Women elders/pastors?

[CmRoddy]

I want to know the opinion people have on women pastors and elders.

My position is that the Bible restricts the office of elders/pastors to men. There are many reasons for this, but I'm going to make this short.

1 Timothy 2:12-13
12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

This cannot be a cultural thing because the reason Paul gave was "For it was Adam who was first created."

Also, the Elder is to be the "husband of one wife" or in the Greek a "one woman man" (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). How can a woman be a "one woman man"?

 

[Polycarp1]

The question is one of context.

Paul sometimes gives advice specific to the church he is writing to, and sometimes teaches eternal verities applicable to all times and places.

Protestants and related groups who hold that this text is for all times and places believe that therefore no woman should be ordained or employed in a role giving her authority or a teaching role over men. (Catholics and other sacrmentally-oriented groups also see the priest as modeling Christ to his parish, the bishop to his diocese, etc., and therefore feel that only a man can effectively model Christ.)

Those who believe this to be specific to the time and places Paul was writing to (there are at least two passages where he says essentially this) focus on the fact that education for women in the Greek world was very practical, focusing on homemaking and sometimes on business management where she might do the A/R billing for her husband's product -- and that therefore the woman should turn to her more liberally educated husband (or father if unmarried) for understanding, rather than speaking out in the Christian assembly. Since this is no longer the case, a properly trained woman can teach, preach, and minister.

Both positions have strong partisan support. And both are validated by proper Biblical scholarship to the satisfaction of their partisans.

 

[CmRoddy]

The question is one of context.

Paul sometimes gives advice specific to the church he is writing to, and sometimes teaches eternal verities applicable to all times and places.

Protestants and related groups who hold that this text is for all times and places believe that therefore no woman should be ordained or employed in a role giving her authority or a teaching role over men. (Catholics and other sacrmentally-oriented groups also see the priest as modeling Christ to his parish, the bishop to his diocese, etc., and therefore feel that only a man can effectively model Christ.)

Those who believe this to be specific to the time and places Paul was writing to (there are at least two passages where he says essentially this) focus on the fact that education for women in the Greek world was very practical, focusing on homemaking and sometimes on business management where she might do the A/R billing for her husband's product -- and that therefore the woman should turn to her more liberally educated husband (or father if unmarried) for understanding, rather than speaking out in the Christian assembly. Since this is no longer the case, a properly trained woman can teach, preach, and minister.

Both positions have strong partisan support. And both are validated by proper Biblical scholarship to the satisfaction of their partisans.

Please tell me how "For Adam was created first" is a cultural thing and doesn't apply to all times and places.

 

[Polycarp1]

Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking a real question, not a rhetorical one so that you could make debating points for your personal point of view. I therefore tried to summarize both points of view for your reference. I'll bow out now.

 

[CmRoddy]

Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking a real question, not a rhetorical one so that you could make debating points for your personal point of view. I therefore tried to summarize both points of view for your reference. I'll bow out now.

I know both points of view because I grew up in a denomination that supports women pastors. But if you notice the end of the OP, I asked a question that I wanted answered.

I appreciate you trying to show me both sides, but I simply challenged the idea that both sides have good arguments.

 

[MamaZ]

Women are not to be Pastors.. We have a high calling also and it is not in the pulpit. LOL..

 

[hedrick]

I've read lots of explanations of how this passage doesn't say what it sounds like it says. I don't find any convincing when I go back and look at the text.

I see similar patterns in this and the debate over homosexuality. While elegant exegetical arguments are given, I find it hard to take them seriously. My suspicion is that many folks simply don't take the authority of Paul all that seriously. In the case of women the issue is actually easier. In the undisputed letters Paul seems to acknowledge several women as leaders. He also attributes the Fall to Adam, not Eve. Thus I can't help wondering whether the Pastorals are actually by Paul. If not, I for one am not sure how much authority I'd give them. But there's the more general question of whether Paul is actually a prophet who is always giving us God's words, or whether his value is primarily what he reports about Jesus' teachings and how they were understood by the earliest Church. If the latter is the case, then it's possible that some of what he writes is based on first Century attitudes, which he for one reason didn't have a chance to completely reconsider in light of the general principle he quotes in Gal 3:28.

This of course leaves us in a situation where we can't just use the Bible as a rule book, but have to use a fair amount of judgement in applying it. However I think the nature of Jesus teachings and the Bible as a whole put us in that situation anyway.

 

[herev]

the problem is one of context. The author's use of a reason why rooted in one of the creation stories does not negate it being contextual.
I have no problem with church's deciding to use it as binding, but I suggest there are other non biblical reasons at the root of it. One cannot (in using good sound exegetical reasoning and IMHO) read this is as non-contextual, while reading the same chapter as contextual when it says women cannot wear gold, expensive clothes, or braids in their hair.
Additionally, if you asked someone in the 1800's to define the ideal supreme court justice, it would have likely referred to the ideal candidate as male--this did not preclude women from being appointed to the role any more than Paul's saying an elder had to be the husband of one wife (which again makes me wonder--if you are going to take it very literally, must the elder be married--what if he is single?)
The biggest issue is that people (like my denomination) say it is contextual, we are slammed and told that the Bible is what it is and shouldn't try to "twist" scripture.
When asked about other area in the NT that those same people consider non-binding--they say it is contextual.
we should find a way to respect each other's differing views.

(and for context-when I was growing up, women in ministry were almost unheard of in my denomination. Currently, (I am a pastor), my wife is a pastor, my District Superintendent is a female, my last Bishop was a female, my lay leader is a female--several of my professors (more than half) were female. I can attest to the fruit of their ministry and affirm the calling GOD has on their lives in each case.)

 

[CmRoddy]

the problem is one of context. The author's use of a reason why rooted in one of the creation stories does not negate it being contextual.
I have no problem with church's deciding to use it as binding, but I suggest there are other non biblical reasons at the root of it. One cannot (in using good sound exegetical reasoning and IMHO) read this is as non-contextual, while reading the same chapter as contextual when it says women cannot wear gold, expensive clothes, or braids in their hair.
Additionally, if you asked someone in the 1800's to define the ideal supreme court justice, it would have likely referred to the ideal candidate as male--this did not preclude women from being appointed to the role any more than Paul's saying an elder had to be the husband of one wife (which again makes me wonder--if you are going to take it very literally, must the elder be married--what if he is single?)
The biggest issue is that people (like my denomination) say it is contextual, we are slammed and told that the Bible is what it is and shouldn't try to "twist" scripture.
When asked about other area in the NT that those same people consider non-binding--they say it is contextual.
we should find a way to respect each other's differing views.

(and for context-when I was growing up, women in ministry were almost unheard of in my denomination. Currently, (I am a pastor), my wife is a pastor, my District Superintendent is a female, my last Bishop was a female, my lay leader is a female--several of my professors (more than half) were female. I can attest to the fruit of their ministry and affirm the calling GOD has on their lives in each case.)

In all of this, you have not shown how "For Adam was created first" is a cultural and contextual thing. All you have done is make blank assertions and added stuff form the 1800's.

You cannot take the created order and say that is a cultural thing. John Wesley would be spinning in his grave if he knew how far the Methodist church has gone into liberalism.

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, if you read the passage from First Timothy you cited, it is Paul who does not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority.

Paul is not God.

Many Christians believe that the Bible is in some manner the written word of God, so that everything in it conveys His will. But that is a human doctrine about Scripture. And yes, I know the quotes from Peter and II Timothy -- one references 'prophecy' and the other is bluntly a mistranslation of the Greek, lifted out of context and supplied with equating verbs not present in the original, to be misused as false doctrine.

Here's the key -- what evidence do we have, in Scripture, that what Paul disallows is the will of God for all times and places? This is not intended as condemning your stance -- it's asking why *I* or someone else should accept it as our own. Eespecially as the same Paul who wrote that (presuming he wrote the Pastorals, a different debate altogether) also wrote that "in Christ there is neither slave nor free, neither male nor female...."

The question is not "Why should we allow...?"; we should, by Paul's own teachings, allow whatever is not disallowed. It is "Why should we disalllow...?" I'm prepared to be convinced out of Scripture and by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I am not prepared to accept the bare word of another as to how he reads it, without demonstrative proof from Scripture.

 

[CmRoddy]

Well, if you read the passage from First Timothy you cited, it is Paul who does not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority.

Paul is not God.

Many Christians believe that the Bible is in some manner the written word of God, so that everything in it conveys His will. But that is a human doctrine about Scripture. And yes, I know the quotes from Peter and II Timothy -- one references 'prophecy' and the other is bluntly a mistranslation of the Greek, lifted out of context and supplied with equating verbs not present in the original, to be misused as false doctrine.

Here's the key -- what evidence do we have, in Scripture, that what Paul disallows is the will of God for all times and places? This is not intended as condemning your stance -- it's asking why *I* or someone else should accept it as our own. Eespecially as the same Paul who wrote that (presuming he wrote the Pastorals, a different debate altogether) also wrote that "in Christ there is neither slave nor free, neither male nor female...."

The question is not "Why should we allow...?"; we should, by Paul's own teachings, allow whatever is not disallowed. It is "Why should we disalllow...?" I'm prepared to be convinced out of Scripture and by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I am not prepared to accept the bare word of another as to how he reads it, without demonstrative proof from Scripture.

lol

Then you are denying the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Paul when he wrote this letter? Hmm... I wonder if you would apply this same principle to anything else in Scripture just to fit your view and not the Bible's...

 

[Polycarp1]

Nice. I am not disallowing Paul being inspired -- I am disallowing YOU being the Spirit-inspired authority to whom I must listen.

As you'll note from my first post in this thread, Paul wrote in a time when women were not educated for the preaching and teaching ministry. That MAY mean the passage is time-and-place-specific. If you feel God was giving a message for all times and places through Paul's words, I'm asking you to show me how you arrive at that conclusion.

 

[green wolverine]

As a woman, I have absolutely NO problem with Paul teaching that I'm not allowed to be in a leadership position in the church. Doesn't bother me one bit, nor would I be comfortable dealing with a woman who was in that position as I see it as unBiblical.

When did ordaining women become the fad?? I bet it wasn't until the women's lib movement of the '60s.

 

[CmRoddy]

As a woman, I have absolutely NO problem with Paul teaching that I'm not allowed to be in a leadership position in the church. Doesn't bother me one bit, nor would I be comfortable dealing with a woman who was in that position as I see it as unBiblical.

When did ordaining women become the fad?? I bet it wasn't until the women's lib movement of the '60s.

You are absolutely right.

 

[CmRoddy]

Nice. I am not disallowing Paul being inspired -- I am disallowing YOU being the Spirit-inspired authority to whom I must listen.

As you'll note from my first post in this thread, Paul wrote in a time when women were not educated for the preaching and teaching ministry. That MAY mean the passage is time-and-place-specific. If you feel God was giving a message for all times and places through Paul's words, I'm asking you to show me how you arrive at that conclusion.

Again, this is nothing but a cultural argument that does not hold water considering v. 13.

 

[LJSGM]

I want to know the opinion people have on women pastors and elders.

My position is that the Bible restricts the office of elders/pastors to men. There are many reasons for this, but I'm going to make this short.

1 Timothy 2:12-13
12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

This cannot be a cultural thing because the reason Paul gave was "For it was Adam who was first created."

Also, the Elder is to be the "husband of one wife" or in the Greek a "one woman man" (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). How can a woman be a "one woman man"?

You missed something. It says "the wife should learn." The reason was not because Adam was created first. The reason a woman should learn is so that she be not decieved like Eve.

Adam was created first, eve was created after the command was given and recieved the word indirectly and did not have full knowledge of the truth, thus we know this by the little addition to God's word "you should not touch it."

and it concludes with saying:

15But she(Eve) will be restored/redeemed through childbirth/childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Eve (and all women) are restored through Christ, redeemed from oppression and the curse.

The whole "man of one wife" thing is just silly and I don't know why anyone makes themselves a fool using it.

If you've going to strip away half the workings of the church and condemn millions of people to hell by oppression of women, I would be fearful to use more than THAT argument of yours to do it.

 

[CmRoddy]

You missed something. It says "the wife should learn." The reason was not because Adam was created first. The reason a woman should learn is so that she be not decieved like Eve.

Adam was created first, eve was created after the command was given and recieved the word indirectly and did not have full knowledge of the truth, thus we know this by the little addition to God's word "you should not touch it."

and it concludes with saying:

15But she(Eve) will be restored/redeemed through childbirth/childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Eve (and all women) are restored through Christ, redeemed from oppression and the curse.

The whole "man of one wife" thing is just silly and I don't know why anyone makes themselves a fool using it.

If you've going to strip away half the workings of the church and condemn millions of people to hell by oppression of women, I would be fearful to use more than THAT argument of yours to do it.

This isn't speaking of wives and husbands. Otherwise v. 9 wouldn't apply to anyone but wives.

 

[LJSGM]

This isn't speaking of wives and husbands. Otherwise v. 9 wouldn't apply to anyone but wives.

It doesn't matter anyways...

but I do believe he is speaking of the wife in the first part because he goes from women plural in verse 9 to "the woman/wife" and "the man/husband"

 

[CmRoddy]

It doesn't matter anyways...

but I do believe he is speaking of the wife in the first part because he goes from women plural in verse 9 to "the woman/wife" and "the man/husband"

haha

So, "it doesn't matter"? Why? You are making mash potatoes out of the text in order to fit your feminism into the Church.

Paul restricts the office of elder/pastor to men. The reason is in v. 13 and it cannot be cultural. Because Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, God Himself restricts the office of elder/pastor to men. Also, women cannot be the "husband of one wife."

 

[LJSGM]

haha

So, "it doesn't matter"? Why? You are making mash potatoes out of the text in order to fit your feminism into the Church.

It matters to me because I am a literalist at heart I suppose.

It doesn't matter whether he be speaking to all women or a wife and husband, because he was speaking about under the context of how a person should learn.

Everyone learning something from a teacher should learn in submission as they are one "in authority."