Women in Pulpit- Any Denomination

[Zeena]

I think it was Phillip that had seven daughters that prophecied. This is just my opinion here,I think women can preach,teach,prophesy,start a church,pray for the sick,whatever, however I do not believe a woman should ever try to be a Pastor of a church since that is a definite position of authority over men in the church,something that Paul said was not the will of God.

The word “pastor” doesn’t occur in the New Testament

Bible Matters--Pastor?

 

[Assyrian]

LITERAL=following the ordinary or usual meaning of the words. Follow the ordinary or usual meaning of these words from God through Paul concerning church doctrine and see what they are saying to you. Let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak but to be under obedience as also says the law for it is a shame for women to speak in church(1Cor34:14). Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection,but I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence(1Tim2:11). At the very least this is telling us that a woman cannot be a Pastor of a church,one could carry it farther then that if one wanted to. In these places in scripture Paul was directly instructing the church on church doctrine,to ignor this and find where Paul called a christian lady a servant,and the name of an apostle that some are claiming could be feminine, as an excuse to void out clear concise church doctrine,is absurd to the lowest degree. If you were not personally involved, and in a neutral way were allowed to look at just the method being used to reject male leadership in the church(knowing only the method and not the issue),you would be appalled yourself!

It seem strange you want to follow the usual and ordinary meaning of words, yet when Paul calls someone a diakonos of a church, whose simple and ordinary meaning, a deacon of the church which you would never question if Phoebe was a man, yet you abandon the plain ordinary meaning when the deacon is a woman. Junia was a common woman's name in the Roman empire. If we look at look at everyone else from that era in every text and inscription with that name, they are all women. So when Paul tells us a person called Junia is an apostle, isn't the usual and ordinary meaning that a women was an apostle?

I think it was Phillip that had seven daughters that prophecied. This is just my opinion here,I think women can preach,teach,prophesy,start a church,pray for the sick,whatever, however I do not believe a woman should ever try to be a Pastor of a church since that is a definite position of authority over men in the church,something that Paul said was not the will of God.

Where does women preaching, teaching, prophesying, starting a church or praying for the sick fit with women are 'to be in silence' 1Tim 2:12? I mean if you are going to misread these passage as doctrine instead instructions dealing with specific issues of disorder, then you shouldn't be half hearted following the doctrine. You do of course have example like Philip's daughters, but biblical examples never stopped you ignoring Junia the apostle, Phoebe the church deacon, or Priscilla teaching Apollos.

Where does you get the idea Paul is only talking about in the church when he says:
I suffer not a woman to teach
nor to usurp authority over the man
but to be in silence 1Tim 2:12
There is no get out clause in this saying it only refers to church meetings. Women should not prophesy anywhere, or pray for a sick man anywhere (out loud anyway) because Paul says they are to be in silence. Paul should never have allowed Priscilla to be his patron which gave her responsibility and authority over him in Cenchreae. A woman should not teach a man anywhere, which is what Priscilla did with Apollos. It isn't just that you are taking 1Tim 2:12 out of context, you are picking and choosing what contexts you want to apply the verse in to suit yourself.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

If Greek words for Minister or Deacon mean servant, the Greek word for Apostle means one who is sent, and the Greek word for Angel means messenger, then what is the proper way to figure out the plain meaning?

Clearly, there are times when a servant is just a servant not someone with an office of Deacon, someone is simply sent without having an office of Apostle like the 12, someone is simply a messenger without being an angelic heavenly being.

If there are additional indications that an office or special position or heavenly reality is involved, we take a look at special offices of service, an especially annointed person sent by God, or an angelic being.

 

[2thePoint]

If Greek words for Minister or Deacon mean servant, the Greek word for Apostle means one who is sent, and the Greek word for Angel means messenger, then what is the proper way to figure out the plain meaning?

Those are indeed what they literally mean. Figurative meanings have to be derived from context, so the question is whether Paul always means literal or figurative, or uses both. But if both, then how indeed are we to tell whether he ever means an office? One must presume there are offices in the first place to answer that question, and I see no evidence that he has.

Now when he says "overseers must" or "deacons must", the "Ockham's Razor" meaning would be that those who have exhibited spiritual maturity and gifting to lead have to meet certain standards. If one is to be a role model of some kind, one must have achieved the ideal standards of Christian behavior. Apostles and overseers and deacons would seem to be such role models, I think all would agree.

But to call them offices would mean that the "office" remains even when the "officer" dies or leaves and must be replaced. But no such instructions or commands are found in scripture. Not even the Twelve were perpetuated in the church; there is nothing in the NT to say we must always have 12 overseers, either for the entire global church or a local congregation. So since there is no place that must always be filled, there are no offices but only various "parts" based solely upon spiritual gifting.

What are the duties of a servant? Scripture is silent. Not once in the Letters are the Seven ever referred to or their number maintained. Not once are we instructed about their responsibilities. Yet both men and women are called "servants" in a way that seems different from just a generic label for all believers, so what did they do? Without explicit scriptures, we have no office. All we have are clues and inferences as to what these "servants" did, and a survey of the Letters still leaves us with no clear or consistent description.

That being the case, then there is no justification for declaring that no woman can be an official or authoritative deacon, or that every man so described must be holding an office or authority just because he's a man. But when someone is said to be "the deacon of the church at ____", it would seem reasonable to presume that this person is in some leading or "role model" or representative capacity. And that is exactly how Paul described Phoebe.

Likewise for apostles; we have little to go on beyond Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 12:12-- The things that mark an apostle - signs, wonders and miracles - were done among you with great perseverance.' Many missionaries even today have reported such miracles, and they are certainly "sent out", such that we might consider them NT apostles in the same "class" as what we see there of most of them. Paul, Peter, etc. were "sent out" by Jesus personally, which I think is what made them authoritative in a way no one after them could ever be. Nevertheless, the other apostles certainly were church planters and did miracles, and as such were to be held in high esteem and imitated as the role models they were. If there is any "rank" among apostles, it is between these original Jesus-taught ones and all the others.

Of course, this means then that "pastors" are no more authoritative than anyone else; they cannot write scripture or set down doctrine on a par with scripture. They are not rulers or bosses or priests above other believers, all of whom are "anointed".

 

[Exegetist]

If Greek words for Minister or Deacon mean servant, the Greek word for Apostle means one who is sent, and the Greek word for Angel means messenger, then what is the proper way to figure out the plain meaning?

Clearly, there are times when a servant is just a servant not someone with an office of Deacon, someone is simply sent without having an office of Apostle like the 12, someone is simply a messenger without being an angelic heavenly being.

If there are additional indications that an office or special position or heavenly reality is involved, we take a look at special offices of service, an especially annointed person sent by God, or an angelic being.

Good questions. The greek word diakonos was used extensively throughout the NT of everyone who ministered the gospel, including Paul himself. If we want to understand its use, we need to understand its use then in that era. Ministers were those who served up the gospel teachings in Christian service or ministry. I’m not sure exactly what era the church leaders decided to make the ‘ministers’ into an office of ‘deacon’, but it was long after the apostles and prophets were dead. I cannot say that the church was wrong in making it an office, but I believe they were wrong in exacting new limitations on who could and couldn’t be a ‘deacon’ and what they could and couldn’t serve in their ministry.

As for your estimation of apostle only meaning the same as ‘one sent’, that wouldn’t be understanding the word correctly. It is one who is sent or commissioned on an official mission by one of superior authority or position. IMO that is fairly basic. The early church apostles are those apostles commissioned by God. There wasn’t anyone else to commission them other than other apostles, who did so equally commissioned by God. It was not until the church began to formalize itself that it came to authorize and send what we now call missionaries. The two are not to be confused. Churches send missionaries, but God still calls and authorizes apostles from time to time. We may not recognize them as such any more, but they are people whom God calls to gather together His people in some fashion.

The word aggelos means messenger or envoy. Whether a human messenger or angelic messenger is meant is to be determined by the context. Sometimes, it is difficult to tell.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

how indeed are we to tell whether he ever means an office? One must presume there are offices in the first place to answer that question, and I see no evidence that he has.

Well we want to integrate what Paul writes elsewhere:

1 Cor 12:27-31 "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way."

But to call them offices would mean that the "office" remains even when the "officer" dies or leaves and must be replaced.

Well we might use a different term. There are various roles, functions in the body, organizational positions among groups of believers.

What are the duties of a servant?

Stephen and other deacons were appointed to handle the distribution of food/alms to widows, etc., and various ministers pastor/preach/teach or oversee.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Good questions. The greek word diakonos was used extensively throughout the NT of everyone who ministered the gospel, including Paul himself. If we want to understand its use, we need to understand its use then in that era. Ministers were those who served up the gospel teachings in Christian service or ministry.

Can you provide a source for this interpretation? I'm not particularly familiar with the subject of deacons.

As for your estimation of apostle only meaning the same as ‘one sent’, that wouldn’t be understanding the word correctly. It is one who is sent or commissioned on an official mission by one of superior authority or position. IMO that is fairly basic.

There are questions of how one is sent, by whom, on what sort of commission. To send a letter, or to a whole region to carry the Gospel?

 

[2thePoint]

Well we want to integrate what Paul writes elsewhere:

1 Cor 12:27-31 "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers... But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way."

Where does Paul indicate that this list is an order of hierarchy rather than an order of chronology? Apostles or missionaries go first to establish churches, then prophets are recognized among the people, then teachers, etc. There is no indication anywhere in the NT that apostles rule over prophets, for example, or that prophets rule over teachers. As Paul says explicitly in this passage, the gift of prophecy is the best of all, yet it is second to apostles in the list. These are various parts and gifts, sent in order to build up the Body so that even more teachers etc. will arise.

Well we might use a different term. There are various roles, functions in the body, organizational positions among groups of believers.

Gifts and services, not offices or chains of command. The eye does not report to the hand, nor the foot to the ear. And as I said, for there to be offices there must be positions that remain even when the people holding them are gone, and there is no such indication in the NT.

Stephen and other deacons were appointed to handle the distribution of food/alms to widows, etc., and various ministers pastor/preach/teach or oversee.

As I already mentioned, the 7 were never again mentioned in the NT in any way, let alone as normative or commanded for all churches and all times. If there were any such command, we would expect to always keep 7-- and they must all be Greek men.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Where does Paul indicate that this list is an order of hierarchy rather than an order of chronology?

I was just bringing it up as a Scripture to be integrated with other Scriptures. It is clear that various elders, overseers, and the Apostles, were especially annointed and had authority.

As I already mentioned, the 7 were never again mentioned in the NT in any way, let alone as normative or commanded for all churches and all times. If there were any such command, we would expect to always keep 7-- and they must all be Greek men.

No reason to assume it would always be 7, especially since later on in church history we see that there were many deacons, not just 7; their role was to handle various things, to be supportive, so that the Apostles could devote more time to prayer.

I don't see where you get the idea they would have to be Greek.

 

[2thePoint]

It is clear that various elders, overseers, and the Apostles, were especially annointed and had authority.

It is not clear at all, and it takes more than an assertion to establish something as true. As I said, certainly Paul, Peter, and others who were trained personally by Jesus had authority, but no one else.

No reason to assume it would always be 7, especially since later on in church history we see that there were many deacons, not just 7; their role was to handle various things, to be supportive, so that the Apostles could devote more time to prayer.

I don't see where you get the idea they would have to be Greek.

The reason I said these things is to bring out the issue of consistency. We can't only pick one quality such as gender as binding for all times, but ignore all the other qualities. If the Seven of Acts 6 were somehow normative of some "office of deacon", for example, then how can we justify only picking out this "office" while ignoring the other requirements Peter specified? I see no basis in that incident for establishing a perpetual office or authority.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

It is not clear at all, and it takes more than an assertion to establish something as true. As I said, certainly Paul, Peter, and others who were trained personally by Jesus had authority, but no one else.

Paul instructed Timothy to respect the elders, there are plenty places in Scripture where some sort of spiritual authority is mentioned. I'm thinking of such passages.

The reason I said these things is to bring out the issue of consistency. We can't only pick one quality such as gender as binding for all times, but ignore all the other qualities.

If the Seven of Acts 6 were somehow normative of some "office of deacon", for example, the

Sure we can. The Levites had to be descended from one man, the Aaronic priests had to be descended from another. Then in the New Testament, we see that all believers are now priests, and that there is no male or female in Christ, and also we see Paul saying that women aren't to teach men.

Integrating various passages and taking them on faith, humbly, I don't have to have a simple principle to logically apply according to categories that satisfy my intellect. It is enough that I try to prayerfully deal with the full counsel of Scripture with it's facets, with the different angles that light shines on a subject, and accept that some things involve mystery.

how can we justify only picking out this "office" while ignoring the other requirements Peter specified?

What of Peter's requirements are you saying are being ignored?

 

[2thePoint]

Paul instructed Timothy to respect the elders, there are plenty places in Scripture where some sort of spiritual authority is mentioned. I'm thinking of such passages.

Respect, deference, and submission are mutual in the Body of Christ. But the elders Timothy was to respect were not officers but the elderly; in spite of Timothy's mission from Paul, he was not to treat the elderly with less respect than the normal social mores. Timothy's instruction also included how to treat young women, so we can't make only the elder men officers.

If the Seven of Acts 6 were somehow normative of some "office of deacon", for example, the(n)...Sure we can. The Levites had to be descended from one man, the Aaronic priests had to be descended from another. Then in the New Testament, we see that all believers are now priests, and that there is no male or female in Christ, and also we see Paul saying that women aren't to teach men.

The Seven had absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Levites or anything else in the old law. This is a New Testament, and Jesus made it very clear that the old was not to be mixed with it. Not once did any NT writer try to adopt the old system to the new, but in fact the writer of Hebrews states plainly that "with a change of priesthood comes a change of law". Appeals to the Levites thus have no authority or application to the church. Since you do state that we are all priests now, and in Christ there is no male and female, then how can you interpret Paul violating all that and reinstating a hierarchical priesthood and that there is in fact male and female in Christ? This is contradictory. To state that Paul say women aren't to teach men is simply to assert one's preferred conclusion as a premise, a logical fallacy. You have yet to show from scripture that Paul taught this.

Integrating various passages and taking them on faith, humbly, I don't have to have a simple principle to logically apply according to categories that satisfy my intellect. It is enough that I try to prayerfully deal with the full counsel of Scripture with it's facets, with the different angles that light shines on a subject, and accept that some things involve mystery.

Both sides claim to be faithful, humble, prayerful, and dealing with the full counsel of scripture. But brushing off contradictory or illogical interpretations as "mystery" is to say that you refuse to discuss the matter at all. God is not illogical or contradictory, so if our interpretations cause such things, then it is we who are in error and we must therefore seek out the truth. Accepting it as mystery is not what I'd consider "rightly dividing the word of truth".

What of Peter's requirements are you saying are being ignored?

Look at Acts 6 and note that they had to be "known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom" and were to "wait on tables", specifically to make sure Greek widows were not discriminated against. So if we are to use this incident as normative and official for all churches and times, we must choose 7 men whose job is to look after Greek widows. On what basis do you say that this was the establishment of an "office of deacon", but don't require 7 of them or that they look after Greek widows?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Respect, deference, and submission are mutual in the Body of Christ.

Right. And whatever authorities I may deal with in the world, and whoever I may deal with who is particularly annointed or who is a teacher, pastor, etc., I am to respect, too.

But the elders Timothy was to respect were not officers but the elderly

Perhaps.

The Seven had absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Levites or anything else in the old law. This is a New Testament, and Jesus made it very clear that the old was not to be mixed with it. Not once did any NT writer try to adopt the old system to the new, but in fact the writer of Hebrews states plainly that "with a change of priesthood comes a change of law". Appeals to the Levites thus have no authority or application to the church.

You do have a point here, and I want to acknowledge and respect that point. I do not mean to imply that things have translated over from old to new testament without significant change, and I do acknowledge that in Jesus Christ things are truly new. I'm just trying to integrate what I see in Scripture.

I'm not talking about tyrannical hierarchy, I'm just talking about teaching/pastoral roles that have requirements stated in revealed Scripture. God has inspired what He wished, has revealed what He wished, and I'm just trying to take heed.

Sure it boggles some people's minds and I don't claim to understand everything.

To state that Paul say women aren't to teach men is simply to assert one's preferred conclusion as a premise, a logical fallacy. You have yet to show from scripture that Paul taught this.

Um, well it is easy enough to read what Paul wrote and to interpret him in this way, and it is a traditional interpretation, too, so it isn't just my private interpretation; I'm not the one trying to say everyone has understood Paul wrong all these years on this subject of women not being pastors.

But brushing off contradictory or illogical interpretations as "mystery" is to say that you refuse to discuss the matter at all. God is not illogical or contradictory, so if our interpretations cause such things, then it is we who are in error and we must therefore seek out the truth. Accepting it as mystery is not what I'd consider "rightly dividing the word of truth".

People claim all sorts of things are contradictory or illogical, to allege we MUST revisit various interpretations, or explore some subject, or open our minds, etc.

You have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that my position is in fact contradictory or illogical rather than simply complex and involving symbolism which points to history and perhaps mysteries.

You are arguing that for me to be consistent with my interpretation of Scripture, I have to hold a position that doesn't seem to ever have been held by Christians.

Then you argue that my position on what Scripture says is misreading it and inconsistent, but for many centuries Christians didn't think this was the case, and many today even in these modern feminist times do not find it inconsistent or misinterpretation.

I'm saying I'm just trying to integrate various passages which shine light from different angles on the subject, and my interpretation happens to be an interpretation that goes back many many centuries so that the vast majority of Christians in fact disagree with your position on what Scripture means on this issue.

 

[2thePoint]

Right. And whatever authorities I may deal with in the world, and whoever I may deal with who is particularly annointed or who is a teacher, pastor, etc., I am to respect, too.

We're all anointed, and all brothers and sisters as equal parts of one Body. I respect good teachers but don't consider them in authority over me, because I'd never want to be in authority over another person even if they were learning something from me. Regardless, the important thing is what scripture states about how believers are to relate to each other, and it's all mutual and humble.

You do have a point here, and I want to acknowledge and respect that point. I do not mean to imply that things have translated over from old to new testament without significant change, and I do acknowledge that in Jesus Christ things are truly new. I'm just trying to integrate what I see in Scripture.

Yet the OT and NT cannot be integrated, as Jesus said in the parable of the wineskins.

I'm not talking about tyrannical hierarchy, I'm just talking about teaching/pastoral roles that have requirements stated in revealed Scripture. God has inspired what He wished, has revealed what He wished, and I'm just trying to take heed.

Sure it boggles some people's minds and I don't claim to understand everything.

The question is not the quality of rule, but the fact of rule. We can't discuss what benevolent lording over looks like if Jesus said no lording over. And again, gifts are not roles or offices but just gifts whose purpose is to build up others. I too want to heed the Word and make sure I understand what God wants of me, and one of the most indisputable teachings is that "the greatest must be the least". If I want to have authority over others I have completely failed to grasp that concept. I can't write off a clear contradiction as mystery.

Um, well it is easy enough to read what Paul wrote and to interpret him in this way, and it is a traditional interpretation, too, so it isn't just my private interpretation; I'm not the one trying to say everyone has understood Paul wrong all these years on this subject of women not being pastors.

It's always easier to stay on the surface. Tradition doesn't carry authority either, since even while Paul was still around he had to constantly battle false teachers. But if things can be written off as mystery, almost any teaching can be justified.

But I see in your response here a straw man: that anyone who deviates from tradition must be arrogant; it is also the fallacy of appeal to popularity. All I know is that when I look at the Greek, the culture, the totality of Paul's arguments, etc., I see absolute equality and complete lack of hierarchy. If Martin Luther had taken your advice, he'd never have nailed those Theses to the Wittenberg door.

People claim all sorts of things are contradictory or illogical, to allege we MUST revisit various interpretations, or explore some subject, or open our minds, etc.

The logic I'm talking about is not mere opinion but the kind you can study in college. Of course no one is forcing anyone to change their views, but I don't recommend holding to views that can be demonstrated to be illogical or contradictory. I've named several fallacies in this comment and explained why they lead to conclusions that can't be justified, so logic does in fact have great value. Our God says "Come, let us reason together".

You have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that my position is in fact contradictory or illogical rather than simply complex and involving symbolism which points to history and perhaps mysteries.

I've done so to my satisfaction. I hold no hope of doing it to yours, but am only participating in the discussion as anyone else would. But again, chalking up contradictions to mystery is IMHO counter-productive to discussion. If we're not here to discuss details then I'll just not respond; what would be the point?

You are arguing that for me to be consistent with my interpretation of Scripture, I have to hold a position that doesn't seem to ever have been held by Christians.

Appeal to popularity, and straw man because my comparison has been to logic and consistency, not to tradition. If anyone wants to argue that so many people can't be wrong for so long a time, then they will have to explain the long and deep rift between the RCC and Protestantism.

Then you argue that my position on what Scripture says is misreading it and inconsistent, but for many centuries Christians didn't think this was the case, and many today even in these modern feminist times do not find it inconsistent or misinterpretation.

Again I would remind you that for a long time many Christians thought slavery was God's divine order. But why resort to the labels now? "Modern feminist" is just name calling. I don't bother after that pops up, unless you'd like to retract it.

I'm saying I'm just trying to integrate various passages which shine light from different angles on the subject, and my interpretation happens to be an interpretation that goes back many many centuries so that the vast majority of Christians in fact disagree with your position on what Scripture means on this issue.

We all look at the text from various angles (which includes culture and grammar) and try to integrate passages, but again, we have to be careful not to mix old and new. I am not impressed by appeals to popularity no matter how many times they're made, because history shows very clearly that the majority can be very wrong for a very long time.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

I respect good teachers but don't consider them in authority over me

If when you see the word 'authority' you immediately substitute 'tyrannical person lording over me', that's a bit extreme, don't you think?

I am accountable to others in the body of Christ. In particular, I recognize the authority of my pastor. Is my pastor lording over me? No. Does my pastor have authority -- yes, and I recognize it in various ways.

Yet the OT and NT cannot be integrated, as Jesus said in the parable of the wineskins.

The God revealed in the Old Testament is the same God revealed in the NT. Jesus is the messiah alluded to when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, the one who would crush the head of the serpent. There is plenty of integration, if you do not want to throw out most of the Bible. That there are differences between testaments does not mean everything is disconnected and unable to be integrated.

But in this thread for the most part I've been talking about integrating various comments in the NT by Paul, various things I see in the NT, Jesus selection of 12 men to be Apostles, the Apostles selecting a replacement between two men, Paul mentioning qualifications of a man who would be a leader, women not teaching men, men and women being equal in Christ, mutual submission, etc.

The question is not the quality of rule, but the fact of rule. We can't discuss what benevolent lording over looks like if Jesus said no lording over.

The problem is that you see any position of authority, any office at all, as lording over. There is no Biblical justification for that view of extreme anarchism/hostility to all authority.

Again I would remind you that for a long time many Christians thought slavery was God's divine order.

The Bible does not command people to have slaves. In the bible there is explicit mention of women not teaching men.

But why resort to the labels now? "Modern feminist" is just name calling. I don't bother after that pops up, unless you'd like to retract it.

How are your arguments not modern? How are your arguments not feminist?

For that matter, how are your arguments not anarchistic?

Re: appeals to popularity, your view is the popular one, today.

 

[2thePoint]

If when you see the word 'authority' you immediately substitute 'tyrannical person lording over me', that's a bit extreme, don't you think?

Why do you keep doing that? I said it's not the kind of authority but the fact of authority that's being debated here. It's not whether lording over is benevolent but whether it exists at all. Don't you think it's extreme to keep burning this straw man?

I am accountable to others in the body of Christ. In particular, I recognize the authority of my pastor. Is my pastor lording over me? No. Does my pastor have authority -- yes, and I recognize it in various ways.

Accountable means under authority, and my only authority/judge is God. If I am in a fellowship and they deem me in unrepentant sin, they have the right to expel me from their fellowship--- they, as a group. Paul never designated any official or board to be the ones to carry out such a thing, but the whole congregation. And if your "pastor" has authority over you, what does that look like exactly? What can he order you to do, however nicely and politely he may word it? Can he alone throw you out of fellowship? Can he condemn you before God? Can he dictate the Bible version you read? Then what exactly does this alleged authority look like?

If it only means that his interpretations of scripture must be believed by his underlings, then remember that you could still leave that pastor and find another, so he still has no authority. IMHO, a pastor's authority is imaginary.

The God revealed in the Old Testament is the same God revealed in the NT

I had "God does not change" chanted at me more than I can stand. Nobody believes God changes; that's not the issue. But it cannot be denied that his dealings with us do change, such as between the OT and NT. I can change my mind without changing who I am.

Jesus is the messiah alluded to when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, the one who would crush the head of the serpent. There is plenty of integration, if you do not want to throw out most of the Bible. That there are differences between testaments does not mean everything is disconnected and unable to be integrated.

Apples and oranges. Of course Jesus is the Savior alluded to in Genesis, but this hardly means the old law is still applicable and we have to consider it when looking at rules or doctrine for the NT. Nobody's "throwing out the Bible" here, except those who want only certain parts applicable to males. Two can play the "you don't hold scripture in high esteem" game.

But in this thread for the most part I've been talking about integrating various comments in the NT by Paul, various things I see in the NT, Jesus selection of 12 men to be Apostles, the Apostles selecting a replacement between two men, Paul mentioning qualifications of a man who would be a leader, women not teaching men, men and women being equal in Christ, mutual submission, etc.

Haven't we beaten this dead horse enough already? How many times have we answered the argument about the 12 being male, and pointed out that they were also all Jews and mapped to the 12 patriarchs? More than I care to count. We're not going to dig all that up again.

The problem is that you see any position of authority, any office at all, as lording over. There is no Biblical justification for that view of extreme anarchism/hostility to all authority.

It's what Jesus "saw": "Not so among you" means exactly what he explained that it means. Call that extreme if you want; it's okay with me because nobody was more extreme and radical than Jesus. As for the little jab about "hostility to all authority", that's yet another of your cheap shots and I won't humor you any more. Good day.

 

[Assyrian]

How are your arguments not modern? How are your arguments not feminist?

Not Modern? Because Christians have been arguing from scripture for women's ministry since the 17th century.
Not feminist? If anything modern feminism along with the abolition of slavery and the universal right to vote grew out of the teachings and campaigns by these radical Christians. So to the extent that 2thePoint's argument resembles feminism, it is because the feminist argument is originally Christian, not the other way round.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Why do you keep doing that? I said it's not the kind of authority but the fact of authority that's being debated here. It's not whether lording over is benevolent but whether it exists at all. Don't you think it's extreme to keep burning this straw man?

When you say "It's not whether lording over is benevolent but whether it exists at all" you seem to conflate the fact of authority with 'lording over' -- so if you don't mean that authority = lording over, I was confused by your wording.

Accountable means under authority, and my only authority/judge is God. If I am in a fellowship and they deem me in unrepentant sin, they have the right to expel me from their fellowship--- they, as a group. Paul never designated any official or board to be the ones to carry out such a thing, but the whole congregation.

And if your "pastor" has authority over you, what does that look like exactly?

A congregation may recognize various elders as having spiritual authority to speak for the congregation. But now we are getting into details about authority, details about ecclesiology. Perhaps the subject will just wander too far off point too easily.

I have chosen to associate closely with one group of believers in my area instead of others. Among those believers, some have been recognized as teachers or pastors. I respect them. What does the authority look like? Well that's personal and perhaps subjective or too complicated for me to spell out. If I felt that a teacher was abusing authority or was in error or did not have spiritual authority, I would gravitate to others who were not abusing authority, etc.

Apples and oranges. Of course Jesus is the Savior alluded to in Genesis, but this hardly means the old law is still applicable and we have to consider it when looking at rules or doctrine for the NT. Nobody's "throwing out the Bible" here, except those who want only certain parts applicable to males. Two can play the "you don't hold scripture in high esteem" game.

I'm not playing a game at all. I understand that things have changed and we are not under the Law of Moses as a task-master, but it is still informative in illustrating principles of righteousness, symbolism, authority, what is sinful or rebellious, etc., and historically Christians are connected to the OT.

We probably have gone round the circle enough on the various issues involved with this topic. Maybe continuing will just be too frustrating. I think I've expressed my concerns well enough.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Not Modern? Because Christians have been arguing from scripture for women's ministry since the 17th century.

You made my point, thank you. Christianity has been around for almost two thousand years.

Not feminist? If anything modern feminism along with the abolition of slavery and the universal right to vote grew out of the teachings and campaigns by these radical Christians. So to the extent that 2thePoint's argument resembles feminism, it is because the feminist argument is originally Christian, not the other way round.

Voting or not having slavery is different than recognizing a spiritual leader of a congregation as a teacher/pastor.

Who has a right to be my pastor or teacher of my congregation? Why? On what basis? Who gets to say? My congregation looks to the Bible for guidance and does not have women in the position of elder or pastor. If someone feels their right is not recognized by my congregation, I'm sorry they if they feel offended, but we are just following what we seen in the Bible as best we can.

 

[Exegetist]

Who has a right to be my pastor or teacher of my congregation? Why? On what basis? Who gets to say? My congregation looks to the Bible for guidance and does not have women in the position of elder or pastor. If someone feels their right is not recognized by my congregation, I'm sorry they if they feel offended, but we are just following what we seen in the Bible as best we can.

It is not about who "gets to be" or who "has the right to be". It is who is God using right now to shepherd His people. Who is demonstrating the love of God in ministering to the needs of the people. Then it is up to the people to be open to being ministered to by the one they see God already using. That is the way I believe it is supposed to be done. We are to 'choose' or recognize the ones that God has filled with wisdom and faith. It is unfortunate that is not how churches find their leaders/shepherds today. Because we do not do it that way, is the reason so many pastors are in a place they really have no true anointing for. And the ones who have the anointing are resisted instead of received.