1 Timothy 3 provides the criteria for a man who desires to be a pastor. It begins (in the NKJV):
"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work."
It does not say, "If a person desires..." Why?
Given the cultures of the world at the time, a female "bishop" or pastor would have been seen as ludicrous. When Paul said he thought women ought to remain silent and learn in full submission (1 Timothy 2), he was presenting an idea that would have had some up in arms. "What? A woman is permitted to learn?" That idea would have seemed just as wild in that culture, but that's why Paul (basically) followed it with, "Woah, guys, I still don't think it's a good idea for women to teach." In that culture, men wouldn't listen to a woman who tried to teach a man.
Paul's statements seem misogynistic from our perspective, but he was actually advocating for additional freedoms for women. It's also important to note he puts it in personal terms: "I exhort...I admonish...I do not permit..."
In short, Paul was taking the culture of the day into account, yet advocating for women to learn. In cultures where men don't have a problem being led by women, I don't see why a woman couldn't be a pastor. It's not expressly forbidden by God in the modern day, but was prohibited in a time when the culture would not recognize the value of a woman.
Arguments regarding Eve's sin and Adam's sin made sense in the Judaic mind, but in Galatians, Paul recognized there is no difference in God's eyes for the children of God (Galatians 3:28). He exhorted the Philippians (in Philippians 4:2) to help the women who had "labored with him in the Gospel." Not every woman can lead, nor can every man. But if God does good through a pastor--whatever their sex--then praise God. I see no reason why God could not or would not call a woman to lead, save for if the culture in which she lived would not hear her because of their own arrogance.
Men are certainly meant to be leaders, but in some cases, men have been unwilling to do what women were willing to do. I have seen as much in churches, where entire branches of ministry were dissolved because the church would rather hire a man than give an opportunity for a woman to lead. Oddly, the church I went to that took 1 Timothy 2 as applicable today allowed women to teach children, to sing solos, to be part of choir, to teach other women, and to serve on committees, but would not allow women to teach men.
Generally speaking, God designed men for positions of leadership. But, apart from leadership in the church and family, which is given to men alone, the Bible doesn’t expressly forbid women from positions of government.
That seems a separate issue from female pastors, though I don't recall anything in Scripture specifically forbidding women from government. I have extra-biblical reasons for not currently wanting a female POTUS, but it has nothing to do with her gender.
That seems a separate issue from female pastors, though I don't recall anything in Scripture specifically forbidding women from government. I have extra-biblical reasons for not currently wanting a female POTUS, but it has nothing to do with her gender.
There were highly respected queens within Judaism, so the idea of female leadership wasn't completely foreign in biblical times. Esther was obviously respected as a queen and civil servant.
I don't think women in leadership is unbiblical. It's not always a good idea to have a female leader, nor is it always a good idea to have a male leader, but there's nothing in Scripture I've seen that would prohibit women from leadership wholesale.Do you think the reason its unbibical is because it detracts from eve's punishment?
I don't think women in leadership is unbiblical. It's not always a good idea to have a female leader, nor is it always a good idea to have a male leader, but there's nothing in Scripture I've seen that would prohibit women from leadership wholesale.
What is it that you have to gain that your promoting the idea of women forbidden in scripture so much? Obviously if it were true before the Roman council took over the running of Christianity that women were in leadership positions (which is undeniable) then it's still true today.These articles show without doubt it is unbibical for women to be in leadership over men. Women in Ministry | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
Any article would only convince me of anything if it presented proper evidence. From the beginning, in CARM's explanation of why it bothers to touch on the issue of women as pastors at all, it inappropriately explains Titus 1:5-6. As I explained previously, cultures in biblical times would have found women in leadership a laughable concept, so it naturally follows the Apostles would instruct churches to appoint men into leadership positions.These articles show without doubt it is unbibical for women to be in leadership over men. Women in Ministry | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
I believe God established gendered hierarchies in the family and the church. When possible, they should be followed. But these structures become impractical if followed legalistically. Just as love trumps personal liberty, love also trumps hierarchical structures.
spoken by a true son of his mothersThat is an opinion-I believe the hierarchies exist because of Eve's sin.
don't chew my cabbage twicewhat
1 Timothy 3 provides the criteria for a man who desires to be a pastor. It begins (in the NKJV):
"This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work."
It does not say, "If a person desires..." Why?
There may be no private interpretation, but there is a cultural one. Fact is, that a lot of the teachings Paul wrote in regards to women, as well as other things, were fully based in the cultural context of the first century church, and don't apply to us today. For example, the real reason Paul wrote that a woman should be silent in church was because back then, the churches were separated with women sitting on one side of the church and their husbands clear on the other side, so whenever a woman had a question about what Paul taught, she had to yell across to her husband, and you can imagine the disruption that occurred then. So really, that scripture was about not disrupting the service, and not about a woman not being allowed to be in a position of authority.There is no private interpretation of scripture. Some things in the bible are not totally clear, but this isn't one of them. The problem isn't understanding what it says because it is very clear. The problem is that people don't like what it says and so they invent another meaning to suit their preferences.
There may be no private interpretation, but there is a cultural one. Fact is, that a lot of the teachings Paul wrote in regards to women, as well as other things, were fully based in the cultural context of the first century church, and don't apply to us today. For example, the real reason Paul wrote that a woman should be silent in church was because back then, the churches were separated with women sitting on one side of the church and their husbands clear on the other side, so whenever a woman had a question about what Paul taught, she had to yell across to her husband, and you can imagine the disruption that occurred then. So really, that scripture was about not disrupting the service, and not about a woman not being allowed to be in a position of authority.
I think he means dishonorable as in disruptive to the whole service, for the reasons I have previously stated above. Learning the cultural context in which Paul wrote this epistle, as well as all his others, will be very helpful in sorting out what is meant to be a command for all time versus what was just culturally applicable to the 1st century church, but no longer has that same relevance/application now.But that isn't the reason that Paul gives for the command:
women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church
The reason given is that it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church. This is what I mean about inventing our own interpretations because the plain meaning is offensive to our cultural sensibilities.
I think he means dishonorable as in disruptive to the whole service, for the reasons I have previously stated above. Learning the cultural context in which Paul wrote this epistle, as well as all his others, will be very helpful in sorting out what is meant to be a command for all time versus what was just culturally applicable to the 1st century church, but no longer has that same relevance/application now.
I just was watching a video about if women should hold spiritual leadership roles in the church. It breaks it down really well. I used to think "what's wrong with that? If she can do a good job then let her." But now I understand getting more into the Word. It's hard though, living in a world that took opportunities from broken homes to create an environment where women are now competing with men.
I'm not saying that having women pastors is a sin, but based on how women are set to be submissive to the head as the church is submissive to Christ, I wouldn't jump to put a female on that authority. If it happens, then fine, I wouldn't knock it. But I'm not gonna totally ignore the fact that its part of womanhood.
They reason that "if the Apostle Paul was forgiven for what he did ignorantly in unbelief" including persecuting and murdering Christians, "and thereafter was given a ministry, why would the same forgiveness and ministry be denied women" (for the sins of their foremother eons ago)?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?