women as ministers

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

 

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

Agreed!

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

"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.

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.

 

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,

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

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

 

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?

 

Because I'm not teaching the Bible.

 

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:

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:

 

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

 

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;