it does not end well...and that God's word does NOT change with our culture. I can understand there being confusion with complex passages or doctrine that has its roots in only one or two verses, but if it's mentioned multiple times, reinforced throughout scripture and blatantly says what it means...I think it's not the fault of Sola Scriptura, but people trying to fit God's word into what they think it should be like.

I do not wish to be harsh, but I feel like I should be honest with you all; are you truly willing to accept God's will, even if it meant women couldn't be ordained? Because from everything I've read in this thread, there is a startling amount of evidence to suggest that women have no place being pastors or priests. Sure, it's easy to say "But look at these three women in the bible--they might have been in positions higher than the men"--however, as the others have explained, women like Priscilla, Junia and Phoebe were never referred to as such. Furthermore, I highly doubt history blotted them out if there were ordained women...but even if there had been in the past, what does it matter if it's not supported by scripture?

At the end of the day, there is a common reoccurring theme that I don't think anyone can dispute over; the majority, if not all, of the most important people in the bible(except for Jesus' mother and possibly Mary Magdalene)were men. Men had set roles as the leaders, the providers, the defenders, the fighters, protectors of women and children, and the ones who were sought out for wisdom. Just look at the books in the bible; out of all of them, only two of them were of female names, Ruth and Esther.

You say the culture back then was 'patriarchal', and yes at some points women were treated very terribly--I won't deny that. But, in God's eyes, we are equal, and each of us has our place. However, men and women do have different roles...and spiritually speaking(especially in the Church), men do have headship over women. I'm quite sad that the verses in Timothy and Corinthians talking about women not usurping authority over a man was overlooked. Even if it's not what you wanted to see, we're called to do God's will and that is that. At the end of the day, I think feminism was probably a big reason why there's even a dispute over this to begin with. Women these days want to do what men do, in everything. And while they certainly have that opportunity in most cases and in God's grace, the Church is not one of those places. Ask yourselves; are you feeding into this fairly recent doctrine of 'women pastors' because you are striving to follow God's will, or is it because of your desire to be 'equal' regardless of God's design for gender roles?

For the record, I think it's fine for a woman to evangelize and teach as much as she wants outside of the church. Even in the church, I also think a woman can teach a mixed audience as a fellow believer and not as an ordained minister/pastor, just as Aquila and Priscilla privately instructed Apollos. Anyone can be a strong believer in Christ who is worthy of respect--also like Junia and Phoebe--but to be ordained, the bible has made it clear that as usual, the man leads. If you think that is a patriarchal way of viewing things, I think you're trusting the world knows what works better for you than God. To those who haven't noticed, we live in a society that hates strong male leaders, and who hate humble, gentle, submissive women & housewives even more.

To sum it up; No, I do not think that there is any biblical grounds for a woman to be ordained and take spiritual headship over a man. No, it is not 'up to interpretation', as it goes against not only hundreds of years of tradition but also scripture telling us that it should not be so in multiple instances.

God created gender-roles for a reason. Men aren't any more important than women, even if it feels that way--women are tasked with the great honor and responsibility of keeping care of the home and raising/teaching the next generation of believers, after all ^-^ (which might be hard if she is spending most of her time working as a minister, anyways)

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Hopefully someone finds this helpful cx

 

[Strong in Him]

I do not wish to be harsh, but I feel like I should be honest with you all; are you truly willing to accept God's will, even if it meant women couldn't be ordained?

I am pretty sure that if God had said in his word, "I will never allow women to be ordained or lead a church"; said it as clearly and unambiguously as that, then Christian women who love him, would not seek ordination.

The disturbing thing is that some folks on here seem to suggest otherwise; that women are deliberately disobeying God and are doing so because they (we) are feminists or determined to be equal with men at all costs.
I am not ordained but I am a lay preacher - and people who do not believe that women should preach have told me that God did NOT call me to this and does NOT want me to do it. None of these folk seem to realise that if God made that very clear/blatantly obvious to me, I'd give it up tomorrow.
Spend lots of time writing sermons and preparing services, or not?
Write posts on here about how I am serving God and be abused and insulted, or not?
Really tough choice - NOT.

 

[Paidiske]

I do not wish to be harsh, but I feel like I should be honest with you all; are you truly willing to accept God's will, even if it meant women couldn't be ordained?

Yes.

For one thing, I was once opposed to the ordination of women (I am, by instinct and personality, surprisingly conservative given my current situation). God had to work hard on me to get me over that.

And for another thing, even if I were not once opposed to the ordination of women in general, I was certainly not seeking it for myself. I can remember quite clearly, before I discerned a vocation, saying something along the lines of, "I'm very glad not to be the vicar, I think he has the hardest job around; I'm quite content volunteering my time as a lay person while I work in this other job."

So no, I don't really find your post helpful. It contains nothing that I have not thoughtfully and prayerfully considered at length.

And the suggestions that women in ministry are just in it for the power and status or the like are frankly insulting. I could have a different career which would be easier, bring me more status in the world, and frankly, more money, if I were doing what I left for ministry. I'm in this not for any of those reasons but out of obedience to the God who called me to this.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I am pretty sure that if God had said in his word, "I will never allow women to be ordained or lead a church"; said it as clearly and unambiguously as that, then Christian women who love him, would not seek ordination.

The disturbing thing is that some folks on here seem to suggest otherwise; that women are deliberately disobeying God and are doing so because they (we) are feminists or determined to be equal with men at all costs.
I am not ordained but I am a lay preacher - and people who do not believe that women should preach have told me that God did NOT call me to this and does NOT want me to do it. None of these folk seem to realise that if God made that very clear/blatantly obvious to me, I'd give it up tomorrow.
Spend lots of time writing sermons and preparing services, or not?
Write posts on here about how I am serving God and be abused and insulted, or not?
Really tough choice - NOT.

Yes.

For one thing, I was once opposed to the ordination of women (I am, by instinct and personality, surprisingly conservative given my current situation). God had to work hard on me to get me over that.

And for another thing, even if I were not once opposed to the ordination of women in general, I was certainly not seeking it for myself. I can remember quite clearly, before I discerned a vocation, saying something along the lines of, "I'm very glad not to be the vicar, I think he has the hardest job around; I'm quite content volunteering my time as a lay person while I work in this other job."

So no, I don't really find your post helpful. It contains nothing that I have not thoughtfully and prayerfully considered at length.

And the suggestions that women in ministry are just in it for the power and status or the like are frankly insulting. I could have a different career which would be easier, bring me more status in the world, and frankly, more money, if I were doing what I left for ministry. I'm in this not for any of those reasons but out of obedience to the God who called me to this.

Oh dear, I didn't mean to ruffle feathers here > <;

I wasn't implying that all, or even most women are only in it for 'power' or to be 'equal to men'. I've heard many testimonies from women pastors and they seem like good, genuine Christians. However, I'm not going to say that some don't do it for the wrong reasons either. I've also heard a lot of women talk about how they "should be able to use their spiritual gifts too" or simply brushing off the long-standing tradition of male-only priests/pastors to be "old fashioned". And yes, I do think a lot of women were probably a little misguided by the progressive feminist movement. To be fair, there was nothing wrong with the original feminist movement, and they did a lot of great things for women--I'm not against them at all. But, newer feminists, as I said, really hate strong male leaders and submissive women it seems. I do think that at some point, feminism may have given our Christian ladies the wrong idea....as their ideology doesn't have any place in a church.

I can't say much about women who feel 'called' to do something, other than I don't think God would call any of us to do something that would go against his own word. I'm not making anyone out to be a liar here or even criticizing anyone in their faith, just that it's helpful to remember even the most well-read pastors and preachers probably miss the mark on certain things, mistaking it for 'God's will'. For example, there's a woman on youtube called 'Godisgrey' who claims that God revealed to her that homosexuality is not a sin. She believes it wholeheartedly after years supposedly studying scripture, and had an 'encounter with the holy spirit' telling her that it was biblically acceptable to practice homosexuality. (A good example of how a devout, well-meaning Christian can sometimes miss the mark and mistake something as being a sign from God) So I think a lot of it comes from us wanting to be more 'inclusive', and not being able to properly imagine why God would only let men be ordained. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with being inclusive, but as I said--while we do have certain liberties in our day-to-day lives, I think God especially expects us to obey his commands in his Churches.

And yes, I think the bible did make it very clear that women cannot be ordained because if they were, they'd be assuming a very special spiritual authority over men;

1 Timothy 2
"8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

1 Corinthians 14
"34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."


Ironically, most Christians agree that homosexuality is wrong according to the bible, and that conclusion comes from only two or three ambiguous verses and a conclusion drawn from the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman. Meanwhile, God might not have said 'thou shalt not be ordained if thou is a woman' directly, but I think these passages above, coupled with what we know about the biblical gender roles God has set for us, speaks volumes. The line that really gets me is

"35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Maybe that doesn't say "don't ordain women", but the message here is pretty clear. If women were able to have the same status as men, why wouldn't they simply ask another Godly woman? Or, why are they instructed, specifically, to go home and ask their husbands? I also find it really interesting that this is the set of verses to follow that one;

"6 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."

The full chapter's context was about speaking in tongues, but the fact that this followed up RIGHT after the part about women being submissive and not speaking in the church, makes me think God knew we were going to have this problem, hence "37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command." Sounds like God is being pretty clear on this matter--it's not up to you to decide that you're a prophet or gifted by the spirit, God's command is God's command...and if you ignore it;

"8 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."


Anyways, at the end of the day, I'm only here to clarify misconceptions and give food for thought; as I firmly believe this is one of the more 'black and white' topics concerning the bible. I cannot change your mind--that would be up to God. Bless you both, and have a good day! ^-^

 

[LoveofTruth]

I am pretty sure that if God had said in his word, "I will never allow women to be ordained or lead a church"; said it as clearly and unambiguously as that, then Christian women who love him, would not seek ordination.

The disturbing thing is that some folks on here seem to suggest otherwise; that women are deliberately disobeying God and are doing so because they (we) are feminists or determined to be equal with men at all costs.
I am not ordained but I am a lay preacher - and people who do not believe that women should preach have told me that God did NOT call me to this and does NOT want me to do it. None of these folk seem to realise that if God made that very clear/blatantly obvious to me, I'd give it up tomorrow.
Spend lots of time writing sermons and preparing services, or not?
Write posts on here about how I am serving God and be abused and insulted, or not?
Really tough choice - NOT.

God has clearly said He suffers not a woman to teach, through the apostle Paul and God has also said (through Paul) that a Bishop should be a MAN the husband of one wife . If any MAN desire the office of a bishop HE desires a good work. Notice the masculine not feminine stress. This is in 1 Timothy 3.
These sections in scripture along with 1 Cor 14 about women not speaking in a church (in judgement over others or usurping over the man as God said through Paul in 1 Timothy as well) are clear to the unbiased reader.

I have never heard any sound response to these sections of scripture besides the clear truths they proclaim about women not being in oversight and judging over men or usurping over men or teaching over men. Even though some try hard to twist text and make them say very different than they do.

 

[LoveofTruth]

To all:

there is also no such thing as a “Clergy” and “Laity” division in the body of Christ.
All parts of the body have a office or function to edify one another as Christ works in them (Ephesians 4:25,16KJV)

the false Clergy and laity was invented long ago and hinders the priesthood of all believers and sets up Lords in dominion over others. No man or woman should take such a role over others. Yes there are overseers/elders who are simply mature men who watch over and care for others and feed them but they are not in control or lording over as a supreme authority.

Paul said

2 Corinthians 1:24. Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.”

The words “dominion over” means to control as a lord in supreme authority over as a master in title.

Yet this is what many of the so called “clergy” do. They call themselves “Master of divinity” an they have supreme authority and control over others. But Jesus said it should not be so and call no man master

Matthew 20:25. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.26. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;27. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:”

but the church often looks like the world in their clergy over the laity divide.

 

[Strong in Him]

God has clearly said He suffers not a woman to teach, through the apostle Paul

It would be strange if God had commanded that, seeing as he allowed:
- women to prophecy and give his word to me, e.g Huldah
- women to evangelise and introduce men to the Messiah, e.g the woman at the well
- a woman to be judge over the whole nation, settle disputes among men and bring them God's word, e.g Deborah
- a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection, tell the Good News to the men (who were all hiding) and give them a message from the Lord Jesus, e.g Mary Magdalene
- a woman to teach a male Apostles, e.g Priscilla.

Like it or not, this verse from 1 Timothy is not clear, or there would not be so many debates about it - and not just from women, wither, but male theologians also. Unless you are suggesting that we women are so devious and so determined to disobey that we have somehow tricked these poor men into accepting our point of view. I'm sure you're not saying that, but that seems to be the only alternative IF Scripture is as clear as you claim.

and God has also said (through Paul) that a Bishop should be a MAN the husband of one wife .

If you're taking that literally that means you believe Bishops HAVE to be married - not only that, but be able to have children and then make sure they can control them. It also suggests that anyone who has a temper, likes money, drinks alcohol etc etc is not fit to be a Bishop. How many colleges do you know of that have that criteria?
And God didn't think to say anything about faith, prayer, love of Scripture, being filled with the Holy Spirit etc?

Notice the masculine not feminine stress. This is in 1 Timothy 3.

That doesn't say that women can't be Bishops. If they were, it would be clearly understood that they were to be the wife of one husband - if they were married at all.
It is humans who have said, "husband of one wife, that must mean that a bishop should be a man since a woman can't have a wife - that must be a verse showing that God does not women to be ordained."
Yet it says no such thing.

These sections in scripture along with 1 Cor 14 about women not speaking in a church (in judgement over others or usurping over the man as God said through Paul in 1 Timothy as well) are clear to the unbiased reader.

They're only "clear" if you take them all out of context and put them alongside one another.
Reading in context:
1 Corinthians 14:26-40 - orderly worship.
Paul says that when the Corinthians come together, everyone has a hymn, a tongue, a word of instruction, a prophecy or an interpretation. [ Note, he does not say that only men are given words of instruction, and he has already said that women may prophecy.]
All these things, he says, are to be done or given in order to build up the church. But if several people have a tongue, two, or at the most 3, should speak and one at a time. There should also be someone to interpret. 2 or 3 prophets only should also speak, and if someone is sitting down and they get a revelation from God, the person on their feet must stop speaking. They should all speak in turn, FOR God is a God of peace and not disorder, 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Then Paul says that women should be silent in the churches, 1 Corinthians 14:34, and explains what he means by that - if they want to ask anything they should ask their own husbands at home, 1 Corinthians 14:35. Why would Paul have said that unless the position was that women were asking questions during the service - probably of the nearest man they could find? THAT was what was wrong - they were to hold their questions until they could ask their husbands in private.
Paul concludes this section by saying that the Corinthians should be eager to prophesy and not forbid speaking in tongues [again, women are not excluded from this], but says that everything should be done in an orderly way.

1 Timothy 2:1-15 - instructions on worship
Paul requests that everyone should pray for everyone else, and those in authority. He says that this is good, pleases God who wants everyone to be saved, and then gives a short testimony about his own calling.
Then he says that he wants men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, and to do so without anger or arguments. And he wants women to dress modestly, which means not wearing gold or pearls or having braided hair. They are to do "dress themselves" in good deeds, which is fitting for women who worship God. A woman, he says, should learn in silence and with submission; a woman [this is used in the singular] should not teach or have authority over men. Paul does not define either teaching, nor "having authority over" [the original word means "usurp"; to snatch by force.]
In verse 13 Paul appears to explain why he says what he does, except that it doesn't make sense. Yes, Adam was formed first and Eve as his helper - but "helper" does not mean inferiority. The Holy Spirit is our helper; he will never be inferior to us. Woman was created because God said "it is not good for man to be alone", Genesis 2:18, NOT "it would be good for man to have someone to order about." When Jesus was teaching about divorce he said that in the beginning God created male and female and his plan was that they should join together and become one flesh, Mark 10:8 - that doesn't in any way suggest inferiority.
In 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul says that Eve was the one who was deceived, not Adam. That is true; Adam was wilfully disobedient. Some people point to that verse and say "there you are; Eve was deceived, so women can't teach men, [and by extension, be ordained.] But to be consistent in their application, they should also say that men can't teach or be ordained because Adam deliberately and knowingly disobeyed God. After all, who wants a Minster who knows what God wants and does the opposite? Funnily enough, all the men I have pointed that out to have gone silent on the matter. Paul also says that sin came into the world through Adam, Romans 5:12-21, not Eve.
It's more likely that this verse refers back to verse 12 - a woman SHOULD learn [in that society they were not, or had not been, allowed to]; the reason a woman should learn [i.e learn the truth and the facts] is so that she is unable to be deceived like Eve was. Eve did not have a direct command from God as Adam did, and we are not told how she found out. However it was, she clearly didn't listen properly because when she told the serpent what God had said, she got it wrong, see Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3:3. Maybe she was talking at the time or interrupting Adam - which is why Paul said that a woman must learn in silence. No one can learn if they are talking.
And I have yet to have anyone who believes that these verses are commands from God explain verse 1 Timothy 2:15 to me. Women are saved by Jesus, just as men are; we are NOT saved by having children or even in childbirth. If that were so, I would, and could, not be saved because I didn't have children.

If you take verses in isolation, you can make Scripture say anything. Paul has said that women can pray and prophesy. He did not forbid them to speak in tongues, nor did he say that women would never have the gift of teaching or evangelism. So to suddenly say that they couldn't do either, and that this was a command from the God who liberated, respected and loved women, makes no sense.

 

[Albion]

I have come to understand that no progress can be made on this issue until the objection raised to women priests by members of churches which say women should keep silent and be submissive is separated from the issue that is raised by the larger and more traditional churches.

That is to say, the New Testament and the history of the church offer not even a sliver of an argument that God cannot have chosen some people for certain roles in his church and other people for different ones (as the Bible says is the case).

 

[Sam91]

Oh dear, I didn't mean to ruffle feathers here > <;

I wasn't implying that all, or even most women are only in it for 'power' or to be 'equal to men'. I've heard many testimonies from women pastors and they seem like good, genuine Christians. However, I'm not going to say that some don't do it for the wrong reasons either. I've also heard a lot of women talk about how they "should be able to use their spiritual gifts too" or simply brushing off the long-standing tradition of male-only priests/pastors to be "old fashioned". And yes, I do think a lot of women were probably a little misguided by the progressive feminist movement. To be fair, there was nothing wrong with the original feminist movement, and they did a lot of great things for women--I'm not against them at all. But, newer feminists, as I said, really hate strong male leaders and submissive women it seems. I do think that at some point, feminism may have given our Christian ladies the wrong idea....as their ideology doesn't have any place in a church.

I can't say much about women who feel 'called' to do something, other than I don't think God would call any of us to do something that would go against his own word. I'm not making anyone out to be a liar here or even criticizing anyone in their faith, just that it's helpful to remember even the most well-read pastors and preachers probably miss the mark on certain things, mistaking it for 'God's will'. For example, there's a woman on youtube called 'Godisgrey' who claims that God revealed to her that homosexuality is not a sin. She believes it wholeheartedly after years supposedly studying scripture, and had an 'encounter with the holy spirit' telling her that it was biblically acceptable to practice homosexuality. (A good example of how a devout, well-meaning Christian can sometimes miss the mark and mistake something as being a sign from God) So I think a lot of it comes from us wanting to be more 'inclusive', and not being able to properly imagine why God would only let men be ordained. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with being inclusive, but as I said--while we do have certain liberties in our day-to-day lives, I think God especially expects us to obey his commands in his Churches.

And yes, I think the bible did make it very clear that women cannot be ordained because if they were, they'd be assuming a very special spiritual authority over men;

1 Timothy 2
"8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

1 Corinthians 14
"34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."


Ironically, most Christians agree that homosexuality is wrong according to the bible, and that conclusion comes from only two or three ambiguous verses and a conclusion drawn from the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman. Meanwhile, God might not have said 'thou shalt not be ordained if thou is a woman' directly, but I think these passages above, coupled with what we know about the biblical gender roles God has set for us, speaks volumes. The line that really gets me is

"35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Maybe that doesn't say "don't ordain women", but the message here is pretty clear. If women were able to have the same status as men, why wouldn't they simply ask another Godly woman? Or, why are they instructed, specifically, to go home and ask their husbands? I also find it really interesting that this is the set of verses to follow that one;

"6 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."

The full chapter's context was about speaking in tongues, but the fact that this followed up RIGHT after the part about women being submissive and not speaking in the church, makes me think God knew we were going to have this problem, hence "37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command." Sounds like God is being pretty clear on this matter--it's not up to you to decide that you're a prophet or gifted by the spirit, God's command is God's command...and if you ignore it;

"8 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."


Anyways, at the end of the day, I'm only here to clarify misconceptions and give food for thought; as I firmly believe this is one of the more 'black and white' topics concerning the bible. I cannot change your mind--that would be up to God. Bless you both, and have a good day! ^-^

I wish I was able to quote in segments but I can't from my phone, so you'll have to bear with me.

The feminists people here of are more radical feminists. Those are the ones who make their opinions known through the media and are therefore, the feminists people think of. (Funnily enough my sociology lecturer said this just last week.)

Also, you say that homosexuality is only mentioned in a few verses in the Bible and that there is more verses speaking out against females having any type of authority. 25 Bible Verses about Homosexuality - What Does Scripture Say?

There is a plain example of a women given a leadership role in the book of Judges in Deborah. I do not see any stories or verses where same sex relations are sanctioned.

There is also the story of Abigail going against her husbands foolish actions and provided food for David's army. Nabal, the husband, then dropped down dead and Abigail became David's wife. God affirmed here that Abigail's actions were correct.

(Now, if Sapphira, in the beginning of Acts, had not gone along with her husband in sin she would not have dropped down dead.)

 

[Endeavourer]

@theoneandonlypencil @LoveofTruth

It's not very polite to descend on the thread without reading the prior posts.

My post #150 and #151 address the very questions you are bringing up. Could you please address the questions acknowledging the thread history instead of starting over?

What are your responses to posts #150 and #151?

 

[LoveofTruth]

It would be strange if God had commanded that, seeing as he allowed:
- women to prophecy and give his word to me, e.g Huldah
- women to evangelise and introduce men to the Messiah, e.g the woman at the well
- a woman to be judge over the whole nation, settle disputes among men and bring them God's word, e.g Deborah
- a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection, tell the Good News to the men (who were all hiding) and give them a message from the Lord Jesus, e.g Mary Magdalene
- a woman to teach a male Apostles, e.g Priscilla.

Like it or not, this verse from 1 Timothy is not clear, or there would not be so many debates about it - and not just from women, wither, but male theologians also. Unless you are suggesting that we women are so devious and so determined to disobey that we have somehow tricked these poor men into accepting our point of view. I'm sure you're not saying that, but that seems to be the only alternative IF Scripture is as clear as you claim.



If you're taking that literally that means you believe Bishops HAVE to be married - not only that, but be able to have children and then make sure they can control them. It also suggests that anyone who has a temper, likes money, drinks alcohol etc etc is not fit to be a Bishop. How many colleges do you know of that have that criteria?
And God didn't think to say anything about faith, prayer, love of Scripture, being filled with the Holy Spirit etc?



That doesn't say that women can't be Bishops. If they were, it would be clearly understood that they were to be the wife of one husband - if they were married at all.
It is humans who have said, "husband of one wife, that must mean that a bishop should be a man since a woman can't have a wife - that must be a verse showing that God does not women to be ordained."
Yet it says no such thing.



They're only "clear" if you take them all out of context and put them alongside one another.
Reading in context:
1 Corinthians 14:26-40 - orderly worship.
Paul says that when the Corinthians come together, everyone has a hymn, a tongue, a word of instruction, a prophecy or an interpretation. [ Note, he does not say that only men are given words of instruction, and he has already said that women may prophecy.]
All these things, he says, are to be done or given in order to build up the church. But if several people have a tongue, two, or at the most 3, should speak and one at a time. There should also be someone to interpret. 2 or 3 prophets only should also speak, and if someone is sitting down and they get a revelation from God, the person on their feet must stop speaking. They should all speak in turn, FOR God is a God of peace and not disorder, 1 Corinthians 14:33.
Then Paul says that women should be silent in the churches, 1 Corinthians 14:34, and explains what he means by that - if they want to ask anything they should ask their own husbands at home, 1 Corinthians 14:35. Why would Paul have said that unless the position was that women were asking questions during the service - probably of the nearest man they could find? THAT was what was wrong - they were to hold their questions until they could ask their husbands in private.
Paul concludes this section by saying that the Corinthians should be eager to prophesy and not forbid speaking in tongues [again, women are not excluded from this], but says that everything should be done in an orderly way.

1 Timothy 2:1-15 - instructions on worship
Paul requests that everyone should pray for everyone else, and those in authority. He says that this is good, pleases God who wants everyone to be saved, and then gives a short testimony about his own calling.
Then he says that he wants men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, and to do so without anger or arguments. And he wants women to dress modestly, which means not wearing gold or pearls or having braided hair. They are to do "dress themselves" in good deeds, which is fitting for women who worship God. A woman, he says, should learn in silence and with submission; a woman [this is used in the singular] should not teach or have authority over men. Paul does not define either teaching, nor "having authority over" [the original word means "usurp"; to snatch by force.]
In verse 13 Paul appears to explain why he says what he does, except that it doesn't make sense. Yes, Adam was formed first and Eve as his helper - but "helper" does not mean inferiority. The Holy Spirit is our helper; he will never be inferior to us. Woman was created because God said "it is not good for man to be alone", Genesis 2:18, NOT "it would be good for man to have someone to order about." When Jesus was teaching about divorce he said that in the beginning God created male and female and his plan was that they should join together and become one flesh, Mark 10:8 - that doesn't in any way suggest inferiority.
In 1 Timothy 2:14 Paul says that Eve was the one who was deceived, not Adam. That is true; Adam was wilfully disobedient. Some people point to that verse and say "there you are; Eve was deceived, so women can't teach men, [and by extension, be ordained.] But to be consistent in their application, they should also say that men can't teach or be ordained because Adam deliberately and knowingly disobeyed God. After all, who wants a Minster who knows what God wants and does the opposite? Funnily enough, all the men I have pointed that out to have gone silent on the matter. Paul also says that sin came into the world through Adam, Romans 5:12-21, not Eve.
It's more likely that this verse refers back to verse 12 - a woman SHOULD learn [in that society they were not, or had not been, allowed to]; the reason a woman should learn [i.e learn the truth and the facts] is so that she is unable to be deceived like Eve was. Eve did not have a direct command from God as Adam did, and we are not told how she found out. However it was, she clearly didn't listen properly because when she told the serpent what God had said, she got it wrong, see Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3:3. Maybe she was talking at the time or interrupting Adam - which is why Paul said that a woman must learn in silence. No one can learn if they are talking.
And I have yet to have anyone who believes that these verses are commands from God explain verse 1 Timothy 2:15 to me. Women are saved by Jesus, just as men are; we are NOT saved by having children or even in childbirth. If that were so, I would, and could, not be saved because I didn't have children.

If you take verses in isolation, you can make Scripture say anything. Paul has said that women can pray and prophesy. He did not forbid them to speak in tongues, nor did he say that women would never have the gift of teaching or evangelism. So to suddenly say that they couldn't do either, and that this was a command from the God who liberated, respected and loved women, makes no sense.

You may want to read my thread here I answer many of your objection in it

Womens roles in the church

 

[Paidiske]

God has also said (through Paul) ...If any MAN desire the office of a bishop HE desires a good work. Notice the masculine not feminine stress. This is in 1 Timothy 3.

Actually, the Greek doesn't say that. It says ei tis, "if anyone." It is English translations which have introduced a gendered term there.

Now I'm sure I've told you that before, but there may be people reading this thread who didn't know that.