Woman senior pastor

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Let's start with woman pastor, period! Senior or otherwise is a play on words and already assumes some sort of authority.

Women have no divine sanction in regards to authority in church leadership. The women authority if one desires to use such is that they are competent to guide the younger women in regards to their behavior towards husband and children. This, of course, assumes the older woman has practiced what she so desires to teach.

The fact that one might appeal to various interpretations already shows a sliding from the faith. Particularly on these central issues, and yes this is a core issue.

 

[Jerome]

It violates the recipe the bible set up for the Churches.

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." 1 Tim. 3:2a

How can a woman bishop be the husband of one wife?... God is not the author of confusion....Scripture couldn't be any plainer....A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Yeah, keep reading. A few verses later Paul says deacons are likewise to be husbands of one wife. Then flip over to Romans chapter 16 where Paul commends "sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae."

 

[Baptist Believer]

I like your definition of authority as it pertains to an elder. It definitely is an inherent authority of his following Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost. However, it is a position of authority nonetheless.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. -1 Tim. 2.12

The word translated "woman" here, and other places, can be translated as "wife." Context generally tells you which way to go. If you assume that women are not supposed to speak in church, then you go with "woman."

I fail to see the consistency, though, in Baptist churches who object to women being elders on verses such as this, but ask "Sister So-And-So" to stand up and "testify," whatever that means.

Yes, it is inconsistent. However, when we read the book of Acts carefully, we see that women speak on behalf of the gospel regularly.

There were women in the Upper Room (Acts 1:14), and when the Spirit was given in power, the tongues of fire (a visual symbol of authority and inclusion in this event) rested upon ALL of them and they spoke in the unknown languages (Acts 2:3-4). Then Peter pointed out to the crowds what they were seeing and hearing, that "their sons and daughters shall prophesy..." (Acts 2:17). And I guess I should point out that Philip the evangelist had four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:9). Of course, this was not a new thing. Jesus had female disciples that traveled with Him (Luke 8:1-3). Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, took a place at the feet of Jesus (just like a male disciple) and was approved and defended by Jesus (Luke 10:38-42).

And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. -1 Co. 14.35

According to Paul, women are not even to ask questions in the coming together of the whole church into one place. Women no longer see the necessity of having long hair or covering their head. Women elders are just the natural result of the casting away of the authority God has ordained.

I have to believe that 1 Corinthians 14:35 is talking about wives publicly questioning their husbands in the meeting regarding the content of their teaching since Paul had given advice regarding head coverings when a woman spoke in the midst of the congregation (1 Corinthians 11:5) shortly before he wrote 14:35.

Therefore, I don't understand how you can lament the loss of head coverings for women AND affirm that they be silent in the churches at the same time.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Yeah, keep reading. A few verses later Paul says deacons are likewise to be husbands of one wife. Then flip over to Romans chapter 16 where Paul commends "sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae."

The King James calls her a "servant".

 

[Baptist Believer]

The King James calls her a "servant".

That's exactly what "deacon" means. It's the same word that is transliterated as "deacon" in other places.​

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Actually no. The word "servant" is used throughout the King James. There is a distinction between the two, therefore there are different words used..

 

[Baptist Believer]

Actually no. The word "servant" is used throughout the King James. There is a distinction between the two, therefore there are different words used..

In the King James translation, there are two different words used. But in the original Greek language, it is the SAME word. Go back and look at the references I placed in the edit of my last post.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

It was translated as "deacon", "minister", "administer" "serveth" and "serve" but I don't see anywhere in the King James Bible that "diakoneo" was translated as "servant". Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

 

[Baptist Believer]

It was translated as "deacon", "minister", "administer" "serveth" and "serve" but I don't see anywhere in the King James Bible that "diakoneo" was translated as "servant". Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Take a look at 1 Timothy 3:10 and 3:13.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

Yes, I Timothy 3 says that a "diakoneo" is to be the "aner mia gyne" ...........husband of one wife. What's your point?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Yes, I Timothy 3 says that a "diakoneo" is to be the "aner mia gyne" ...........husband of one wife. What's your point?

You made an assertion regarding the usage of the word. I answered it, demonstrating that your assertion was unfounded.

If you want to shift your argument to claim that Phoebe can't be a deacon because of 1 Timothy 3, you are mistaken. The female deacons have standards too:

Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.​

All of these qualifications are issues of character and ability, including the "husband of one wife" prohibition against polygamy and serial monogamy. Women were not in a position to abuse divorce laws like men.

 

[Revmitchell]

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 well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 3:8-13 (ESV)

A Deacon must be a:

1. Honest (grave)
2. Trustworthy (not double tongued)
3. Not a drunk (not given to much wine)
4. honest with money (not greedy dishonest gain)
5. Solid and faithful to the faith (hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience)
6. proven faithful (be tested first)
7. Men (Their wives, husband of one wife)
8. Married to faithful women (wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things)
9. Provide primary leadership in the house (managing their children and their own households well)

These are clear, not cultural, simple, and without reasonable question.

 

[Baptist Believer]

A Deacon must be a:

1. Honest (grave)
2. Trustworthy (not double tongued)
3. Not a drunk (not given to much wine)
4. honest with money (not greedy dishonest gain)
5. Solid and faithful to the faith (hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience)
6. proven faithful (be tested first)
7. Men (Their wives, husband of one wife)
8. Married to faithful women (wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things)
9. Provide primary leadership in the house (managing their children and their own households well)

These are clear, not cultural, simple, and without reasonable question.

And yet the writer of these guidelines commends Phoebe, a deacon of the church.

 

[Revmitchell]

And yet the writer of these guidelines commends Phoebe, a deacon of the church.

Uh no, not a deacon of the church. If she were then these would be in direct contradiction, second using the adjective servant does not have to mean a deacon. Every church has women who are servants of God but most of which who are not deacons as scripture prescribes.

 

[Charles Blair]

A church I used to attend had a woman senior pastor. Her husband had the title of pastor and preached the sermons. She wore the pants in that family and completely controlled him. Even though she was not on the payroll and had no title, she ran the show. Consequently, that church stayed in constant turmoil.

Frequently it's a deacon's wife who does the same, or a dear widow in her '80's whom no one dares contradict!

 

[Revmitchell]

And yet the writer of these guidelines commends Phoebe, a deacon of the church.

Uh no they do not. Not as a Deacon of the church but as a servant of the church.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

The word translated "woman" here, and other places, can be translated as "wife." Context generally tells you which way to go. If you assume that women are not supposed to speak in church, then you go with "woman."


Yes, it is inconsistent. However, when we read the book of Acts carefully, we see that women speak on behalf of the gospel regularly.

There were women in the Upper Room (Acts 1:14), and when the Spirit was given in power, the tongues of fire (a visual symbol of authority and inclusion in this event) rested upon ALL of them and they spoke in the unknown languages (Acts 2:3-4). Then Peter pointed out to the crowds what they were seeing and hearing, that "their sons and daughters shall prophesy..." (Acts 2:17). And I guess I should point out that Philip the evangelist had four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:9). Of course, this was not a new thing. Jesus had female disciples that traveled with Him (Luke 8:1-3). Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, took a place at the feet of Jesus (just like a male disciple) and was approved and defended by Jesus (Luke 10:38-42).


I have to believe that 1 Corinthians 14:35 is talking about wives publicly questioning their husbands in the meeting regarding the content of their teaching since Paul had given advice regarding head coverings when a woman spoke in the midst of the congregation (1 Corinthians 11:5) shortly before he wrote 14:35.

Therefore, I don't understand how you can lament the loss of head coverings for women AND affirm that they be silent in the churches at the same time.

True there were women prophetesses, but Paul gives instructions for prophets speaking in the church, but never prophetesses. Furthermore, it never says anything about women questioning their husbands. That is your interpretation of what Paul said, but it isn't what Paul said.

 

[Baptist Believer]

True there were women prophetesses, but Paul gives instructions for prophets speaking in the church, but never prophetesses.

1 Corinthians 11:4-16

4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.​

Whatever else this passage teaches about head coverings, the context of this passage indeed shows that:
(1) Women pray and prophesy
(2) This is meant to happen in the meetings of the local church
(3) This is common practice in the churches

Furthermore, it never says anything about women questioning their husbands. That is your interpretation of what Paul said, but it isn't what Paul said.

It is certainly my (and some scholar's interpretation), but everything that you have written is also your interpretation. We are all interpreting scripture in good faith.

 

[jonathan.borland]

The main Chinese translation in 1 Tim 3:11 has 女执事 = female deacon(s).

 

[Reynolds]

The main Chinese translation in 1 Tim 3:11 has 女执事 = female deacon(s).

Why are we using Chinese?