Women becoming pastors?

[Radrook]

Maybe the tables needed turning sorry, couldn't resist lol.
Ok, unsubscribe

The Book of Jude mentions those who would gather at Christian reunions in order to harm others. That morose sister with her bitterness against male leadership inflicted great spiritual persecution upon me and caused me greater distress than I needed to bear at a moment in my life when I was recently baptized and was being systematically hounded daily at the job for my faith. Then I had to give a Bible study held unfortunately at her apartment and find her glaring murderously at me and attempting to humiliate me during the session? That is a sin!

 

[Strong in Him]

BTW
How certain prominent people ignore the Bible doesn't mean that we all should ignore it just because they are prominent. If they commit murder, should we also?

This is a good example of not discerning the genre, and style, of writing in Scripture but applying it all indiscriminately.
"You shall not murder" is one of the 10 commandments. These commandments were affirmed by Christ who summed them up in two; love God and love your neighbour as yourself. He also told us to treat others as we would like to be treated, to love our enemies and to love one another as he loved us. Obviously murdering someone is breaking all of these. Murder is also against the law in most countries - though there are some cultures which carry out "honour killings", or killing "infidels" and would not regard these as murder. (I know they're probably Muslim, but Muslim's believe the OT as well.)

Breaking a commandment, and going against Jesus' teachings, is obviously very different to believing that something that Paul wrote to one church is only for that church in their situation. Why didn't he write that to the church at Rome, where they had Phoebe, Junia and many female co workers; or to Philippi, which may have been co founded by a woman, and where Euodia and Syntyche were in ministry?

You seem to think that just because trends become popular that it is OK. Otherwise why offer examples that go contrary to scripture as if that should influence a Christian's attitude one way or the other?

I'm trying to understand how you understand Scripture, and am pointing out that if you believe some verses are literal and to be applied today, then surely you should believe that all of it is. That includes verses about hair length, wearing jewellery, drinking wine instead of water and a number of others. It wouldn't be consistent to say, "that verse is inspired and therefore is for us, but this one just refers to a local custom.
It's the same for everyone - which is why I gave the example of Catholics saying "we abide by this verse, but not this one". And I'm NOT Catholic bashing, I'm trying to make a point and show an inconsistency.

Christians are admonished to follow good behavioral examples not bad ones.

Yes. Not talking, interrupting or heckling during a sermon is good; constantly interrupting a preacher to make a point, ask a question or to say that you disagree is disrespectful and not conducive to worship/learning - unless it is planned beforehand and is with the preacher's knowledge and consent. So not talking during a service is good practice. That is not at all he same as saying that women must be completely silent - which some take to mean that they shouldn't participate in worship at all. Years ago there was someone on these forums who said that their wife didn't even say "amen" to the prayers, for fear of disobeying Scripture. I have also been to churches where women are not allowed to publicly read the Scriptures.
I don't believe that this was what Paul meant at all - I think he'd be horrified if he knew some people were preventing women from worshipping God. And yet there are Christians who say, "these words are in Scripture; we have to keep them."

As for hair length issues, if a certain hair length is characteristic of females as opposed to men's hair-length then a man is expected to avoid it

Why?
How long do you think Jesus' hair was? We'll never know; just saying.

The same principle applies to women. Don't agree?

Of course not. You're implying it's wrong for women to have short hair, and, I dare say, wear trousers, waistcoats or other "men's apparel" too.
In Scotland many men wear kilts, and sometimes our Royal Princes do too. It's not disgraceful; it's normal.

 

[Radrook]

This is a good example of not discerning the genre, and style, of writing in Scripture but applying it all indiscriminately.
"You shall not murder" is one of the 10 commandments. These commandments were affirmed by Christ who summed them up in two; love God and love your neighbour as yourself. He also told us to treat others as we would like to be treated, to love our enemies and to love one another as he loved us. Obviously murdering someone is breaking all of these. Murder is also against the law in most countries - though there are some cultures which carry out "honour killings", or killing "infidels" and would not regard these as murder. (I know they're probably Muslim, but Muslim's believe the OT as well.)

Breaking a commandment, and going against Jesus' teachings, is obviously very different to believing that something that Paul wrote to one church is only for that church in their situation. Why didn't he write that to the church at Rome, where they had Phoebe, Junia and many female co workers; or to Philippi, which may have been co founded by a woman, and where Euodia and Syntyche were in ministry?



I'm trying to understand how you understand Scripture, and am pointing out that if you believe some verses are literal and to be applied today, then surely you should believe that all of it is. That includes verses about hair length, wearing jewellery, drinking wine instead of water and a number of others. It wouldn't be consistent to say, "that verse is inspired and therefore is for us, but this one just refers to a local custom.
It's the same for everyone - which is why I gave the example of Catholics saying "we abide by this verse, but not this one". And I'm NOT Catholic bashing, I'm trying to make a point and show an inconsistency.



Yes. Not talking, interrupting or heckling during a sermon is good; constantly interrupting a preacher to make a point, ask a question or to say that you disagree is disrespectful and not conducive to worship/learning - unless it is planned beforehand and is with the preacher's knowledge and consent. So not talking during a service is good practice. That is not at all he same as saying that women must be completely silent - which some take to mean that they shouldn't participate in worship at all. Years ago there was someone on these forums who said that their wife didn't even say "amen" to the prayers, for fear of disobeying Scripture. I have also been to churches where women are not allowed to publicly read the Scriptures.
I don't believe that this was what Paul meant at all - I think he'd be horrified if he knew some people were preventing women from worshipping God. And yet there are Christians who say, "these words are in Scripture; we have to keep them."



Why?
How long do you think Jesus' hair was? We'll never know; just saying.



Of course not. You're implying it's wrong for women to have short hair, and, I dare say, wear trousers, waistcoats or other "men's apparel" too.
In Scotland many men wear kilts, and sometimes our Royal Princes do too. It's not disgraceful; it's normal.

Jesus' hair was as long as it was allowed to be worn by males in the Jewish culture but not as long as women in his culture TYPICALLY allowed it to grow because then he would have been ostracized. There are trousers that are clearly designed for women-they are called slacks not trousers. There are pants designed for men.

So you are misinterpreting what I said. If the attire is culturally typically female or typically viewed as male it is wrong for either side to shift over and wear it. Same with the hair-length issue.

1. The references of drinking a little wine for the sake of stomach problems is not recommending nor demanding that that Christians abandon water altogether. LOL! Neither is the advice about women dressing modestly and not emphasizing Jewelry so much demanding that they abandon all Jewelry. It is suggesting a moderation that becomes a Christian woman who places spiritual beauty above the physical. It provides the example of Sarah who called her husband Abraham Lord as one which all women should follow in reference to their husbands.

2. He didn't counsel the other churches in the same way because Paul's letters which were immediately circulated among the early churches and had either already been read and his authority recognized in such matters or else would soon be when they received his circulated letters or copies of them.

Churches did not exist totally isolated from one another. Apostolic authority was recognized in all and such instructions were respectfully abided by. Those churches that did not abide by Apostolic statements were criticized and admonished as we are told in the book of Revelation in the letters to such churches.

3. The ministries of the women you mention could not have been in opposition to what Paul had clearly said. Neither did what he say mean that women would not receive holy spirit just as all others did and in the process utter prophecies and speak in tongues. All present at Pentecost were given the gift of the spirit. However, Just as all Apostles were males, all those taking the lead in the churches as far as addressing the assembled congregation directly for shepherding purposes were required to be males.

Women could preach, teach non baptized males and other unbelievers. They could teach their unbaptized sons such as Timothy learned of the scriptures since infancy. But were not to teach or shepherd baptized males because that was not the way it was organized and not the way that the inspired word of God revealed it should be organized.

 

[JackRT]

As is God's Word:

A faith that does not remain vibrant and responsive to changing times, changing cultures and changing understandings is well on its way to becoming a dying faith. Some deaths are very protracted.

 

[dhh712]

The Bible doesn't speak highly against it.
If it did, God would not call women to do this, because he doesn't contradict his word. And men would not allow women to do this either - far less encourage, train and ordain them.

God doesn't call women to do this. Satan has taken a stronghold in the church. The churches that are doing this are violating God's word. With the rampant feminism of modern days, the church is, as God warned against, becoming indistinct from the world.

Thankfully, there are still churches that follow God's command on this matter faithfully.

 

[Strong in Him]

God doesn't call women to do this.

He does and he is.
I know, and have known, many Godly, inspiring, Spirit-filled women, who prea ch the Gospel nd help may in their Christian walk

Satan has taken a stronghold in the church.

Satan calls women to preach the Gospel, tell people about Jesus and how he defeated Satan on the cross?? Satan wants women to tell people that the devil cannot win, will finally be destroyed one day and that nothing can separate them from God's love? Or does he want Christians to know that they are to resist temptation, put on the armour of God and resist the devil?

If so, good news folks! Satan is more stupid than we thought. Don't listen to Peter who calls him a roaring lion - he's clearly an idiot.

Satan cannot, and will not, lead people to Jesus so that they may be convicted of their sin, repent and be born again. That's the Spirit's job.

The churches that are doing this are violating God's word.

Yet some of the are growing and being blessed by God.
Some churches I know with women Ministers are very firmly rooted in the word.

 

[Christina C]

I believe I'm just as qualified to be a preacher as much as any preacher that I've seen. I've trained with others as they've learnt to do 3 part sermons. I've studied with the best in old vs new testament teachings as well as very inspired studies of my own. But because of the sentiment of the church in general I have submitted myself to not persueing that as a goal. What I feel that has done is quench the Spirit in it's edification to others, not to myself.

I think this is where confusion arises and not everyone is meaning the same thing by Priest or Pastor or Leader or Preacher. I would agree that it is fine for women to teach - others responding in this thread would say it was only okay for women to teach other women or children. However, Priest to me is someone ordained to Holy Orders and who is able to administer the sacraments - Orthodox and Catholics believe that only men can be ordained to administer the sacraments. That is a different questions to whether a women can teach or give a sermon and to whom.

 

[Strong in Him]

I think this is where confusion arises and not everyone is meaning the same thing by Priest or Pastor or Leader or Preacher.

That is true. And I must admit that I sometimes talk about preaching when others are talking about ordination. Sorry.

But this is one of the puzzles. 1 Timothy 2:12 talks about women being silent in church and not teaching or usurping the authority of a man. Some people quote that verse as a reason for women not doing anything. If that's how they read it, and then enforce it; fine. I disagree with them, but admire them for their consistency.
But some people seem to apply half of that verse only. I have seen arguments that women may preach and that silent doesn't mean refraining from worship, but they can't be ordained because that is usurping authority from men. Quite aside from the fact that authority is from God and cannot be usurped/snatched, it is inconsistent to apply one half of a verse but not the other.

And I know there are other verses that people also say speak against ordination; but the above verse is always one of them.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

In Scotland many men wear kilts, and sometimes our Royal Princes do too. It's not disgraceful; it's normal.

Well...without wishing to appear remotely anti-Caledonian, normal is not the first word that springs to my mind when considering any attribute of Scotland.

For me, normal would be Somerset or something of that nature.

 

[JackRT]

Well...without wishing to appear remotely anti-Caledonian, normal is not the first word that springs to my mind when considering any attribute of Scotland.

For me, normal would be Somerset or something of that nature.

I am reminded that 20 years ago a friend and his wife spent a summer touring Scotland. On his return he told me "If the Scots had enough sense to come in out of the rain, they'd never get any outdoor exercise."

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I am reminded that 20 years ago a friend and his wife spent a summer touring Scotland. On his return he told me "If the Scots had enough sense to come in out of the rain, they'd never get any outdoor exercise."

Most amusing.

 

[Christina C]

That is true. And I must admit that I sometimes talk about preaching when others are talking about ordination. Sorry.

But this is one of the puzzles. 1 Timothy 2:12 talks about women being silent in church and not teaching or usurping the authority of a man. Some people quote that verse as a reason for women not doing anything. If that's how they read it, and then enforce it; fine. I disagree with them, but admire them for their consistency.
But some people seem to apply half of that verse only. I have seen arguments that women may preach and that silent doesn't mean refraining from worship, but they can't be ordained because that is usurping authority from men. Quite aside from the fact that authority is from God and cannot be usurped/snatched, it is inconsistent to apply one half of a verse but not the other.

And I know there are other verses that people also say speak against ordination; but the above verse is always one of them.

I don't use verses from the Bible to justify ordaining or not ordaining women. To really understand what some verses mean you need to go back and look at the original Greek. I also don't think ordaining or not ordaining women is about usurping authority from men - although am aware that that is how others view it.

I am Anglican, not Eastern Orthodox, but have leanings towards Orthodoxy. Rather than try and explain further, have a read of these.
https://oca.org/questions/priesthoodmonasticism/ordination-of-women

http://www.antiochian.org/node/17953
This article talks about the meaning of women being silent

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't use verses from the Bible to justify ordaining or not ordaining women.

No, but plenty do.

I don't use verses from the Bible to justify ordaining or not ordaining women. To really understand what some verses mean you need to go back and look at the original Greek.

And read it in context, consider the style of writing, who it was written to, etc.

I am Anglican, not Eastern Orthodox, but have leanings towards Orthodoxy. Rather

Parts of the Anglican communion ordain women - NZ, Canada, Australia and I think America ordained women before the UK did. Some of these countries have had female Bishops for a while too.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

A faith that does not remain vibrant and responsive to changing times, changing cultures and changing understandings is well on its way to becoming a dying faith. Some deaths are very protracted.

I would find this insulting were it not for the fact that far more United Churches in our part of the Provence have closed over the last 50 years than confessional Lutheran parishes. In my own town, Centennial United closed just a few years ago, and this year, St. John's United; both were huge congregations back in the 80's and 90's. Yes, some deaths are protracted, some very swift indeed.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

My wife is from the Philippines and originally her dad lead a church there. Then he left her (they don't have divorce there) and her mom took over. Shes now the pastor of the church.

Growing up I was never sure what to think about it because I seen verses from both side of the argument. But now I am for it. I mean I can see where a woman might run a church differently or solve problems differently then a man. Which I can see it becoming an issue. For example what if the women favors other women handling things. Or what does she do when it comes to marital counseling? She may lean towards more female thinking and even more worldly ways.

Overall I doubt God is sending someone to hell if they lead the church as a woman. In the end the woman is still teaching Gods word. And its not like Gods word somehow changes when a woman teaches about it. Shes still reading the same verses and what not.

 

[LouisBooth]

He does and he is.
I know, and have known, many Godly, inspiring, Spirit-filled women, who prea ch the Gospel nd help may in their Christian walk



Satan calls women to preach the Gospel, tell people about Jesus and how he defeated Satan on the cross?? Satan wants women to tell people that the devil cannot win, will finally be destroyed one day and that nothing can separate them from God's love? Or does he want Christians to know that they are to resist temptation, put on the armour of God and resist the devil?

If so, good news folks! Satan is more stupid than we thought. Don't listen to Peter who calls him a roaring lion - he's clearly an idiot.

Satan cannot, and will not, lead people to Jesus so that they may be convicted of their sin, repent and be born again. That's the Spirit's job.



Yet some of the are growing and being blessed by God.
Some churches I know with women Ministers are very firmly rooted in the word.

God blessed drunkards, tax collectors, etc...He makes the best of a bad situation. Results don't always tell you it's not a sin. Christ Dying for us was the ultimate, "no no", but was made the greatest triumph. Not sure you should use results to justify that position.

To be honest, I'm totally undecided on the issue. I see merits to both sides. This issue is a nonessential so we have room for discussion.

On his example though, Satan would most assuredly use a "good" action to accomplish a worse result. He would have given the world for Jesus to rule (amazing action..and yes it's debatable that this promise was a straight up lie) but the result would have been far worse.

 

[Christina C]

No, but plenty do.

I am aware of that

And read it in context, consider the style of writing, who it was written to, etc.

I agree

Parts of the Anglican communion ordain women - NZ, Canada, Australia and I think America ordained women before the UK did. Some of these countries have had female Bishops for a while too.

Yes, I am aware of that too. I live in England. The C of E ordain women as Priests and Bishops. Not all Anglicans agree with this. Some have chosen to leave the Church, others remain. I gave two Eastern Orthodox viewpoints in my post, not Anglican viewpoints - you would be able to find Anglican viewpoints on both sides of the debate.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, I am aware of that too. I live in England. The C of E ordain women as Priests and Bishops. Not all Anglicans agree with this. Some have chosen to leave the Church, others remain. I gave two Eastern Orthodox viewpoints in my post, not Anglican viewpoints - you would be able to find Anglican viewpoints on both sides of the debate.

I know. I was an Anglican for many years; it's a large church with a wide spectrum of views and practices.
The reason I left was nothing to do with this issue though. In fact they were ordaining women before I left them.

 

[Strong in Him]

God blessed drunkards, tax collectors, etc...

Yes; Jesus ate and drank with these people, certainly. He also called a tax collector to be one of his 12 disciples. God loves everyone.

He makes the best of a bad situation.

As he is actively calling women to serve him in this way, he is not "making the best of a bad situation."
If God was really opposed to women leading churches, he could raise up men to do it; Jesus said he could raise up worshippers from stones, so why not Ministers from men. He would not break his own commands, if women not being ordained WAS a command, or tolerate Christians sinning in order to have leaders in his church.

G Christ Dying for us was the ultimate, "no no", but was made the greatest triumph.

?? No it wasn't; it was God's plan from the beginning.
It was prophesied in the Garden of Eden, and throughout the Scriptures; Peter called Jesus the Lamb chosen from the foundation of the world, and Jesus said that that was why he had come.

From the disciples' p.o.v. it was a tragedy at the time - because they didn't understand about the resurrection. But the cross wasn't a "no, no" - not at all.

Not sure you should use results to justify that position.

Well yes, actually.
Firstly, when did you ever see God bless sin in the OT? When his people lied, disobeyed and dishonoured his name, he punished them. If women Ministers are lying when they stand in the pulpit and say, "God called me"; why doesn't he reprimand them/send the Spirit to correct them, rather than having them stand and publicly proclaim a lie? Why allow them to continue in Ministry, maybe for many years, preaching the Good News, teaching others to know Christ, ministering to the sick, helping people grow in their faith, and so on?
Secondly, if this call to ministry isn't from God, who is it from? As I said before the devil has no interest in leading people to Christ, or helping them find God. And if it's from the women's own desires, it's unlikely it would survive the rigorous testing and selection process. Selection is a tough process - even for men. Women have to also deal with the family situation and possible questions/guilt about having/caring for children. And, though their church would be sympathetic, a woman candidate coming on to a site like this would also have to deal with being called a feminist/disobedient sinner/deluded person; persecutions from their own brethren in Christ. I can't imagine someone wanting to put themselves through that for something which was just their own idea.

To be honest, I'm totally undecided on the issue. I see merits to both sides. This issue is a nonessential so we have room for discussion.

It's not essential for salvation, true. People on both sides of the debate will get to heaven to find their "opponents" there.
But for the female Christian women who are born again, filled with the Spirit, love God, desire to serve him and believe that this is what he is calling them to do; it is essential. It may be for the churches too. If the church cannot, in all conscience, allow a woman to do this, they may go elsewhere.

On his example though, Satan would most assuredly use a "good" action to accomplish a worse result.

Sorry but I don't believe that.
I doubt that he would, or could, call a woman to preach the Gospel - apart from anything else, the first thing that someone who is called does, is to pray and ask for assurance that this is from God. Training involves listening to God, studying the Scriptures, meditating and praying. The devil is not going to want someone to do that, and would be very unwilling to preach the cross and help others to hear the Gospel. I have never yet heard of a woman being ordained and her turning round and saying "aha, that was from Satan; now I can destroy the church and lead others into devil worship."

 

[LouisBooth]

As he is actively calling women to serve him in this way, he is not "making the best of a bad situation."

Not sure I agree. The rocks would cry out if....would you be taught by a rock?

I"m undecided on this issue, but my point is you're using circular logic to justify it. Women in ministry doing good things are not proof that God calls women to ministry.

Firstly, when did you ever see God bless sin in the OT

No, the question is has he blessed the fruit of someone sinning, and yes he has. Looking at Jesus' lineage should tell you that alone. Again, he is making the best of a bad situation.

But for the female Christian women who are born again, filled with the Spirit, love God, desire to serve him and believe that this is what he is calling them to do;

And believe...again, that doesn't justify it. I can believe in my heart that God wanted X for me, that doesn't make it so.

Sorry but I don't believe that.

You don't need to believe it for it to be true. He was an angel of light. He is quite sneaky. Look at the name it claim it gospel. I believe that's a great example of Satan using a minor good to accomplish a major evil.