Women Pastors?

LeBuick,
Thanks for the response.

 

This is one I have heard often, the Paul was in effect "catering to the crowd". You will find as he wrote to different nationalities he would include things that would be accepted by their cultrue. This could be just a coincidence...

I agree with your entire post to an extent but wanted to add, single mother homes are a product of this society. None of this is God ordained. If the woman was a widow, other men in the family would step up and be "man of the hours" and if there were no men in the family the Church would serve that role. This went as far as financial support (cost to be the boss). Divorce was not a real option so there were little chance of a home without male influence.

I fear this acceptance of fornication, sodemy and anything contrary to God's order is drawing us closer to a sodom type society and destruction.

 

Jack Matthews,

your thought that perhaps it was an issue of Paul dealing with a cultural issue of the time might have some validity if that passage were the only place this issue was mentioned. But it isn't.

and yes, the pastor holds a servant role, but we are also told to look up to him and esteem him as an overseer of our spiritual welfare. We are told to entreat him as a father, and not to treat him as we would treat a peer.

Paul clearly says the woman is not to hold authority over the man in the church, and it is said within the context of how PREACHERS ought to behave themselves within the church.

Frankly I don't mind a lady preaching......as long as it's to women. There are many lady "preachers" in my circles who I admire and have learned much from. THeir ministry to us ladies is very important. We'll often say, tongue-in-cheek, that these ladies don't preach they are "speeching", but in truth I consider them preachers. But they are not pastors.

Like I said, the instance of Paul telling the women to keep silence in the church is NOT the only passage which addresses the issue. The other passage flat out declares the reasoning to be that Woman was deceived in the Garden, and that she was created second.

1Ti 2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

That leaves absolutely no wiggle room for it to be cultural.........UNLESS you want to say that Paul was LYING when he wrote that because he was "caving in" to the culture of his day?

and do any of us want to declare that a part of the Bible was written as a lie because of that day's culture? a lie which was NEVER corrected or confronted or contradicted anywhere else in Scripture?

I know Im not gonna be standin' real close to anybody who wants to try to say that out loud.

 

I agree with you!

 

Sticking to God's Word seems to anger many people . . .

 

I've known churches that took longer than this to find a pastor! Of course, they had interim pastors to fill in. I would say that the above case is unusual and should not be the standard by which we decide the issue. As they say in the law, "Hard cases make bad law." It's a good principle to remember.

I also want to clarify that although I do not believe it is biblical to have women pastors (I think there can be women evangelists), I do not divide over this issue, either. I have spoken at churches with women pastors and it does not bother me at all. I just wouldn't want to be the member of a church with a woman pastor, especially if she were the senior pastor.

 

The problem with this is that using a practical example to support an ethical truth is the philosophy of pragmatism. For more see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

As Biblical Christians, we should live by revealed truth, whether it is pragmatic to do so or not. It was not pragmatic for our spiritual forebear John Bunyan to go to prison for his Biblical stand, since that left his wife and his little blind daughter without recourse except to God. (You might as well say, "He had no bodyguard but the entire U. S. Marine Corps.")

As long as we are talking about pragmatic results, though, let me tell you from a missionary perspective what is wrong with women pastors. They set the wrong example. A woman pastor must become strong emotionally and mentally, and in the process often sacrifices her God-given femininity. I have seen it happen on the mission field. At that point, the Biblical pattern for the home is not being portrayed in the pulpit, and the effects of that are long-lasting and sad.

Here in Japan is a fundamental ministry called the "Mino Mission," founded by two women. While I applaud the stand for truth taken by the ladies and their followers before and during WW2, there have been some sad results and great harm done to churches through the pattern set by them. Time prevents me from going into detail.

 

Well . . . when people lower their standards, they get lower standards.

Being pragmatic does not replace God and His revelation.

 

What do you do with Phebe in Romans 16:1 who was a deacon in the church. Timothy says a deacon must also be a husband of one wife....Does this make Phebe a lesbian, the male part, so she can be the husband of one wife? Or, is Paul addressing a specific problem in that church?

Women served in positions of leadership throughout the Old Testament...even more chauvenistic than the New Testament....and we see in the NT as well.

Cheers,

Jim

 

What about Pricilla as in Aquilla and Pricilla?

 

Jim

We see women in the NT. We do not see women in leadership positions. The fact that we have a deaconess does not surprise me. I would expect women involved in service. Men and women must serve. But, to set a standard that may or may not have been the underlying practice because we want to support modern day practices is not the direction I am willing to go with my hermeneutic.

If you want to go that way that is your interpretation.

My interpretation is that God calls men to pastor the flock. That was what Paul told Timothy to set up in the local Churches. Unless there was a different Apostle that appointed a different group of local Churches . . . I gotta go with the Pauline model.

 

Priscilla was Aquilla's wife.........not the pastor of a church. Aquilla wasn't even the pastor of a church, so Im not really clear on why you'd bring her up.

Is it because the Bible speaks of both of them as ministering to Paul? Women "minister" to men all the time..........ministering is simply caring for them. This does not automatically imply that Priscilla was acting in some sort of authoritative or pastorly role over Paul.

Even then, as an older lady in the church, she had some right to "mother" Paul a bit.

And Phoebe? A deaconess is a far cry from a pastor. I believe this question came out of the mistaken notion that a deacon ought to have authority in the church. Even if it does bring authority with it, a deaconness would simply have authority over ladies in the church. She played the role of "deacon" but ministered specifically to ladies.

 

Not sure where I was going with that eaither, :tonofbricks:

Forget I said that please :BangHead: :BangHead:

 

forgotten! :smilewinkgrin:

 

Deacon--deaconess. Deacon--deaconess. Hmm, sounds different to me! :smilewinkgrin: How could a deaconess fulfill the office of a deacon? She couldn't because she wasn't!

 

Well put, bapmom.

The cry to lift up Priscilla to a leadership position usually comes from a misinterpretation of Acts 18:26, where she "taught" Apollos with her husband. The argument is that look here, Aquilla taught a man the Word of God! However, note two things. (1) The word used here was not the normal Greek word for teaching, which is didasko, but ektithemi, which means to explain. (2) The word is in the aorist tense, which means it was a one time event, not a daily class where they set Apollos straight for an extended time.

 

(1) The word used here was not the normal Greek word for teaching, which is didasko, but ektithemi, which means to explain.

They can both mean the same thing.

(2) The word is in the aorist tense, which means it was a one time event, not a daily class where they set Apollos straight for an extended time.

That is not what the aorist signifies. It signifies perfective aspect (usually) with past time.

The NT is clear that church headship is a male role - but adducing these arguments is counterproductive since they strained and based on someone's desire to prove a preconceived notion.