Your View On Women As Pastors

[Josh the Baptist]

Let's say a married couple are missionaries on a forein field. The husband dies and leaves the wife alone with a church were no man is qualified to pastor.
The mission board asks her to fill the position until help arrives.
What then?

 

[DHK]

Let's say a married couple are missionaries on a forein field. The husband dies and leaves the wife alone with a church were no man is qualified to pastor.
The mission board asks her to fill the position until help arrives.
What then?

A missionary's job is to train nationals to pastor churches he starts.

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

If he was doing his job right at least one of the nationals would be prepared to step in as pastor. The wife would have her own family and relatives to attend to with the death of her husband.

 

[EdSutton]

Baptist faith and practice matters greatly.

Very true.

It's the reason we require immersion as a condition of church membership (we can make a scriptural case for immersion being the standard biblical mode for baptism, but we cannot make a case for baptism being a prerequisite for membership).

This is not necessarily true. My own home church, the Forks of Dix River Baptist Church, 'requires' baptism as a "prerequisite" for membership in the body, according to her Constitution and Bylaws.[SIZE=-1]

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a local body of baptized believers who are associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel, observing the two ordinances of Christ, committed to His teachings, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. (

[/SIZE]

From our Forks of Dix River Baptist Church Constitution and as actually stated in the 1963 BF&M, which is an an integral part of our Church Constitution)[SIZE=-1]

[/SIZE]BTW, I expressly know this, as I was the chairman of the committee that recommended revising and updating of our Constitution and Bylaws some four years ago, which our church subsequently approved. (Interestingly enough, as we did not, at that time, recommend the adopting of the 2000 BF&M over the 1963 BF&M, the latter remains a part of our Constitution and By-laws.) The BF&M (2000) states this.

[SIZE=-1]A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operate[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]s under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.(From Sec. VI - The Church, Baptist Faith & Message[/SIZE])

It is also stated in Section VII of the BF&M that baptism is "prerequisite to the privileges of church membership."

Whether or not this is actually Biblical may be arguable, I agree, but I have never attempted to study this out in any detail. But it is stated and required, at least in some places.

There's a reason we have the Baptist Dictinctives. As Baptists, we're required to adhere to them. They're not optional.

Where is this stated?

I had never even heard of the Baptist Distinctives before now, and nothing is in our own Church Constitution and By-laws, the New Hampshire or Philadelphia Confessions, or the Baptist Faith & Message of either 1963 or 2000 that even so much as mentions "The Baptist Distinctives.

They may not be "optional" for you, but they certainly are for me, and any members of the 'Forks' Church. However, I obviously cannot say about any other church, in this.

FTR, I fully assume our church is in good standing with both the KBC and SBC. (Or at least, they have seem to have no problem with accepting the monies our church gives, and always seem to always cash the checks given through the Co-operative Program each month.)

Ed

 

[grainofwheat]

Spiritualizing the text works against you. If we are all part of the "spiritual wife," in this context, then no believer--male or female--is qualified to be a pastor. We are all disqualified for we must submit to Christ, the groom. We take the role of a bride. Your allegorical interpretation negates the office of a pastor even for a man, for only Christ is the man, the groom in your scenario.

No, It INCLUDES ALL who are part of the body of Christ to be his ministering servants.

A pastor, male or female, still must submit to Jesus as the Head of the church and Husband of all believers.

 

[gb93433]

But if a husband has spiritual headship over his wife, how can a woman have any role of leading or authority over men in the church?

Look around the church do you see a waiting line of leaders? Another point is that no man can lead a rebellious wife. It takes both in cooperation to accomplish what God wants.

 

[DHK]

No, It INCLUDES ALL who are part of the body of Christ to be his ministering servants.

A pastor, male or female, still must submit to Jesus as the Head of the church and Husband of all believers.

You can't have it both ways. If you are going to allegorize the text then at least be consistent. We are all part of the bride and none of us are qualified for Christ is the groom.

But if we take the Bible literally as we should, then only women are disqualified. Why?
1. A woman cannot have authority over a man.
2. A woman cannot teach a man.
3. A woman cannot rule his household.

 

[tinytim]

You can't have it both ways. If you are going to allegorize the text then at least be consistent. We are all part of the bride and none of us are qualified for Christ is the groom.

But if we take the Bible literally as we should, then only women are disqualified. Why?
1. A woman cannot have authority over a man.
2. A woman cannot teach a man.
3. A woman cannot rule his household.

Are your ready to take the Bible literally in all places without concern for cultural context?

 

[DHK]

Are your ready to take the Bible literally in all places without concern for cultural context?

I take my Bible literally unless the context indicates otherwise. The Bible sets forth timeless principles for all ages regardless of culture. One cannot use culture as an excuse to change God's commands.

 

[Jim1999]

Quote: Are your ready to take the Bible literally in all places without concern for cultural context?
=====================

Absolutely not! You cannot ignore cultural context. It is an integral part of hermeneutics!

Why does the scripture even trouble to talk about the husband of one wife? Does that mean that every pastor and deacon must be married? No. It is responding to the cultural issue of polygamy.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[DHK]

He said a man should have only one wife. He put no restrictions on women pastors on the number of husbands. Does this mean Paul realized that women, in general, are more moral then men?

Now, did he mean one wife in a life time, or one wife at a time?

Your answer is found here:

Mark 10:11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Jesus never condoned divorce; and never condoned remarriage. In fact he called it: living in a state of adultery. Thus the obvious answer to the question is "one wife in a life time." The only exception to that is given in Romans 7 where if his wife dies, he is free to marry again. Read the biography of Adoniram Judson. This happened to him. He always remained faithful to "the wife that he had."

The Bible puts restrictions on women. They cannot be pastors. The head of the woman is the man, and the head of the man is Christ. That headship would be broken if the woman was the pastor.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

The head of the woman is not Christ. Her head is the man. These principles have nothing to do with culture, just as the end of the same chapter teaches about the Lord's Supper, which has nothing to do with culture. They are timeless principles.

A woman cannot have authority over a man. The Bible states this plainly. The context is not culture, nor is it political, nor is it secular. The verse is found in a pastoral epistle where Paul is writing to Timothy about order in the local church. The context is the local church. Children are excluded here also. A woman cannot have authority over a man in the context of the local church. This excludes all women from being pastors.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 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.

With these commands it is impossible for a woman to be a pastor. It is a violation of the clear commands of the Word of God.

 

[Marcia]

Look around the church do you see a waiting line of leaders? Another point is that no man can lead a rebellious wife. It takes both in cooperation to accomplish what God wants.

Whether we see a line of people waiting to be leaders or not is irrelevant.

Your other points is irrelevant, too. Both of these points are using situational ethics.

God has said the man has spiritual headship over the wife. This is a principle God is giving us. Therefore, along with the 1 Tim 2 passage, where God even gives the reason, the only conclusion is that women cannot have leadership over men at church as pastor.

Whether someone's wife is rebellious or not or whether or not people are standing in line to be leaders does not address the issue of whether there is biblical support for women pastors.

 

[Marcia]

Joel 2 : 28-29 includes women as prophets.

Luke 2 :36-38 Anna taught about Jesus from the temple.

Anna spoke as a prophetess. This thread is not about whether women can be prophetesses; apparently, there were some. This is very different from being a pastor.

 

[Marcia]

1 Tim 2:
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.
14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

It is not a cultural issue. We see from this it is not a cultural issue, but is based on the order of creation: "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve;" and based on the deception of Eve.

Putting this with Eph. 5:23 makes the strongest case against women pastors. I have not seen either the passage above or Eph. 5:23 refuted in an argument for women pastors. The only reasons that have been given are cultural, situational, and opinion.

 

[gb93433]

Whether we see a line of people waiting to be leaders or not is irrelevant.

It is very relevant because if men are so lazy to not take the lead and women watch then you do not have any leadership. In churches where the men take leadership then you have an ample supply of leaders.

Your other points is irrelevant, too. Both of these points are using situational ethics.

It is not situational ethics. If it were then a man could serve as pastor according to you even though his home were not in order. A man does not qualify for an office in the church if he has a rebellious wife because his home would not be in order no matter how good he is. A man cannot lead a rebellious wife and no amount of leadership outside of the home makes up for lack of leadership in the home.

God has said the man has spiritual headship over the wife. This is a principle God is giving us. Therefore, along with the 1 Tim 2 passage, where God even gives the reason, the only conclusion is that women cannot have leadership over men at church as pastor.

Sounds great until one has a rebellious wife. She can drag down a family by her attitude. He does not have leadership in his home automatically by the fact he is a man.

Whether someone's wife is rebellious or not or whether or not people are standing in line to be leaders does not address the issue of whether there is biblical support for women pastors.

That was not my point. It is very simplistic just to say that the man is the leader when that may not be the case. How is a non-Christian a spiritual leader in the home? A man would be unable to lead his home if his wife did everything to nullify his leadership. That is the reason the Bible addresses both the man and woman.

 

[Baptist4life]

Thank you one and all, it's been a thought provoking discussion, but still hasn't changed my mind about women pastors.

 

[FlyForFun]

It is very relevant because if men are so lazy to not take the lead and women watch then you do not have any leadership. In churches where the men take leadership then you have an ample supply of leaders.

Agreed -- Women will and have stepped in admirably under God's direction many times when men have refused.

 

[Baptist4life]

Agreed -- Women will and have stepped in admirably under God's direction many times when men have refused.

But never as a pastor. If they did it wasn't "under God's direction".

 

[FlyForFun]

But never as a pastor. If they did it wasn't "under God's direction".

If men fail to provide leadership, then women will step in under God's direction.

It wouldn't be the first time - see Deborah and Esther, for example.

 

[Baptist4life]

If men fail to provide leadership, then women will step in under God's direction.

It wouldn't be the first time - see Deborah and Esther, for example.

Not as a pastor.

 

[Marcia]

If men fail to provide leadership, then women will step in under God's direction.

It wouldn't be the first time - see Deborah and Esther, for example.

I really don't think we should go to the OT when we make decisions on the church. Deborah and Esther cannot compare to a pastor's position.