Favorite Preachers Who Are Women

I wonder how people can possibly ignore what the Bible says about women & their roles. When I see a woman in the pulpit, I need look no further. If they will ignore this plain command, they will compromise something else as well. Romans 16:17&18

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wilshine:
100% Southern Baptist Texan

Hallelujah and Amen!!


BTW .. I have to agree with what someone else said up there.
Women can be great spititual leaders, but when it comes to pastor/preacher I do not believe it is their call.

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

-Wilma

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: wilshine ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't just pull that verse out and let it stand alone without considering the context of the whole passage.

Verse 11 says "women, likewise..." and is a clear statement that women who serve in these offices must likewise meet the same qualifications as men. Likewise a woman bishop or deacon must have only one marriage partner, likewise they must be trustworthy, of good character, etc.

I'm standing on what the Bible says. It says women can be pastors and deacons.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:


You can't just pull that verse out and let it stand alone without considering the context of the whole passage.

Verse 11 says "women, likewise..." and is a clear statement that women who serve in these offices must likewise meet the same qualifications as men. Likewise a woman bishop or deacon must have only one marriage partner, likewise they must be trustworthy, of good character, etc.

I'm standing on what the Bible says. It says women can be pastors and deacons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not one place in the above scripture does it say women can be pastors, in verse 11 it says:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont see a thing refering to women being pastors.

-Wilma

 

The KJV quote of the verses above is not really a good translation of the passage in question, in fact, it is quite a biased one. The word in verse 11 translated "wife" in both the KJB and NIV is rendered incorrectly. The Greek word which appears in the manuscripts is "gunakeios"(sp?) which is not the word referring to either a spouse or a wife, but is a combination of the Greek noun gune (goo-nay) with the previously used terms episkopos (bishop) and diakonos (deacon or servant). There is no presense of a modifier in the Greek which would allow the term to be translated "wife". Therefore, the sentence in that verse should read, "Women-servants, likewise..." or, as some English translations read, "Deaconesses, likewise..." That's not some kind of fuzzy exegesis, that is the proper way to study a word placement which any first year Bible college student would know. The only people who try to avoid doing it this way are people who have preconceived beliefs and only use the Bible when they can prooftext it to suit their own beliefs.

What is more shocking, however, is an earlier statement in this thread which basically encourages people to ignore the cultural, social and historical context of the scripture. That statement represents the kind of ignorance that cults are built on.

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: ellis ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
Chris,

For those who believe Paul was making a rule for all time, you're probably right; and those who believe such are welcome to start a thread to discuss that issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the Bible is not the rule of faith and practice for "all time" then we are wasting our time preaching it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
The KJV quote of the verses above is not really a good translation of the passage in question, in fact, it is quite a biased one. The word in verse 11 translated "wife" in both the KJB and NIV is rendered incorrectly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Wife" is a very common, though certainly not the only, translation of the term in question. It is neither biased nor necessarily rendered incorrectly. It is the same term in 3:2. Do a search on the word "gunaikos" and see how many times it refers to a wife. You will find that your assertion here in unfounded.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Greek word which appears in the manuscripts is "gunakeios"(sp?) which is not the word referring to either a spouse or a wife, but is a combination of the Greek noun gune (goo-nay) with the previously used terms episkopos (bishop) and diakonos (deacon or servant). There is no presense of a modifier in the Greek which would allow the term to be translated "wife".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have support for this view? I have just looked at BAGD, NIDNTT, and TDNT. None of them give any hint of what you have said. I knew that before I looked but I looked anyway to verify that. I rather suspect that someone just made this up.

Furthermore, if you study the NT, there is no modifier needed to make it "wife."

This is the kind of argumentation that someone makes and then those who are not grounded in exegesis and proper study techniques take and run with. Unless you can provide some support for it from some credible linguistic source, this idea should be denounced.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What is more shocking, however, is an earlier statement in this thread which basically encourages people to ignore the cultural, social and historical context of the scripture. That statement represents the kind of ignorance that cults are built on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't remember anyone saying that. It does seem like there is a lot of people in this thread who want to use their own reasons rather than Paul's reasons for things. I think we should use the literary context to determine what is being said and then act appropriately.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
[QB]
I believe the passage in Timothy, where Paul states that he does not allow a woman to have a position of authority over, or teach, a man in the church is one of clear cultural interpretation. Rather than saying that this is on the authority of the Lord, or even of Christ, he invokes only his apostolic authority when he says, "I do not permit..."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just how does one dilineate between Paul simply giving instructions to Timothy vs when the passage applies?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I concur with a number of other theologians, including some Baptists, that this is a prohibition related only to the role of women in Paul's day, and that his instruction to Timothy, which was for a few churches to which Timothy ministered, was not universal for all Christians at all times. If it had been intended that way, I believe he would have invoked Christ's authority directly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God's rules change? Is God relevatistic? Does he change rules for different groups of people?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Since Christ mentions nothing regarding the role of women in the church, Paul kept his instruction on the local, immediate level.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting angle....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is supported by a proper translation of 1 Timothy 3:11, in which the Greek noun "guniakas" is properly rendered "Deaconess" or "woman-servant", rather than the interpreted word "wife".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1135 gunh gune goo-nay’

probably from the base of 1096; TDNT-1:776,134; n f

AV-women 129, wife 92; 221

1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow
2) a wife
2a) of a betrothed woman

Put the word in context and it's extremely and painfully obvious it is refering to wife - not as you claim. It does NOT mean deaconness or women servant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
This indicates that Paul did indeed allow some women to serve in church office and was stating that the requirements were the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only if your statement is true - which it is not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It is also supported by the use of the same Greek term, "guniakas", in reference to Phoebe, a female who held this position in the church at Cenchrea, near Corinth.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Bible says that Phebe was a servant of the Church - does NOT say she was a deacon or a pastor.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I believe that the Bible's writers, especially Paul and Peter, were visionary enough to recognize the fact that the world would change and that things which might have been controversial in their day from a cultural and social perspective, might some day change.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is the Bible a collection of writings from mere men or is it the word of God? So - if the culture changes and says it's moral to commit adultery - is it permissible? After all - the Bible may only address this issue because of the culture of the time right? Maybe pre-marital sex is ok too.... hmmmm I can see justification of all sorts of things under this guise.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Likewise, the cultural and social prohibitions against women that existed in Paul's day no longer exist, opening the door for women to experience a calling to service which is validated by God himself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is God's calling to service restricted by the culture? If so - then why did Peter amd the others preach the Gospel when the culture told him it was unacceptable in Acts 5?

Sorry - I don't buy the culture argument here.

 

Pastor Larry,
Not trying to pile on here, but you took the words right out of my mouth relative to the word for "women" or "wife."

Also against the idea of women being referred to as deaconesses here is the immediate context of the passage. For starters, why would Paul use the word gunaikas which can be translated "women" or "wives," when he could've used the word diakonos to refer to the nature of the deaconess? diakonos is masculine and feminine, so could be used in this way (although it is used to describe much more than just the office of deacon in the New Testament). Next, it would be out of character for Paul to start talking about the office of deacon, rigidly jump to a discussion of a seperate office, then jump back to the office of deacon as if he never stopped talking about the original office of deacon. Further, verse 12 begins by talking about the marital relationship of the deacon, which contextually flows much more smoothly with the idea that v. 11 is talking about deacon's wives than deaconesses. Also, if Paul is talking about a third office of deaconess, why does he not mandate the same marital qualifications for this office as he did for offices of elder and deacon? Given all of this, and given the fact that gunaikas and its related forms of the base can be translated "women" or "wives," I believe the context demands that verse 11 be interpreted as speaking to the deacon's wife than to a seperate office.

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Ellis wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That's not some kind of fuzzy exegesis, that is the proper way to study a word placement which any first year Bible college student would know. The only people who try to avoid doing it this way are people who have preconceived beliefs and only use the Bible when they can prooftext it to suit their own beliefs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lose the ad hominem nonsense, and practice what you preach, okay Ellis?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rev. Joshua Villines:
OK, we've determined that there are baptists who don't believe women should preach/pastor. I'm pretty sure we did that a few times over on other threads. Any chance we can keep this thread on topic?

Joshua <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


We went past that LONG ago
Besides, we wouldn't be keeping with the tradition of the Baptist Board if we kept all thread messages germane to the actual thread topic

 

OK Josh, I'll help keep this thread on topic.

Answer: NONE!

Women claiming to be a "pastor" are outside of the will of God (according to the scriptures) and cannot be glorifying Him in their practice.

 

That's quite an interesting statement, John, which flies in the face of all God has done through women in ministry in the history of the church, including a number of Baptist women.

How can Southern Baptists deny the calling of women to the ministry, including the pastorate, when Lottie Moon, who was undoubtably the most influential Christian in the history of the church in China, was a single female missionary to that country? Her record of service and leadership is very clear and there can be no denying that her call came from God. Not only did she preach, but she started and pastored churches. It is sad to hear many Southern Baptist friends of mine say that if Lottie Moon were alive today, she couldn't even be considered for appointment by their mission board.

I also think of Diana Lay, who was missionary in residence at my college on several occasions. She was a single female sent to Ghana, also by the Southern Baptist mission board, and established the only functioning medical mission and hospital in the northern part of that desolate and impoverished African nation. She, too, travelled hundreds of miles every week preaching the gospel and pastoring churches, encouraging Christians who were suffering from both poverty and persecution by Muslims. Countless people were won to Christ and encouraged to ministry by her.

I think of a close friend of mine from college, Debbie Sundquist, who was called to a small Baptist church in lonely central Nevada. This poor remote congregation was turned down by eight men in a six year period because it was small, remote, poor and totally lacking in prestige. Finally, after some coaxing, they were willing to call Debbie rather than remain pastorless. In just three years, this church, which was down to 15 people in attendance when she accepted their call, has baptized more than 100 people in a community of not more than 500 population. Can you actually say, "God is not part of that?" And yet there are rigid legalists who misinterpret scripture and would deny these people this opportunity in order to maintain what they consider to be "doctrinal correctness". There are at least 100 people in Nevada, among others in Ghana and China, who are glad that God called a woman to preach and she was willing to go.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wells:
OK Josh, I'll help keep this thread on topic.

Answer: NONE!

Women claiming to be a "pastor" are outside of the will of God (according to the scriptures) and cannot be glorifying Him in their practice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto