women as ministers

[SaggyWoman]

Please don't get the concept of "ordaination" mixed up with being in ministry. You can minister without "ordaination." We --men or women- don't need "ordaination" to do anything. Just do it.

 

[rjprince]

Saggy,

Yes, ordination is a key step to full time ministry, but the principle that a women is not to teach a man from a position of authority is critical, whether or not she is formally ordained.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
StraightandNarrow - I "gave it" to you and you are welcome to "give it back"!! No hard feeling in the exchange.

But the issue is one of basic Bible interpretation and whether the Bible is understood as allegorical (giving vague, general principles) or literal (giving word-for-word, careful instruction of "how-to").

Let's take THAT issue into another thread in the Theology Forum.

A brief reply. I have come to believe that I should worship God and especially as incarnate in Jesus Christ more than the book. The simple gospel which Christ said we have to accept and live (Suffer the little children....) and the person of Jesus and His ministry often tend to be my guide rather than trying to decipher the meaning of customs in the Bible which I think must be understood considering their cultural setting.

 

[chipsgirl]

This weekend I reread the link that Debby posted and found it to be very interesting. This time I read a printed version so I could fully concentrate and take my time.
While I understood it to be a pro-woman in ministry point of view it does mention scriptures saying otherwise. It definately presented a good argument for how it is ok for women to be in ministry.

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
Well, to start off, I'm going to post a link that I've posted before on this subject. Now I know it's from another denomination, but it's the best apologetic I have ever seen on the topic. Please read, and have an open mind to the explanation given here.

WOMEN IN MINISTRY LINK

I've read the link, and I find it intellectually dishonest in statement after statement. Right or wrong, the Bible is very, very clearly against women teaching in ministry. If the Bible doesn't say women can't teach, then it also doesn't say Jesus is Lord.

 

[manchester]

If you want to say that Paul is a sexist, or that Paul is dead wrong, I have no problem with it. But Paul is very clear, and what Paul says is scripture.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by pinky:
The first Evangelist, part of the 5 fold ministry was a female. Jesus told her to go tell the disciples He was alive. So, here we have a women commissioned by Jesus to proclaim, tell men the Good News.

Being an evangelist and being a pastor are not the same thing.

I think the Bible clearly teaches that ecclesiastical authority is only to be given to men.

 

[Marcia]

Just so that no one thinks I am some kind of Dark Ages person, I am a woman in full-time ministry, I speak in churches (on the New Age and the occult), and I am working on seminary courses to get a Masters in Religion. So I am not against education, women in ministry, women speaking in churches (but not preaching or teaching the Bible to men), etc.

I've read and discussed the articles and arguments for women ministers/pastors, and they just don't line up with the Bible.

This article below gives some good responses to the pro-woman pastor arguments. As an example, here is the response to the argument that men over women was a result of the Fall.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0136a.html
Feminists appeal to God's judgment against the woman in Genesis 3:16 -- "[man] will rule over you" -- in their attempt to prove that female subordination was caused by the Fall. A more thorough look at the biblical evidence reveals, however, that this is not the case. Male headship is clearly established in the creation account in Genesis 2 -- before the Fall even took place. Man was created first. And the woman was created from Adam's rib to be his helper (Gen. 2:18). Certainly, both male and female were created in God's image and were accorded personal dignity, but God in the creation narrative set them in a nonreversible relation to one another -- male in loving headship over the female.

Adam's headship is illustrated in many ways in the creation account. For example, as soon as the woman was created, Adam named the woman: "She shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man" (Gen. 2:23). This is significant, because to name someone or something in ancient times implied having authority over the one named (e.g., Gen. 17:5; 2 Kings 23:34; Dan. 1:7).

It is also highly revealing that when God gave instructions about moral responsibility, He gave these instructions to Adam (Gen. 2:16-17). And after the Fall, God first summoned Adam, not Eve, even though she was the one who had led him into sin. "Adam, where are you?" God said immediately following the Fall (Gen. 3:9). In Romans 5:12, Adam was held solely responsible for the Fall, even though Eve played a significant role.

Certainly one of Adam's failures in the Fall was his abdication of responsibility for leadership. Instead of obeying God and leading his wife, he disobeyed God and followed his wife's lead (by eating the fruit). For this reason, God begins His sentence against Adam, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife" (Gen. 3:17). In the Fall, therefore, God's intended order of authority was reversed. As Gordon Wenham puts it, "Eve listened to the serpent instead of Adam; Adam listened to Eve instead of God."[35]

That's just an excerpt - there's much more.

 

[manchester]

The Bible is not like a flat landscape, but is more like varied terrain, and each part must be dealt with in its own right. This is not to suggest that some parts may be ignored or are more important than others, but merely to stress that all the Bible must be treated fairly.

Translation: we will ignore plain teaching in scripture, and try to draw conclusions contrary from scripture by finding it "implied" in other scriptures.

The issue of women in ministry is primarily a New Testament discussion, but there are Old Testament texts that deserve attention. Genesis 1:26-28 indicates that man and woman were created together in the image of God and that dominion was given to both of them.

Actually, that is NOT what Genesis 2 teaches; in fact, it teaches the exact OPPOSITE. Paul even references this in explaining why women should not be allowed to teach. "For God created Adam first, then Eve. Furthermore, Adam was not deceived on moral issues, but Eve was deceived by Satan and led all mankind into damnation."

In various contexts (such as Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:1-10) women are mentioned as playing a part in Israel's worship. More important are the women who functioned in leadership roles and consequently provide an Old Testament basis for women in ministry....

Again, trying to find it IMPLIED that women can be ministers, while ignoring plain, clear teaching that is directly on point. There is no need to look to implications from OT figures to determine NT doctrine where the NT is explicit and clear. If you believe otherwise, I challenge you to start being consistent and do that with everything, not just with women in ministry.

Miriam and Huldah are both referred to as prophetesses who had significant roles in God's purposes (Exodus 15:20,21 and 2 Kings 22:14-20). Deborah is also referred to as a prophetess, but she is best remembered for her activity as a judge of Israel and a leader in a time of conflict (judges 4-5). These texts do not legitimate the ministry of women by themselves, but they do provide important precedents.

Let's also do the same thing with polygamy. And heck, let's do it with adultery, too. Let's ignore the straight teaching on adultery, and instead point out all the good men of the OT who were adulterers, like King David.

The New Testament texts referring to women present a view that is markedly different from the negative view of women predominant in ancient societies.

To the contrary, the NT texts are very sexist and say that women should not be allowed to teach, nor to have any authority of a man, but to be silent.

The ministry of women becomes even clearer in the writings of Paul.

Agreed!

In Christ racial, societal, and sexual barriers have been broken down so that all are made one. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). This newly found oneness does not refer merely to our standing before God or to a oneness to be found at Christ's second coming.

It refers to our standing before God, and how we should view one another's worth (equal). But it doesn't justify, for example, a person getting up and pushing aside the pastor, saying "I will give the sermon this week because we are all equal." No, different people have different roles, though equal in worth.

In Paul's letters we encounter a significant number of women who were engaged in the work of the Gospel. We are not told the details of what any of these women did in their ministries, but the same language that Paul used of himself and his male helpers is used of them.

They may all be called servants, but not all called apostles, bishops or pastors. And there is no need to guess what Paul thought by looking at examples in the background. Paul is very clear about his views.

Such evidence cannot be discounted.

Yes, it can and it should be discounted. The author is twisting examples to make them seem more than what they are - simple followers doing good deeds. They are not pastors, ministers or bishops.

We cannot easily argue that women were allowed to prophesy but were not allowed to preach or teach. The New Testament does not make such a distinction between prophesying and teaching (See 1 Corinthians 14:3 and 31).

Paul says women can't teach and gives a number of reasons why. Are the examples cited evidence that women were allowed to prophesy but not preach? Or evidence that women weren't allowed to do either, but sinfully prophesied? You be the judge. In any case, implications cannot contradict the explicit and clear teachings.

the way some people have viewed 1 Timothy 3:1-7 as a barrier to women in ministry because it states that an "overseer"(or bishop) should be the husband of one wife. To suggest that this injunction excludes women from ministry is to ignore the text's intention. The passage focuses on the necessity of fidelity in a monogamous relationship as one of several tests of the moral character of an overseer.

The whole article is about taking things out of context to prove the pre-decided view that women are allowed to teach. Now you condemn people for pointing out that the apostles were all male, and the talk relating to bishops always assumes males? This is worse than pots and kettles!

[QOUTE]There is no attempt to provide an eternal decree that overseers should always be married men.[/QUOTE]

Scott Peterson made no attempt to prove himself guilty with his words. That was not his intent. But people with common sense don't care about his intent, but the truth that was implied regardless of his intent.

Certainly no attempt has been made on the basis of this verse to exclude single men from ministry. Nor has the guideline that an overseer should rule his own house well (verse 4) been automatically used to prevent fathers of rebellious children from ministering. A literalistic interpretation is inappropriate.

The verse implies that it's wrong to have more than one wife, not that a person must be married. That's the honest interpretation.

With regard to 1 Corinthians 14:34-36.. how can we understand the fact that within the one epistle, 1 Corinthians, Paul both gave directions for proper dress when women were praying and prophesying and asked for their silence?.... The context of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 begins with verse 26, and it is clear that the worship of the early Church was different from our usual services. When the church met for worship, all the people were encouraged to make a contribution to the service by offering some item for praise or instruction. Paul's concern in 14:26-36 is the disruption of the service.

He tells women to be silent WHY? "For God created ADAM FIRST, then Eve." And Adam was not deceived in the Garden, but Eve was and led both to destruction. Sure sounds like gender-neutral concern over sound to me!

Nor were women the only ones told to be in submission. The various prophets were to be submissive to each other as well (14:32). The service was to be orderly because God is a God of peace (14:33 and 40). The last part of verse 33 (" . . . as in allthe churches of the saints") should probably be read with the rest of verse 33, rather than with verse 34 as in some translations.

Paul tells us that women are to men as the church is to God. He sets the roles up that way. Call it sexist, but it's not gender neutral by any stretch of the imagination.

The issue with regard to women is clearly within the context of the disruption of the worship service.

"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. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." Yep, sounds gender-neutral to me.

The most difficult part of this passage is 2:12, which is usually translated as: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." The problem is with the word translated "have dominion over" (authenteinin Greek), for it does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament.... Whatever the meaning, what is prohibited of women with this word seems so negative that it would not be permitted of men either.

Ah, yes, what Paul said is entirely gender-neutral! LOL. No, I think the link proves the wisdom of what Paul said. The authors are completely and totally unable to understand Bible teaching, even the simplest and most clear of teachings.

 

[Marcia]

Miriam and Huldah are both referred to as prophetesses who had significant roles in God's purposes (Exodus 15:20,21 and 2 Kings 22:14-20). Deborah is also referred to as a prophetess, but she is best remembered for her activity as a judge of Israel and a leader in a time of conflict (judges 4-5). These texts do not legitimate the ministry of women by themselves, but they do provide important precedents.

Being a prophetess is not being the leader of a church. As far as Deborah goes, she was chosen as judge to shame the men, because there were no good men around to rule. It was a judgment on the men of Israel that Deborah was chosen.

I find it interesting that, for the most part, conservative evangelicals are only making this an issue and considering women in pastoral roles since feminism became accepted in society. The Christians for Biblical Equality formed in 1987, right on the cusp of the receding surge of the feminist movement. It seems like Christians sometimes want to follow the world and not be left out or they are afraid of looking foolish.

As a former pro-choice feminist who did not even take her husband's name back in '81 (keeping a maiden name was not normally done then), this was a big issue for me when I became a Christian in late '90. And so I examined all the arguments pro and con, and have done since. I cannot find any biblical support for women pastors or ministers.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
I have come to believe that I should worship God and especially as incarnate in Jesus Christ more than the book.

And that, sadly, is step #1 away from the authority of God's Word and the subjectivism of feeling replacing "Thus saith the Lord".

Liberals have taken that exact same line do go far from the absolutes in dragging down mainline denominations.

God will never go against His Word. Your "touchy-feely" attitude about worship of Jesus cannot be contrary to a single FACT in Scripture.

 

[rjprince]

Dr. Bob,

I agree with the essence of your post. Yet also also agree somewhat with StraightAN that we should worship God and not the Book.

I do not understand you to be suggesting otherwise. Yet, consistent with your words, we must worship God according to the Book, though we do not worship the Book.

 

[Karen]

Marcia,
It sounds like you have a wonderful ministry. But how is speaking in churches on the New Age and the occult NOT teaching the Bible to men?

Karen

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
I have come to believe that I should worship God and especially as incarnate in Jesus Christ more than the book.

And that, sadly, is step #1 away from the authority of God's Word and the subjectivism of feeling replacing "Thus saith the Lord".

Liberals have taken that exact same line do go far from the absolutes in dragging down mainline denominations.

God will never go against His Word. Your "touchy-feely" attitude about worship of Jesus cannot be contrary to a single FACT in Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]In reality what this means for me, since we no longer have Jesus present in the flesh, is that I focus on the second covenant and on the ministry of Christ as described in the Bible. Christ himself broke some minor old testament laws which were more traditions of the Jews. One example of this is doing work on the Sabbath (healing, raising the dead, allowing His deciples to grind wheat in their hands). I don't take this to be "touch-feely" at all. Christ taught that our faith must be as that of a little child or we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. How many children could understand some of our discussions on pre/mid/post trib rapture, the true meaning of some scripture (especially Old Testament or Revelation), or why women cannot do certain things in the church?

The gospel is simple and provides us with clear directives: love God, love our fellow man, and go and tell the world.

 

[SaggyWoman]

Originally posted by rjprince:
Saggy,

Yes, ordination is a key step to full time ministry, but the principle that a women is not to teach a man from a position of authority is critical, whether or not she is formally ordained.

No, ordination is NOT a key step to full time ministry.

We do not HAVE to be ordained to be in full time ministry.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by manchester:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
Well, to start off, I'm going to post a link that I've posted before on this subject. Now I know it's from another denomination, but it's the best apologetic I have ever seen on the topic. Please read, and have an open mind to the explanation given here.

WOMEN IN MINISTRY LINK

I've read the link, and I find it intellectually dishonest in statement after statement. Right or wrong, the Bible is very, very clearly against women teaching in ministry. If the Bible doesn't say women can't teach, then it also doesn't say Jesus is Lord. </font>[/QUOTE]What in particular do you find incorrect with the argument presented there?

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Karen:
Marcia,
It sounds like you have a wonderful ministry. But how is speaking in churches on the New Age and the occult NOT teaching the Bible to men?

Karen

Because I'm not teaching the Bible.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by StraightAndNarrow
Christ himself broke some minor old testament laws which were more traditions of the Jews. One example of this is doing work on the Sabbath (healing, raising the dead, allowing His deciples to grind wheat in their hands).

I'm not sure that God viewed any of his OT laws as "minor." But Jesus never broke any of God's OT laws; the only "laws" he violated were the teachings of men -- additional rules that the Jewish leaders added on to God's laws that made it burdensome for the people. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for doing this.

Jesus himself declared that healing on the Sabbath was not violating the Sabbath. As far as His disciples grinding wheat in their hands, this did not violate any OT laws.

There was to be no laborious work on the Sabbath; nowhere does God forbid healing on the Sabbath:

On this same day you shall make a proclamation as well; you are to have a holy convocation You shall do no laborious work. It is to be a perpetual statute in all your dwelling places throughout your generations. Lev 23.21

Other passages forbid carrying a heavy load on the Sabbath.

As far as the grain goes, there was a prohibition not to use a sickle:

When you enter your neighbor's standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain. Deut 23.25

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Karen:
Marcia,
It sounds like you have a wonderful ministry. But how is speaking in churches on the New Age and the occult NOT teaching the Bible to men?

Karen

Because I'm not teaching the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not opposed to what you do. But many who are against women teaching are against women teaching ANYTHING to men in a church setting.
Also, you may not be exegeting Philippians or Amos, but in SOME way are you not explaining that New Age and occult teachings are not Biblical?

Karen

 

[Charlene]

Hello there ... I am coming in on this conversation without reading everything .... so i might be off the mark a bit ... but a thought about those opposed to women teaching men the Bible ... the thought comes from a book I read by Ruth Tucker ... she asks a question as to if women can not teach men the Bible why are they allowed to teach children ... children are so impressionable ... just a thought ... again ... I am coming in on this without reading all the other thoughts on all of this ... I will go back and read everything ... right now I am working on a paper due for my J-term here at seminary ... take care my brothers and sisters ... In His Service ... Charlene &lt;&gt;&lt;