Repsector of Persons/woman pastor

[thegospelgeek]

'Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. '

So, if Gal 3:28 allows for a female pastor, would it not also allow for Gay Marriage to remain consistent?

 

[Johnv]

So, if Gal 3:28 allows for a female pastor, would it not also allow for Gay Marriage to remain consistent?

That's a huuuuuge stretch. The passage doesn't remotely address the issue of marriage, no matter how much one attempts to stretch the passage.

 

[thegospelgeek]

That's a huuuuuge stretch. The passage doesn't remotely address the issue of marriage, no matter how much one attempts to stretch the passage.

Neither does it address the issue of being a pastor. If it applys to one it would apply to the other.

 

[Johnv]

Neither does it address the issue of being a pastor. If it applys to one it would apply to the other.

That's true too. But to that point, the verses we cite in support of limiting the pastoral role to women aren't express, but implied as one possible interpretation.

 

[preachinjesus]

Well the passage doesn't apply to church offices...it is about salvation and equal access to God through Christ's sacrifice.

To hermeneutically twist it to apply to pastoral office based on gender it is just another step to apply to a homos3xual pastor. When we corrupt the meaning of Scripture to accomplish our theological goals we open Scripture up to all kinds of interpretation.

 

[thegospelgeek]

Well the passage doesn't apply to church offices...it is about salvation and equal access to God through Christ's sacrifice.

To hermeneutically twist it to apply to pastoral office based on gender it is just another step to apply to a homos3xual pastor. When we corrupt the meaning of Scripture to accomplish our theological goals we open Scripture up to all kinds of interpretation.

..........Amen!!

 

[Winman]

Well, the Lord seemed to have a real problem with Jezebel teaching.

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

God is not simply reproving Jezebel here for suducing his servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols, he is reproving her for teaching. And "that woman" is very strong. It also implies she is a false prophet "which calleth herself a prophetess".

How many of the apostles were women?

 

[Johnv]

How many of the apostles were women?

According to the disctinctive of the Preisthood of Every Believer, every woman who is a believer is an apostle.

 

[annsni]

That's true too. But to that point, the verses we cite in support of limiting the pastoral role to women aren't express, but implied as one possible interpretation.

How can you say that the verses don't expressly limit the pastoral role but it's implied???

1 Corinthians 14:33-36 "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

1 Timothy 2:11-14 "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

1 Timothy 3:1-13 "The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus."

 

[Johnv]

How can you say that the verses don't expressly limit the pastoral role but it's implied???

It's been discussed in deep detail before in numerous other threads, but to recap what has already been said elsewhere:

1 Cor was a cultural point, directed to churches where men were in the congregation and women were outside. The women would call out to their husbands to find out what the preacher was saying. The admonition here was that those women should stop interrupting, keep quiet, and wait until they get home to ask their husbands for the preacher's teachings.

1 Tim was referring to a specific cultural problem of the day, whereby women were spreading occultic ideas between themselves, and then spreading that deception to the men in their household. That's why the parallel to Eve's deception was referenced.

1 Tim wasn't referring to what the gender of the leader must be, he's referring to the sexual purity of that leader (no miltuple wives, no flings on the side, etc). That's why the koine Greek emphasizes "one" wife, and doesn't just say "a" wife.

We shouldn't read these or any scriptural passages without their context, which is what is often done. Otherwise, we have people saying that a person can't be a pastor if he's single or widowed, or that deacons are allowed to be a little drunk (since it says "be not addicted to much wine).

Anyhoo, I know we differ on this interpretationally, but since the Baptist Dictinctives are big on autonomy and liberty, such a difference in interpretation is baptistically permissible, and there's no reason for Baptist to disfellowship for reasons such as these.

 

[Marcia]

1 Tim was referring to a specific cultural problem of the day, whereby women were spreading occultic ideas between themselves, and then spreading that deception to the men in their household. That's why the parallel to Eve's deception was referenced.
.

Your statement above has nothing to do with this text:

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

There is nothing in the text about what you say it's about. Rather God gives 2 reasons for his statement:
1. There is an order God wants followed: Adam was created first
2. Women are more easily deceived

The text is clear; we should not read suppositions into it. God could not be more clear here. This is universal and applicable today.

 

[annsni]

It's been discussed in deep detail before in numerous other threads, but to recap what has already been said elsewhere:

1 Cor was a cultural point, directed to churches where men were in the congregation and women were outside. The women would call out to their husbands to find out what the preacher was saying. The admonition here was that those women should stop interrupting, keep quiet, and wait until they get home to ask their husbands for the preacher's teachings.

Yet Paul said "as in all the churches of the saints". But no matter what, women were not to speak in the church like the men were able to, were they?

1 Tim was referring to a specific cultural problem of the day, whereby women were spreading occultic ideas between themselves, and then spreading that deception to the men in their household. That's why the parallel to Eve's deception was referenced.

Oh - and can you show me this context in Scripture? It points back to Eve because this is a created order - not because of something specific for that day.

1 Tim wasn't referring to what the gender of the leader must be, he's referring to the sexual purity of that leader (no miltuple wives, no flings on the side, etc). That's why the koine Greek emphasizes "one" wife, and doesn't just say "a" wife.

Oh, so the reference to their wives is a goof? I don't know many women in that day who had wives who were accepted by the church. The passage is crystal clear that it is speaking of men and only men. There is no possible way to put a woman in that position in light of those verses.

We shouldn't read these or any scriptural passages without their context, which is what is often done. Otherwise, we have people saying that a person can't be a pastor if he's single or widowed, or that deacons are allowed to be a little drunk (since it says "be not addicted to much wine).

I'm not so sure the idea of having to be married is so wrong. Widowed would not be much of a problem because he would have been married and have proven himself as a good husband and father most likely. As for the idea of being a little drunk, that is wrong because Scripture says that drunkenness is wrong. Not addicted to much wine means responsible drinking and not getting drunk. I don't know where you come up with the idea of being a little drunk is OK in that passage especially in light of the whole of Scripture.

Anyhoo, I know we differ on this interpretationally, but since the Baptist Dictinctives are big on autonomy and liberty, such a difference in interpretation is baptistically permissible, and there's no reason for Baptist to disfellowship for reasons such as these.

Eh - See, I see this way bigger than that, honestly. A church that disobeys the clear teaching of Scripture and instead twists it is a church that I would have to question it's stance on other things too. I'd not be involved in a church that had a woman pastor.

 

[OldRegular]

God is not a respecter of persons at the foot of the cross - we're all equal. However, is a slave free? Is a Greek a Jew? Is a man a woman? No. Each one has a specific place in life and a specific calling. Not once is a priest a woman. Never. Paul was very clear in his letters and description of the qualifications of an elder and deacon that they are to be men.

Prophecy is different than pastoring. Prophecy is a gift of the Spirit but not a role that is taken on. It is clear in Scripture that women can prophesy and that they can pray but no where does it say that a woman is to be in the position of elder, which would be a pastor.

Just some thoughts.

Correct thoughts Ann!

A little Scripture:

Judges 17:6. In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Proverbs 12:15. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

 

[Johnv]

Yet Paul said "as in all the churches of the saints". But no matter what, women were not to speak in the church like the men were able to, were they?

Only if you disregards the context and cultural setting.

can you show me this context in Scripture?

Are you saying that if the cultural context isn't mentioned in scripture, even though it would have been understood as such to the person to whom the letter was written, that the context is void?

Oh, so the reference to their wives is a goof?

??? That's a stretch.

The passage is crystal clear that it is speaking of men and only men.

If it were crystal clear, there would be no argument.

I'm not so sure the idea of having to be married is so wrong.

Off topic, but Paul wasn't married.

Widowed would not be much of a problem because he would have been married and have proven himself as a good husband and father most likely.

If you go by the letter, a widowed man is disqualified, because he doesn' thave a wife, he had a wife, and is therefore no longer a husband of one wife. Now, I don't concur, but that's a valid interpretation if one adheres to a literalist interpretation of the passage sans context.

I don't know where you come up with the idea of being a little drunk is OK in that passage especially in light of the whole of Scripture.

I don't. I'm simply noting how a literalist interpretation of the passage sans context can be applied.

Eh - See, I see this way bigger than that, honestly.

Then why bother being baptist if one doesn't adhere to the Baptist Distinctives? They're not there to pick and choose. That includes the Distinctives of Liberty and Autonomy.

A church that disobeys the clear teaching of Scripture and instead twists it is a church that I would have to question it's stance on other things too. I'd not be involved in a church that had a woman pastor.

I'm not saying a person should be involved in a church that had a woman pastor. I'm saying it's not necessary to break fellowship with such a church, and, that if we are to adhere to the Baptist Dictinctives, we must support each church's right of autonomy and liberty.

 

[annsni]

Only if you disregards the context and cultural setting.

I'm not disregarding anything. I'm going by the context of the Scriptures.

Are you saying that if the cultural context isn't mentioned in scripture, even though it would have been understood as such to the person to whom the letter was written, that the context is void?

The context is what is written in the letter. If it were for a specific reason, Paul says so (for example, 1 Corinthians 5). Otherwise it's for all of the churches of Christ else we toss out all of what Paul says because he wrote it for someone else and not us.

If it were crystal clear, there would be no argument.

There will always be an argument because there will always be sin and disobedience.

Off topic, but Paul wasn't married.

Nor was he in the position of an elder in a church or a deacon, was he?

If you go by the letter, a widowed man is disqualified, because he doesn' thave a wife, he had a wife, and is therefore no longer a husband of one wife. Now, I don't concur, but that's a valid interpretation if one adheres to a literalist interpretation of the passage sans context.

No, I disagree. A friend of mine lost her husband almost 5 weeks ago. She still refers to him as her husband and legally, he IS her husband for all things legal. A widowed man has had a wife and ran his home - thus qualifying him for ministry.

I don't. I'm simply noting how a literalist interpretation of the passage sans context can be applied.

You cannot because it does not say drunkenness is OK. "Not given to much wine" means just what it says.

Then why bother being baptist if one doesn't adhere to the Baptist Distinctives? They're not there to pick and choose. That includes the Distinctives of Liberty and Autonomy.

I'm not saying a person should be involved in a church that had a woman pastor. I'm saying it's not necessary to break fellowship with such a church, and, that if we are to adhere to the Baptist Dictinctives, we must support each church's right of autonomy and liberty.

Sure, any church can be autonomous but it's also OK to show where an autonomous church is Biblically in error and to choose to not fellowship with them if they do not listen.

 

[thegospelgeek]

It's been discussed in deep detail before in numerous other threads, but to recap what has already been said elsewhere:

1 Cor was a cultural point, directed to churches where men were in the congregation and women were outside. The women would call out to their husbands to find out what the preacher was saying. The admonition here was that those women should stop interrupting, keep quiet, and wait until they get home to ask their husbands for the preacher's teachings.

1 Tim was referring to a specific cultural problem of the day, whereby women were spreading occultic ideas between themselves, and then spreading that deception to the men in their household. That's why the parallel to Eve's deception was referenced.

1 Tim wasn't referring to what the gender of the leader must be, he's referring to the sexual purity of that leader (no miltuple wives, no flings on the side, etc). That's why the koine Greek emphasizes "one" wife, and doesn't just say "a" wife.

We shouldn't read these or any scriptural passages without their context, which is what is often done. Otherwise, we have people saying that a person can't be a pastor if he's single or widowed, or that deacons are allowed to be a little drunk (since it says "be not addicted to much wine).

Anyhoo, I know we differ on this interpretationally, but since the Baptist Dictinctives are big on autonomy and liberty, such a difference in interpretation is baptistically permissible, and there's no reason for Baptist to disfellowship for reasons such as these.

Actually 1 Timothy is referring that the leadrer must rule the houshold well and have demonstrated the ability to do so. The scripture also sets the father as the leader of the houshold, so how can one who is not the leader of the house demostrate the ability to do so?

 

[webdog]

Actually 1 Timothy is referring that the leadrer must rule the houshold well and have demonstrated the ability to do so. The scripture also sets the father as the leader of the houshold, so how can one who is not the leader of the house demostrate the ability to do so?

That's my take on it as well, and a reason I believe a single pastor should not be allowed. They clearly have shown no ability to have a family, let alone rule one.

 

[Johnv]

Webdog's application of the passage is admittedly the sole point of consistency on the topic, which should be commended, even if one does not concur completely with it.

To the OP topic, the "respector of persons" passage is not a prooftext for women in a pastoral role. I can't imagine that anyone would disagree with that.

 

[Shortandy]

'Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. '

So, if Gal 3:28 allows for a female pastor, would it not also allow for Gay Marriage to remain consistent?

That is the same thing I fired out to my methodist friends and they have yet to get back with me. If the passages does away with sexes and roles and then the passage could be used to validate a man being the "wife" in a relationship?

 

[Johnv]

Except that the "respector of persons" passage is not a prooftext for women in a pastoral role.