Featured Women pastors

Pretty simple, if the Pauline Epistles are inspired, women can not be pastors.

 

The Apostle Paul very clearly states women are not to be allowed to teach or have authority over men in the church. He basis his statement on OT scripture.

Should be enough to stop any support for women as pastors.

peace to you

 

To play the foil...the passage you are referencing can be understood to say, I do not, presently, at this time, allow women to teach. The reason is that women were uneducated. This is no longer true. Some of the best educators in Christian Universities and Seminaries are women. The training they provide in learning Greek or Hebrew is equal to any. For example, Nancy Guthrie's 5 book series on seeing Jesus in the Old Testament is as good as anything you will find in Reformed circles.

Now, my reasoning for men being Pastors is not that women can't. The certainly can. My point is that while woman can, men should. Why? Because, God gave Adam the role of leader and protector. Adam was supposed to crush the serpents head. Men, as shepherds, are to crush the serpents head when it endangers the flock. Moses was supposed to circumcise his sons, not Zipporah. She was forced to do it when Moses wouldn't and God was going to kill Moses. Men are to love their wives like Christ loves the church. This is a role of care and shepherding. It is one that is, or should be, very humbling since Christ died for the church.
Again, it's not that women can't. It's that men should.

 

The Reformed verdict on that, by John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion IV 10:9-30, is:

"the hours set apart for public prayer, sermon, and solemn services; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places, singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the prohibition of Paul against women teaching in the Church, and such like....things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe.
Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference, far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy. You will ask, What liberty of conscience will there be in such cautious observances? Nay, this liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for human infirmity, which, though we do not all need, we, however, all use, because we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognise in the examples given above. What? Is religion placed in a woman’s bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered? Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? Is there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying a dead body, which cannot be omitted without a crime? By no means. For should a woman require to make such haste in assisting a neighbour that she has not time to cover her head, she sins not in running out with her head uncovered. And there are some occasions on which it is not less seasonable for her to speak than on others to be silent. Nothing, moreover, forbids him who, from disease, cannot bend his knees, to pray standing. In fine, it is better to bury a dead man quickly, than from want of grave-clothes, or the absence of those who should attend the funeral, to wait till it rot away unburied. Nevertheless, in those matters the custom and institutions of the country, in short, humanity and the rules of modesty itself, declare what is to be done or avoided."

 

The passage from 1 Timothy can only be rightly understood in the plain meaning of the words of the text. Paul did not say “not presently, at this time, because women are uneducated”.

His reason is based on the creation and the fall, not on a woman’s ability or education level.

And, imo, this prohibition applies only to leadership positions, over men, in the church which includes pastors and/or elders. If deacons are considered leaders (though they shouldn’t be considered anything else but servants) then the prohibition applies to deacons as well.

Peace to you

 

Paul references the creation and the fall, which you appeared to speak of in your first post, so I’m surprised you now don’t know what he said.

peace to you

 

I’d go into it, but it’s complicated and I don’t have the strength. Suffice it to say, no. And we’ll leave it at that.

 

The context of the letter to the Corinthians and women keeping silent in the church may have been a specific instruction with that church.

There were many temples in Corinth, many employed temple prostitutes(with shaved heads) that would speak in “tongues” during the activity. Some would interpret for the “client”.

Likely, some of these people had joined the church and were bringing some of the behavior of speaking in tongues and offering interpretations into the congregation.

It is in this context that Paul gives instructions on head coverings and learning in silence for women. He also gave instructions that limited the use of “tongues” to only 2 or 3 in a service and only if someone (a man) interpreted.

His primary concern was for an orderly worship of God without the distractions of constant interruptions, speaking in tongues or women’s shaved heads taking the focus off Christ.

peace to you

 

To answer the OP let me tell you a true story that will answer the question... After service of a visiting Elder that was visiting our church... When he finished preaching a Woman came up to him and said... I believe the Lord has called me to preach!... The preacher look at her and said... Is that so?... During the time that he was talking to her some children boys and girls were chasing each other around the church and the noise was interrupting the conversation... So she raised her voice thinking that preacher she was talking to, didn't hear her... She repeated... I THINK THE LORD HAS CALLED ME TO PREACH!... He said I heard you the first time and if he did call you... Pointing to children raising ruckus said... Woman there is your congregation!... Brother Glen

 

And he was biblically correct. Paul specifically instructs older women to teach the younger.

The prohibition is against a woman teaching or having authority over men.

peace to you

 

All the woke, exhibitionists wanting to turn the preachers calling into an equal opportunity moment, is part of the satanic lefts demoralisation technique.

I think we are heading into God’s great reset very soon, where natural roles are going to be the norm.

 

The greek can be translated, I do not presently, at this time, allow women to teach. It does not have to be universal for all time.
Based upon Paul's relationship with Priscilla and Phoebe, I suspect he had a great admiration for these two "evangelists."
Now, you know my opinion that a man should be the shepherd. Yet, frankly, men often shirk the responsibility, or they beat the flock when they become shepherds. In such cases, Godly women may be forced to take on the role simply because the men are such horrible shepherds.
Again, women can, but men should.