Women Pastors?

[easternstar]

I find that Christians are most legalistic on the subject of legalism, and do whatever they want, else where.

I haven't found that.

I know of a young woman from the streets who came to Jesus. She wanted to go to church and found a Pentecostal church. She wanted to look her best. She wore jewelry she had in her previous life, painted her fingernails, had her hair cut and styled, dressed up, and went to church. They met her at the door and told her she couldn't come in there like that. It hit her hard. She got very depressed and stopped looking for a church, eventually went back to her old life. But the story has a happy ending. Some true Christians were able to bring her back into the fold, and welcomed her into their church, a church without all the legalistic, man-made restrictions that she faced before from so-called Christians.

Gandhi said he would have been a Christian if it weren't for Christians.

 

[Ben1445]

I haven't found that.

I know of a young woman from the streets who came to Jesus. She wanted to go to church and found a Pentecostal church. She wanted to look her best. She wore jewelry she had in her previous life, painted her fingernails, had her hair cut and styled, dressed up, and went to church. They met her at the door and told her she couldn't come in there like that. It hit her hard. She got very depressed and stopped looking for a church, eventually went back to her old life. But the story has a happy ending. Some true Christians were able to bring her back into the fold, and welcomed her into their church, a church without all the legalistic, man-made restrictions that she faced before from so-called Christians.

It is unfortunate that people don’t know how to treat others.

Gandhi said he would have been a Christian if it weren't for Christians.

Gandhi was focused on following the wrong people. By your statement, he was a legalist who thought he could do better than Christians. What he failed to realize is that he is guilty of the same thing he disliked about Christians. (I say this, assuming that the quote you presented is in context with the conversation)
We are supposed to be followers of Christ, not followers of the followers of Christ.
When Paul said follow me as I follow Christ, the people he spoke to must necessarily know Christ to be able to discern that Paul was following Christ. It is a legalistic error to say that you don’t want to be a Christian because you don’t like the way Christians are. In that way, by condemning legalism, you become as self centered as the people you are accusing of legalism. Both sides of the argument tend to be focused on their own agenda rather than the needs of the other.
A barber doesn’t say, I can’t have you as a customer unless you come in with a respectable haircut.
We are to receive a brother but not receive them into doubtful disputations.
It amazes me that people want deference for themselves, but give none to the people they want it from.

 

[MrW]

Do all of you who oppose women pastors based on what you suppose Paul taught, do you require your women to wear a head covering in church?

Her long hair is given to her for a covering. If it's short, she should wear a covering.

 

[easternstar]

It is unfortunate that people don’t know how to treat others.

Gandhi was focused on following the wrong people. By your statement, he was a legalist who thought he could do better than Christians. What he failed to realize is that he is guilty of the same thing he disliked about Christians. (I say this, assuming that the quote you presented is in context with the conversation)
We are supposed to be followers of Christ, not followers of the followers of Christ.
When Paul said follow me as I follow Christ, the people he spoke to must necessarily know Christ to be able to discern that Paul was following Christ. It is a legalistic error to say that you don’t want to be a Christian because you don’t like the way Christians are. In that way, by condemning legalism, you become as self centered as the people you are accusing of legalism. Both sides of the argument tend to be focused on their own agenda rather than the needs of the other.
A barber doesn’t say, I can’t have you as a customer unless you come in with a respectable haircut.
We are to receive a brother but not receive them into doubtful disputations.
It amazes me that people want deference for themselves, but give none to the people they want it from.

I suggest that you look up the circumstance behind what Gandhi said.

 

[Salty]

I suggest that you look up the circumstance behind what Gandhi said.

Why not tell us???

 

[easternstar]

Why not tell us???

"As the story is told, Gandhi, who was a practicing Hindu, found Jesus intriguing. He read the Gospels and wanted to know more about Christ. On a Sunday morning he stopped by a Christian church in Calcutta where he was turned away. Since he was not part of the high-caste Indians nor a white person, he was turned away at the door of the church. Unwelcomed. This incidence formed the basis for his quote, “If it weren’t for Christians, I’d be a Christian.”

 

[Charlie24]

"As the story is told, Gandhi, who was a practicing Hindu, found Jesus intriguing. He read the Gospels and wanted to know more about Christ. On a Sunday morning he stopped by a Christian church in Calcutta where he was turned away. Since he was not part of the high-caste Indians nor a white person, he was turned away at the door of the church. Unwelcomed. This incidence formed the basis for his quote, “If it weren’t for Christians, I’d be a Christian.”

I hope he wasn't relying on that experience and quote to save him on judgment day.

 

[Ascetic X]

I hope he wasn't relying on that experience and quote to save him on judgment day.

Gandhi said he liked the gospels. When a racist church turned him away, I wish he would have started his own New Testament Bible study. Gandhi was heavily influenced by the extreme pacifism of the Jain faith. So his anti-militaristic, non-violence perspective on the Prince of Peace, who commanded us to turn the other cheek, could have been very beneficial.

 

[timf]

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

It may be in the nature of women to be supportive that they are also more vulnerable to deception.

 

[easternstar]

I hope he wasn't relying on that experience and quote to save him on judgment day.

And I hope the "christians" who turned him away weren't relying on their name of 'Christian' to save them on judgement day.

 

[Ben1445]

"As the story is told, Gandhi, who was a practicing Hindu, found Jesus intriguing. He read the Gospels and wanted to know more about Christ. On a Sunday morning he stopped by a Christian church in Calcutta where he was turned away. Since he was not part of the high-caste Indians nor a white person, he was turned away at the door of the church. Unwelcomed. This incidence formed the basis for his quote, “If it weren’t for Christians, I’d be a Christian.”

Yep. I haven’t changed my mind.
Hebrews 13:13
Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

I’m not saying that the church was right. But he let the action of people keep him from Christ. It would be one thing if he came to the point where he met Christ and decided that he didn’t want Him. But he had some curiosity and allowed it to be choked out by his opinion of how Christians behave.
Shame on that church. But he was from that culture. He couldn’t have expected it?? He didn’t know it would happen? He bears the consequences of his own choice. And yes. It is legalistic for him to decide that another’s behavior doesn’t meet his own standards.

 

[easternstar]

Yep. I haven’t changed my mind.
Hebrews 13:13
Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

I’m not saying that the church was right. But he let the action of people keep him from Christ. It would be one thing if he came to the point where he met Christ and decided that he didn’t want Him. But he had some curiosity and allowed it to be choked out by his opinion of how Christians behave.
Shame on that church. But he was from that culture. He couldn’t have expected it?? He didn’t know it would happen? He bears the consequences of his own choice. And yes. It is legalistic for him to decide that another’s behavior doesn’t meet his own standards.

I guess we see legalism differently.

 

[Reynolds]

As a Christian, I would suggest not trying to find the edge of the line.
I don’t know what the value of having the longest hair you can (for men, and vice versa for women).
I don’t know how telling my Savior that I came as close to challenging His standards as I could, will be something that anyone wants to do.

I have had military haircut ever since My wife met me. She had never seen me with long hair. Someone showed her a picture of me when I worked undercover narcotics and had very long hair. She wants me to grow my hair out. I don’t see that as flirting with sin in the least bit.

 

[Ben1445]

I have had military haircut ever since My wife met me. She had never seen me with long hair. Someone showed her a picture of me when I worked undercover narcotics and had very long hair. She wants me to grow my hair out. I don’t see that as flirting with sin in the least bit.

I don’t know what your undercover picture looks like. I still don’t have any idea of your context. Nor do I really care. I’m not your Master. You don’t answer to me.

But since you mentioned it, Eve had something she wanted her husband to try. That didn’t sanitize it.

 

[Kai]

Hi @Silverhair. I thought I'd comment on your post below in the appropriate thread.

You said:

Should she have stayed quiet and not preached the gospel message so that the lost could be saved through faith in the risen Christ?

I believe the role of women in the Bible are clearly laid out for us. They certainly can teach younger women and children biblical truths and even lost men what the Gospel message is all about. But serving as a pastor/elder is a role reserved for men, and it comes with a different set of responsibilities, including having the flock submit themselves under their authority.

As a divorced man, I believe that I too am disqualified from holding a position as an elder. It doesn't mean that I have to be happy about it, and it doesn't mean that there aren't other the roles of great importance that I can serve, but I do need to submit to what the word of God says.

 

[Ascetic X]

Hi @Silverhair. I thought I'd comment on your post below in the appropriate thread.

You said:


I believe the role of women in the Bible are clearly laid out for us. They certainly can teach younger women and children biblical truths and even lost men what the Gospel message is all about. But serving as a pastor/elder is a role reserved for men, and it comes with a different set of responsibilities, including having the flock submit themselves under their authority.

As a divorced man, I believe that I too am disqualified from holding a position as an elder. It doesn't mean that I have to be happy about it, and it doesn't mean that there aren't other the roles of great importance that I can serve, but I do need to submit to what the word of God says.

Where does the Bible say a divorced man cannot be an elder? What if you divorced your wife due to her committing adultery, then you married another Christian woman? Still cannot be an elder?

 

[Kai]

Hi @Ascetic X. I pray that you’re in good spirits and health.

Where does the Bible say a divorced man cannot be an elder? What if you divorced your wife due to her committing adultery, then you married another Christian woman? Still cannot be an elder?

I would point to 1 Timothy 3:2, which says an elder must be “the husband of one wife,” and Titus 1:6, which gives the same qualification.

I believe this describes a man who has been faithful in his marriage and has an unbroken marital commitment. Even if his divorce was due to his wife’s adultery, I don’t believe that automatically makes him eligible to serve as an elder after remarrying. Forgiveness and restoration are one thing, but holding the office of elder has specific biblical qualifications that not every faithful Christian will meet.

I understand that there is some debate over these passages and that you may have a different interpretation, but I’m strongly convicted by what I see in the New Testament.

 

[Salty]

Hi @Ascetic X. I pray that you’re in good spirits and health.



I would point to 1 Timothy 3:2, which says an elder must be “the husband of one wife,” and Titus 1:6, which gives the same qualification.

I believe this describes a man who has been faithful in his marriage and has an unbroken marital commitment. Even if his divorce was due to his wife’s adultery, I don’t believe that automatically makes him eligible to serve as an elder after remarrying. Forgiveness and restoration are one thing, but holding the office of elder has specific biblical qualifications that not every faithful Christian will meet.

I understand that there is some debate over these passages and that you may have a different interpretation, but I’m strongly convicted by what I see in the New Testament.

If Paul meant Divorce - why did he not say so?
He said the husband of one wife.
A man who is divorced had his marriage dissolved by the court.
Which means he no longer has a wife.
In addition, that passage talks about children
So if a man has never been married and/or has no children - that does not prevent him from being a pastor.

Now - the other side -there is a local pastor who is on his 4th wife
I do not know if he was widowed 3 times - or what - but if they were divorces - than I would see that as a red flag.

BTW - that pastor is currently married to a practicing Jew!

 

[Kai]

If Paul meant Divorce - why did he not say so?
He said the husband of one wife.
A man who is divorced had his marriage dissolved by the court.
Which means he no longer has a wife.
In addition, that passage talks about children
So if a man has never been married and/or has no children - that does not prevent him from being a pastor.

Hi @Salty.

I'm reminded of the controversy surrounding Charles Stanley's divorce. If a husband is serving as a pastor, then later he is no longer a husband; does he have an obligation to step down? There's been some debate about that.

I think the bigger issue is that when wedding vows are made, that marriage becomes binding in the eyes of God, regardless of whether it becomes recognized by the state. Jesus only permits divorce in the case of sexual immorality.

I will confess that my divorce was not based on those biblical grounds. One day, my wife decided that she didn't want to be married anymore, and rather than having it dragged out and become an ugly, expensive legal mess, and as hard as I pushed back against it, ultimately I decided to cooperate with her so that we could at least maintain a cordial relationship.

I suppose these things should be examined on a case-by-case basis, but I believe for that reason I am disqualified from being able to serve as an elder.

 

[Salty]

My understanding was that Stanley was going to step down, but the church wanted him to stay.
That is the reason for the rift between him and Andy.

If someone else has better info, please share.