Women as pastors question

[MercyandFaith]

There are god grounds to suggest that verse was a later insertion by some scribe.
John
NZ

Then how do we know much of the rest of the Bible isn't inserted by scribes as well? How do we know what is legit and isn't?

 

[Johnnz]

Then how do we know much of the rest of the Bible isn't inserted by scribes as well? How do we know what is legit and isn't?

That's where we must reply on good Christian scholarship. There are many documents in existence from which our translations are made, some more complete and reliable than others.

John
NZ

 

[TheDag]

I'm still waiting for that good argument.

I'm still waiting for a good argument that explains away the context of the passage. You have not managed to do that. Is it not unreasonable to expect others to respond when you yourself have not?

All I've gotten is people who point to tradition who seem to ignore tradition when it suits them. People who point to tradition but then want me to ignore context when it suits.

 

[hedrick]

I'm still waiting for a good argument that explains away the context of the passage. You have not managed to do that. Is it not unreasonable to expect others to respond when you yourself have not?

All I've gotten is people who point to tradition who seem to ignore tradition when it suits them. People who point to tradition but then want me to ignore context when it suits.

Paul's position in the undisputed letters is consistently in support of female leaders. As far as I can see all the texts have been looked at, but if you have questions about one, I can deal with it.

I think the most natural reading of 1 Tim 2 is that it's prohibiting wives from having authority over their husbands, but that's the passage over which the most controversy exists.

 

[hedrick]

1 Corinthians 14:34 - Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Timothy 2:11

These I support, not the opposition.....and there will be mockers, ridiculers and unbelievers that will test, undermine and try to pull us away from the truth.

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On 1 Cor 14:34 I should note that conservatives never actually take this passage literally. Literally it tells women that they shouldn't talk during the service. Since it's paired with an instruction to ask their husbands later, the obvious context is women asking questions during the service. If I said to anyone else, e.g. children, "don't talk during the service" most people would understand me to be prohibiting them from making noise, not prohibiting them from being asked to take a formal part in the service.

The literal interpretation would be that women shouldn't talk to their husbands in church when they're sitting in the pews together. But no one actually takes it that way. Instead they prohibit women from being church leaders, something the passage doesn't talk about at all.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

I'm still waiting for a good argument that explains away the context of the passage. You have not managed to do that. Is it not unreasonable to expect others to respond when you yourself have not?

1: It's not my job to prove your point. That's your job.
2: The context of "there is neither male nor female" isn't a discussion regarding the nature of the Office of the Holy Ministry, but of soteriology. There is no difference regarding justification, between Greek, Jew, male, female, etc.

Paul isn't talking about the Office here, so it is those who use this passage as a prooftext for "female pastors" that use it out of its context.

And the above explaining away of 1 Cor 14,34 is pretty amateurish. The line of Paul's argument goes through the Law; he is using the Law to justify his position here. He would not, if it was simply a matter of idle chatter. Overly literal readings are worthless more often than not.

 

[TheDag]

1: It's not my job to prove your point. That's your job.

Wasn't asking you to prove my point. Was just asking you to refute points already made.

2: The context of "there is neither male nor female" isn't a discussion regarding the nature of the Office of the Holy Ministry, but of soteriology. There is no difference regarding justification, between Greek, Jew, male, female, etc.

Where did I mention that passage? Nowhere! I wasn't even talking about that. I was expecting you to actually address posts made in this thread that provide explanations regarding context.

And the above explaining away of 1 Cor 14,34 is pretty amateurish. The line of Paul's argument goes through the Law; he is using the Law to justify his position here. He would not, if it was simply a matter of idle chatter. Overly literal readings are worthless more often than not.

Yet ask any person who believes you should take the bible literally or that women should be quiet and not teach and they are more than happy for women to talk and also teach kids. That is not being quiet in church after all teaching the kids is part of church. Sorry it is the ol double standard position again.

 

[Johnnz]

On 1 Cor 14:34 I should note that conservatives never actually take this passage literally. Literally it tells women that they shouldn't talk during the service. Since it's paired with an instruction to ask their husbands later, the obvious context is women asking questions during the service. If I said to anyone else, e.g. children, "don't talk during the service" most people would understand me to be prohibiting them from making noise, not prohibiting them from being asked to take a formal part in the service.

The literal interpretation would be that women shouldn't talk to their husbands in church when they're sitting in the pews together. But no one actually takes it that way. Instead they prohibit women from being church leaders, something the passage doesn't talk about at all.

I hold to a cultural context for those verses. In Jewish society women sat separately from men and would talk amongst themselves. Women were not deemed fit to receive instruction in Torah.

In the new community people met around a meal (no pews or formal seating for some centuries later) with all able to participate, contrary to prevailing cultural norms. Quite possibly old habits persisted and some women, enjoying their new freedom were overactive, as some seemed to be with spiritual gifts requiring Paul to address that issue too.

John
NZ

 

[hedrick]

I hold to a cultural context for those verses. In Jewish society women sat separately from men and would talk amongst themselves. Women were not deemed fit to receive instruction in Torah.

In the new community people met around a meal (no pews or formal seating for some centuries later) with all able to participate, contrary to prevailing cultural norms. Quite possibly old habits persisted and some women, enjoying their new freedom were overactive, as some seemed to be with spiritual gifts requiring Paul to address that issue too.

John
NZ[/SIZE]

Yes, I would accept that. I know the work leading to that interpretation. But my point was that the text itself implies that the context is talking with their husband, not preaching or reading Scripture.

 

[Johnnz]

2: The context of "there is neither male nor female" isn't a discussion regarding the nature of the Office of the Holy Ministry, but of soteriology. There is no difference regarding justification, between Greek, Jew, male, female, etc.

Paul isn't talking about the Office here, so it is those who use this passage as a prooftext for "female pastors" that use it out of its context.

And the above explaining away of 1 Cor 14,34 is pretty amateurish. The line of Paul's argument goes through the Law; he is using the Law to justify his position here. He would not, if it was simply a matter of idle chatter. Overly literal readings are worthless more often than not.

First up the concept of 'Office' is an historical development imposed onto an intepretation of some texts. But there is no clear biblical mandate for such a term and what it implies. Ministry (which we all have and are to participate in) is a function of one's gifting, not some special leadership status. All believers are gifted in some ay, irrespective of race, status, or gender. That lies behind Paul's statement in Galatians, not merely our justification.

What law is Paul using? Nothing in the OT teaches what Paul wrote.

John
NZ

 

[Albion]

The fact that in Christ there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, slave or free, male and female, should warn us about excluding any from ministry whom Christ has bought with his blood. There is no mention of black pastors in the bible, do we exclude them too? What about Chinese pastors?

There are also no verses that exclude Chinese or blacks, as is the case with women. And the equality argument is invalid also, because there is a difference between being a slave or a freeman. If you seriously thought there is no difference between the two, you'd have to admit that there's no argument against slavery.

 

[Avniel]

There are also no verses that exclude Chinese or blacks, as is the case with women. And the equality argument is invalid also, because there is a difference between being a slave or a freeman. If you seriously thought there is no difference between the two, you'd have to admit that there's no argument against slavery.

Why did he even take it there I am kinda offended.

 

[Assyrian]

There are also no verses that exclude Chinese or blacks, as is the case with women.

I take it then there was never any problem with interracial churches in the US or a black pastor leading a congregation with white people in it? Did white southern seminaries always accepting black candidates and white denominations ordain and appoint black pastors? Or was there a time when they didn't? Did people back then ever quote misinterpreted scripture texts to try to justify their racism?

I was asked for '"a single good Biblical argument in favor of so-called "women pastors"'. I showed one. Now the fact people who don't like women's ministries will argue against it, and come up with out of context proof texts against women's ministry, doesn't mean Galatians isn't a good argument for women pastors.

And the equality argument is invalid also, because there is a difference between being a slave or a freeman. If you seriously thought there is no difference between the two, you'd have to admit that there's no argument against slavery.

That is why Paul say 'in Christ' there is no difference between male and female, slave or free. Much of Paul's ministry was spent dealing with the very real differences between Jews and Gentiles, a very real division that Christ abolished and had no place in the church. Paul condemned the slave trade (1Tim 1:10) but told slaves to obey their masters. Paul recognised the reality of the practice in society but said it had no place in the church, which is why the early church had no problem appointing slaves as church ministers.

 

[Albion]

I take it then there was never any problem with interracial churches in the US or a black pastor leading a congregation with white people in it?

I corrected your mistake about what the Bible says or doesnt say on these matters. So now you are moving to the less specific and less important issue of what Christians (as opposed to God) have historically said or done.

Yes, I agree that individual Christians and groups of Christians have been wrong at times. We need only consider the churches that have "ordained" women pastors in recent decades in order to see that!

 

[Hetta]

Actually, women should not be pastors.
Women was deceived by the serpent in the garden while Adam was not deceived, Adam made a choice.

That's pretty funny actually. Adam made a choice to eat the apple - therefore he was knowingly and intentionally committing a sin? And that makes him better than Eve?

 

[Assyrian]

Why did he even take it there I am kinda offended.

Sorry if I have offended you, it certainly wasn't my intention.

 

[Assyrian]

I corrected your mistake about what the Bible says or doesnt say on these matters. So now you are moving to the less specific and less important issue of what Christians (as opposed to God) have historically said or done.

Yes, I agree that We need only consider the churches that have "ordained" women pastors in recent decades in order to see that!

You didn't 'correct my mistake' about Gal 3:28, you though your anti women's ministry proof texts meant it must be wrong. But that simply shows how individual Christians and groups of Christians have been wrong at times, it does not deal with Paul's statement that the distinctions between male and female, slave and free, Jew and Greek, disappear in Christ.

 

[Albion]

You didn't 'correct my mistake' about Gal 3:28, you though your anti women's ministry proof texts meant it must be wrong. But that simply shows how individual Christians and groups of Christians have been wrong at times, it does not deal with Paul's statement that the distinctions between male and female, slave and free, Jew and Greek, disappear in Christ.

If all "distinctions" between the followers of Christ "disappear," we don't need pastors at all, and this problem is solved!

 

[Johnnz]

If all "distinctions" between the followers of Christ "disappear," we don't need pastors at all, and this problem is solved!

Which is a reply that avoids the issue - sidestepping. How about giving your exegesis of the Galatians verse.

John
NZ

 

[Albion]

Which is a reply that avoids the issue - sidestepping.

This is the part of his post that I was replying to:

it does not deal with Paul's statement that the distinctions between male and female, slave and free, Jew and Greek, disappear in Christ.

You're welcome.