Women pastors you like

[annsni]

I am not sure what is meant by new revelation. I do know that many preachers, especially southern preachers, defended salvery using scripture. Paul did not condemn it. So, I am wondering, was it a new revelation when pastors and others began denouncing slavery and favoring it abolishment? Just curious where something like this fits into this thread.

No where does Paul say that we must have slaves. Paul did not condemn it because it was a cultural practice that God Himself did not condemn but it was a totally different form of slavery than we have today. Remember, most slaves were men or women who owed something to the slave owner and worked off their debt. Every 7 years, the slaves would be released. It was not an "ownership" situation like we know slavery today.

 

[annsni]

I agree that it is scary and dangerous, and it should be. The Pharisees thought they had "clear teaching from scripture" about Jesus. They are the prototype for what we shouldn't be doing. Their example should lead us right back to Gamaliel's warning to the Sanhedrin and to the comment "by their fruits shall ye know them." I guess my point is that being baptist is not easy. You can't settle for easy answers, and you can't jump to easy conclusions. You have to trust in the leading of the Holy Spirit, but you can't assume that it is going to be easily apparent. There is a sense that God's appearing to Abram was new revelation. The same could be said for Moses and the burning bush and the whole story of the exodus. Remember that many of the Israelites wished that they had stayed in Egypt in spite of all the plagues and acts of power that God did to show them that they would be taken care of. Also, it is likely that Jesus and his followers were viewed as something like a cult by many in the Jewish religious establishment. So it is with women pastors just as with men. Some will be very good, and it will be hard to doubt their calling. Some will be very bad, and it will be hard to affirm their calling. Most will be somewhere in the middle. For all it will between them and God whether or not they carry out their calling.

Tim Reynolds

You cannot use the Old Testament occurances to say that there were new revelations because that was before Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the final revelation. There is nothing new to add to Scripture. God's revelation to man has been revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and the Word of God. To add to it is at least misguided and at worst heresy. Scripture is very clear about the issue of women pastors. There are those who choose to change it to fit their culture and liking but it doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Marcia]

Well, it was either her or Joel Osteen, I decided not to be that tacky

So you like Joyce Meyer? If you do, I can post some links on her.

 

[Marcia]

I am not sure what is meant by new revelation. I do know that many preachers, especially southern preachers, defended salvery using scripture. Paul did not condemn it. So, I am wondering, was it a new revelation when pastors and others began denouncing slavery and favoring it abolishment? Just curious where something like this fits into this thread.

The Southern preachers who defended slavery misused the Bible. They themselves were slaves to the culture in the sense that they could not see or did not want to see the problems with slavery.

The Bible does not teach explicitly against slavery because the Bible is not about overthrowing social structures that are evil. It's about redeeming people to new life. Many preachers did advocate abolition of slavery and used the Bible for that, too. I think that one can find principles against slavery in the Bible. The main teaching in the Bible was for masters to be good and kind to the slaves and the slaves to obey masters. Slavery then was a different form from the South - and many were willing "slaves" in order to pay off debt.

 

[Marcia]

I have read the other posts that been added since I made my comment. So, I am responding those comments as well. I will give you the most appropriate example I know. On the basis of scripture (among other things), the Pharisees claimed that Jesus was not, and could not be, God's Messiah. They had decided, again, on the basis of scripture, what God's Messiah would be like, and they would accept no other possibilities. Jesus did not fit their expectations, so he could not be the Messiah.

When we assume that God's revelation has ended with that recorded in scripture, then we are assuming a level of knowledge to which we are not entitled. That is how we can attempt to limit God. What we are actually doing is preventing others from experiencing God to the fullest. It is not a question of God speaking God's heart to us. It is a question of whether we are paying attention. It is not a question of whether the scriptures are God's word. It's a question of whether they are God's only word or God's final word to us. When we run to the scriptures for answers to every problem we encounter, we run the risk of avoiding dealing with the problem directly. We may be applying a solution that may not be appropriate. Jesus was accused of breaking many sabbath and dietary laws. According to the Pharisees, he was a sinner, but we don't see it that way. I see this as being analogous to the issue of women pastors.

Actually, the Pharisees ignored several scriptures about the Messiah; they wanted someone to overthrow the Romans. Just because they misinterpreted or ignored some scriptures does not mean the scripture was wrong; it was not wrong. Jesus fulfilled over 300 OT prophecies of the Messiah.

The accusations against Jesus were based on the Pharisees' laws, not the Bible's.

If we accept new revelation, where does it end and how do we know it's from God? Either the Bible is sufficient as it says it is, or it isn't.

 

[ShotGunWillie]

So you like Joyce Meyer? If you do, I can post some links on her.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The Southern preachers who defended slavery misused the Bible. They themselves were slaves to the culture in the sense that they could not see or did not want to see the problems with slavery.

The Bible does not teach explicitly against slavery because the Bible is not about overthrowing social structures that are evil. It's about redeeming people to new life. Many preachers did advocate abolition of slavery and used the Bible for that, too. I think that one can find principles against slavery in the Bible. The main teaching in the Bible was for masters to be good and kind to the slaves and the slaves to obey masters. Slavery then was a different form from the South - and many were willing "slaves" in order to pay off debt.

I agree with you and thank you for a reasoned, rational reply. The only place I would differ a bit is that those who were willing 'slaves' in order to pay off debt were indentured servants ... and they did have rights that slaves did not have. Personally I would not have wanted to be either. In a later era many share croppers were not much better off than the indentured servant.

I also believe there are pastors, well meaning pastors, today who, as you said about those who defended slavery, are slaves to their culture ... the culture we live in today. We have to rise above that level and move forward with God as He leads us into deeper insights of his will. Obviously this will meet with much opposition .... and much of the opposition will be from well meaning people.

 

[annsni]

I was being sarcastic.

Whew - I thought you were going off the deep end there for a moment!

 

[John Toppass]

No where does Paul say that we must have slaves. Paul did not condemn it because it was a cultural practice that God Himself did not condemn but it was a totally different form of slavery than we have today. Remember, most slaves were men or women who owed something to the slave owner and worked off their debt. Every 7 years, the slaves would be released. It was not an "ownership" situation like we know slavery today.

While I do agree with a lot that is being said, I must add that many if not most slaves during biblical times were "owned property" for life unless released by the master. Indentured slaves were subject to a whole different set of rules of protocol.

 

[John Toppass]

My apologies to the OP, this thread has been hijacked and I seem to be part of it. Back to the OP. I do not have any favorite women pastors, since there are non that are called by God to be pastors. Of course, my only source is the scripture.

 

[Lux et veritas]

Women pastors you like

Finally, an easy question!

Answer: None.
Reason: Because such a woman would be acting in open defiance of Scripture.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Finally, an easy question!

Answer: None.
Reason: Because such a woman would be acting in open defiance of Scripture.

I agree with you light and truth. Woman should not be given authority over men in the Church. Though their teaching of other women would be invaluable.

 

[th1bill]

... I'm new here but but the truth is that there are no women pastors as per the scriptures. A pastor must be the husband of one wife and a woman can never be a husband, it's really a no brainer.

 

[Johnv]

A pastor must be the husband of one wife...

Yet we never have this argument about unmarried male pastors.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yet we never have this argument about unmarried male pastors.

Why not? I think I have. We need to hook him up ASAP!!!!!!!!!

 

[Johnv]

Bwaaa haa !!! Okay, you get a commendation for being consistent.

 

[annsni]

Why not? I think I have. We need to hook him up ASAP!!!!!!!!!

Isn't that the job of the elderly women in the church? I thought it mentions that in Scripture somewhere. A single pastor must not be a single pastor for more than a year.

 

[Revmitchell]

... I'm new here but but the truth is that there are no women pastors as per the scriptures. A pastor must be the husband of one wife and a woman can never be a husband, it's really a no brainer.

you will have to excuse some folks they are not willing to consider that you are new.

 

[Johnv]

Isn't that the job of the elderly women in the church? I thought it mentions that in Scripture somewhere. A single pastor must not be a single pastor for more than a year.

Never read that. Scripture on that subject would be interesting. It kinda throws a kink in the system, though, since it would also exclude widowed pastors. I can't imagine requiring a widowed pastor to remarry within a year.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Isn't that the job of the elderly women in the church? I thought it mentions that in Scripture somewhere. A single pastor must not be a single pastor for more than a year.

I'm being honest. Having been at one time interested in the Ministry a pastor told me that I should really consider getting married first. However, as I've stated I agree with light and truth. I mean Lux et veritas.