Woman senior pastor

I could give you several, but they are routinely dismissed since "everyone" knows that all pastors/elders must be men. That's why one has to take a holistic look at all of the passages together and tie them to the teaching and practice of Jesus, the church described in Acts, and Paul's ministry and writings.

 

Which is typically called mental and theological gymnastics.

 

Actually you can't, because they don't exist. Female pastors are politically correct in our day and age, but not Biblical. In today's society we're urged to blur all distinctions between males and females. It's ironic because we're also urged to celebrate racial differences. But we Christians should do just the opposite. We're all one race, all coming from Noah, and we should celebrate that oneness. At the same time we should celebrate the wonderful difference between males and females. We should be the exact opposite of the world. Many Churches, however, are conforming to the world.

 

So true. God does not change.

 

Where do you find the book of Ellis in the Bible?

 

Actually, I don't think I'm going to present the argument after all. It is clear that it has been pre-judged without consideration and presenting something here that may very well be truthful will be rejected out-of-hand, putting all of you in danger before God. It's fine to disagree, but it is not okay to have contempt for something you have not investigated. That only leads to mental and spiritual blindness.

Yeshua1, if you actually want to hear how many Christians understand the role of women as revealed in the New Testament (and not by contemporary society or "conservative" Christianity), then I suggest you read E. Earle Ellis' chapter, "Paul and the Eschatological Woman" in his book, Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society.

 

That's the kind of response I get from United Pentecostals and cultists when I attempt to demonstrate the validity of the Trinity through the scriptures.

 

That fine with me. I will believe Paul owner Ellis.

 

Agreed. People who only use the parts of the Bible they, like try to shift the discussion to demeaning the person so they can avoid dealing with the plain truth of scripture.

 

The irony of this statement is that Ellis wants you to believe Paul. He wants you to take a closer look at all of Paul's writings and practice instead of simply a few prooftexts.

 

The irony is he wants to twist the plain writings of Paul. There are many areas in scripture that are so plain, you have to work extremely hard to complicate them. When you go down this road of "that is not universally applicable to the Church because Paul was writing to a specific church to deal with a unique problem," you then make the entire Bible worthless. The entire old testament is gone. The teachings of Jesus are gone. The Pauline letters are gone. Even the Revelation of Christ to John gets tossed.

 

So you've read his writings? Can you specifically explain where he has gone wrong? Page numbers for your citations are helpful.

Who wrote that? It wasn't Ellis. Nothing like it is in Ellis' argument.

That's a false conclusion, but it doesn't matter in this discussion since that's not my position or Ellis' position.

So specifically, since you have made the accusation that "he wants to twist the plain writings of Paul," it would be nice for you to explain your reasoning for libeling one of the major Pauline scholars of the 60 years. Perhaps you should publish a scholarly paper so that other scholars can be warned of his errors.

 

I have not read and am not going to read anything he wrote. I have read The Bible. However he wants to go about justifying women as pastors or deacons is unbiblical. I have read numerous arguments in favor of women pastors. I doubt he says anything they do not say.

 

So indeed, you have condemned him in total ignorance and wish to stay in complete ignorance with your condemnation of him intact. That's hardly a position that a disciple of Jesus would take.

Listen, you don't have to agree. You don't even have to investigate what he wrote to say that you 'don't think that sounds right', but you do not have the right to INSIST - against someone who is quite familiar with his work - that a brother in Christ "wants to twist the plain writings of Paul."

All the way through? Many of us have done that countless times and have not only read it, but studied it.

Yet you have already made some false assumptions about his position.

Look, I used to be on the same side of the issue as you. The only thing that kept me from staying there is that I could not adequately reconcile the passage that allegedly demands that women be silent in the churches with the nearby teaching that when a woman preaches, she should have her head covered. I also could not reconcile the passages that allegedly teach that a woman could not have authority over a man (assumed to be teaching authority) with the passages where Priscilla/Prisca taught Apollos. I knew that I was missing something important about how more than half of the people of the church was supposed to interact in the churches, so I kept my eyes open for interpretive assistance from all corners.

Yes, I have too. Few of them are worth the paper they are printed on.

And you are completely wrong about that. I have read reviews of his work and the more liberal reviewers find that Ellis was too focused on scripture and ignored arguments about "fairness", "the ability of women" and feminist ideas in favor of scrupulous analysis of scripture.

But of course, you wouldn't know that and DON'T WANT to know that. You just want to condemn him and everyone else who doesn't agree with your proclamations.

 

There is nothing He can say that will change the PLAIN truth of scripture.

 

True. But not all scripture is "plain" from a casual reading. Especially when you are reading from a translation of texts that are colored by tradition, when you are reading something from a very different culture 2,000 years later, with only a modest amount of understanding regarding the everyday life and traditions of that culture. While the Spirit helps us, we are responsible for doing our part to understand.

For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity can easily be missed in a casual reading of scripture. As it is, I hear modalism taught in Christian circles by people claiming to just teach the plain truth of scripture.

When I was studying the Bible and figuring out what I believed years ago, I learned about the doctrine of the Trinity from notes in the back of a Ryrie Study Bible. I used to notes to see the scriptures for myself in a new light and shifted away from the moralism that was taught in the Sunday School in the church where I grew up ("God is like water: ice, liquid, and gas"). If I had rejected investigating things that were not "plain," I would have been a modalist for an unknown amount of time afterward. And please note, I already had some issues with Ryrie because he taught things that I could not find in the scripture, and cannot to this day. I did not see Ryrie as a reliable guide, but simply one who had some strong and popular interpretations that were worth evaluating.

To be a student/disciple of Jesus is to go deeper than a "plain" reading of scripture.

Certainly it is not to malign someone you never met, make false charges about something you have never read, and vow to remain ignorant of anything that might change your mind.

 

There are areas, such as the Trinity, where you are indeed correct. By the way, there is no model that can accurately contain the full truth of the Trinity. All attempts to model have their flaws. Modalism is no more or no less flawed than the other models. Paul's instructions for pastoral qualification are not vague. They are not hard to understand. They are on their face absolute and concrete.

 

While I agree with the rest of your post this is just wrong and can easily be disproven.

 

I did not say it was not flawed. It is flawed just as every attempt to model the Trinity is flawed.every attempt to model the Trinity contains a heresy. When one tries to take the Trinity and put it in a neat box, it does not work.
"Saint Patrick's bad analogies" on youtube pretty accurately, and quite comically sums up my Trinitarian view.

 

At least we have some agreement.

I don't know why we are talking about models, we can state the truth of the Triune God from scripture - using scripture - in an appropriate and meaningful way without it being flawed.

We shouldn't be formulating models to begin with. We should simply and carefully examine the scriptures closely and speak their truth.

I don't think anyone has claimed they are vague.

Within the original language, within the original culture, within the original context, it was probably fairly clear, although Peter had trouble understanding some of Paul's writings (2 Peter 3:16) and he had all the advantages we do not.

We should not be so arrogant to assume that our initial understand is the correct one without careful study.

To be blunt, on their face, Paul's writings on women in the ministry of the church are contradictory - even in the same book ("Women should remain silent in the churches, they are not allow to speak..." vs. "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head." See 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Corinthians 11:5a respectively).

On it's face, absolutely and concretely, Paul is contradicting himself within the space of three chapters as the letter is divided today. Obviously there is something else going on here. Do you believe Paul didn't know what he was talking about or are you going to just brush it off and continue to hold the view that suits your prejudices the best? A student of scripture knows that the surface ("the face") of the "plain" meaning of scripture is not necessarily the right one.

I know I will not change your mind, but I also don't want you to blind yourself to the scriptures in disobedience to the calling of Christ. You will be held accountable for everything you have learned and also how you have blinded yourself from the things of God.