A woman as a Pastor? Does it make it right if there is a need for pastors?

[presidente]

In the King James, almost always the words translated 'preach' in the New Testament are used in context of proclaiming the Gospel to those who haven't believed it yet. (I can think of one or two exceptions.) There are three Greek words most commonly translated 'preach.' One of them is closely related to the word 'evangelize.'

For much of history, the church referred to church leaders appointed to pastor the flock as 'elders.' We see this in scripture. In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the elders of the church of Ephesus to pastor the church of God over whom God had made them bishops/overseers. Peter tells elders to pastor the flock of God and take the oversight thereof. Later, the role of elder got divided up into the role of one city bishop over the other elders, but the scriptures do not teach this.

The word 'priest' derives from the Greek word for 'elder' and was spread into other Germanic languages by the Anglo-Saxon mission before the Norman conquest of England. The word also came to be used to refer to the descendants of Aaron who offered animal sacrifices.

During the Reformation, Luther wrote of the 'priesthood of all believers' and the Reformed church in Geneva relabled the ministry as 'pastor,' a term used in Ephesians 4:11. They found a model for civic government from Greek-speaking communities in the 300's who called their leaders 'garousia'-- which also translates as elders. So Geneva had city leaders called 'elders.' Church and state were intertwined. When the Scottish Reformed movement copied the model of Geneva for their churches, they took the city government role of 'elder'-- which neither they nor Geneva associated with the Biblical role of elder at first. But did over time.

And the result is now we have this idea that 'elder' is this nonpastoral board elder position. There are no requirements in scripture for the word 'pastor'. But there are for elder or bishop. Some of the theologically educated realize that 'elders' are what they call 'pastors.' Some don't.

There are Biblical requirements for being an elder or overseer of the church. One of them is to be the husband of one wife, or a man of one woman. I Timothy tells us that the bishop needs to be a man, a one woman man to be exact. A woman can't be that.

 

[p_rehbein]

(as some are so fond of tossing out there - uh - when it suits their argument)


CONTEXT!

 

[tribesman]

In the King James, almost always the words translated 'preach' in the New Testament are used in context of proclaiming the Gospel to those who haven't believed it yet. (I can think of one or two exceptions.) There are three Greek words most commonly translated 'preach.' One of them is closely related to the word 'evangelize.'

For much of history, the church referred to church leaders appointed to pastor the flock as 'elders.' We see this in scripture. In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the elders of the church of Ephesus to pastor the church of God over whom God had made them bishops/overseers. Peter tells elders to pastor the flock of God and take the oversight thereof. Later, the role of elder got divided up into the role of one city bishop over the other elders, but the scriptures do not teach this.

The word 'priest' derives from the Greek word for 'elder' and was spread into other Germanic languages by the Anglo-Saxon mission before the Norman conquest of England. The word also came to be used to refer to the descendants of Aaron who offered animal sacrifices.

During the Reformation, Luther wrote of the 'priesthood of all believers' and the Reformed church in Geneva relabled the ministry as 'pastor,' a term used in Ephesians 4:11. They found a model for civic government from Greek-speaking communities in the 300's who called their leaders 'garousia'-- which also translates as elders. So Geneva had city leaders called 'elders.' Church and state were intertwined. When the Scottish Reformed movement copied the model of Geneva for their churches, they took the city government role of 'elder'-- which neither they nor Geneva associated with the Biblical role of elder at first. But did over time.

And the result is now we have this idea that 'elder' is this nonpastoral board elder position. There are no requirements in scripture for the word 'pastor'. But there are for elder or bishop. Some of the theologically educated realize that 'elders' are what they call 'pastors.' Some don't.

There are Biblical requirements for being an elder or overseer of the church. One of them is to be the husband of one wife, or a man of one woman. I Timothy tells us that the bishop needs to be a man, a one woman man to be exact. A woman can't be that.

Interesting post with much food for thought. I am personally leaning towards the position that the presbyterians were not totally correct regarding the view of the office of bishop. This said, the eldership polity they implemented was revolutionary and in many ways a good effort of restoring original, apostolic era church order.

 

[WebersHome]

you need to understand

What you need to understand is that not everyone agrees with your
objection to a Christian woman covering her head with a hijab whenever
she's praying and/or prophesying. God looks on the heart anyway, not on
the outward appearance. Didn't you know that?

Now, according to principles laid down in the 14th chapter of Romans, I'm
supposed to categorize you as someone weak in faith because you are
being judgmental about something that for most people falls in a gray area.
Now; what that means is: if you regard hijabs as sinful for Christian women,
then for you they are sinful. But for those of us who do not regard hijabs as
sinful for Christians women, for us they are not sinful. Let each person be
fully persuaded in their own mind.

Now; seeing as how the 14th chapter of Romans prohibits arguing over
debatable issues, then for me this discussion is over.

=======================================

 

[tribesman]

Why do you think that Jesus choose 12 male and not a female ?

Those in favor of female clergy might then counter argue that the 12 apostles were also jews, so we ought therefore to have only jewish male clergy and so forth. However, such an argument is nonsense. It is easy to spot Christ's and the apostles teaching regarding this issue if one understands that what they taught is merely a continuation of the priesthood of the Old Testament. Renewed? Yes. Changed in some ways? Yes. But, still, the same principle abounds. That's why we can see how the principle of ordination, according to the law of God, still remained in NT times, and was never supposed to be changed. Thus, no females were ordained to any offices by the apostles and their associates, even though they in function may well have operated in some of the offices, This rule is a very important distinction to see and understand. And it was great unity among all traditions of christianity on this matter up until only roughly 60 years ago. Paul said that those who are spiritual would see (and therefore acknowledge or recognize) this while those who wanted to be ignorant should be left to be ignorant.

1Cor.14

[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
[36] What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
[37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
[38] But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

 

[Stephen63]

As it is written as according to the LORD that;

"Get behind me satan! You think like everyone else, but what is written in the Scriptures must happen."

Really? I think so. So explain why the KJV calls all christians the 'sons of God' when the other translations centuries later properly use 'children of God'? Why the obvious cover-up? To keep women in unnatural subjection? If indeed the curse of sin is removed from the church, why are women still being judged as sinners? Remember that before Eve sinned, there was no difference in status between men & women. Sin brought that about.

 

[Stephen63]

Junia was a female apostle and some of the early church fathers did not like this, so that added the "s" to the name to make it the male noun for the name Junias to cover it up. This is well known by biblical scholars that this cover up was done, which is why some other books at the Nicene council were deemed not appropriate for the cannon that we now know as the bible. Because they clearly listed female apostles, leaders, and preachers in them, so does early church history documents. It is amazing with all the studying done now days this debate still takes place, but people twist even the standard straight forward scriptures so what can we expect out of this.

I think the naysayers need to explain why Junia was covered up..... why the church of that time were afraid of this truth getting out & men would lose their place of dominance? Wasn't the church in the beginnings of this cover-up already RCC? That would explain a lot, wouldn't it? That this argument is taking place because the naysayers are believing what the RCC taught. And we all know how wrong they are..... as well as having a habit of covering up everything they don't believe in.

 

[Utah]

If you and your ignorant carnal/flesh friends continue like this, know that the judgement of Matthew chapter 7 and verse 21 to 23 shall fall upon you all. For the ones written there were 'very confident' mannered in the presence of the LORD, but are the ones HE 'rejected'.

The very same 'very confident' ones also could be witnessed in the Gospel that speaks about 'Final judgement day', where CHRIST will separate the sheep and goats.

i am sorry, for now as a taught witness to and about the New Covenant, you no 'sheep' of CHRIST to me but sadly an ignorant 'goat'.

Repent!

Freddie boy, you sound like you actually care about my fate. I appreciate that.

That said however, there are two things very, VERY wrong with your summation. First, Jesus will not deny me for living out the Greatest Commandment by sharing love, grace, kindness and His Word to others.

Second, and this is a big one, my not being a sheep to you means nothing to me, and it definitely means nothing to God. Like I said, your dead, repugnant heart has no authority over me, and I know that steams you, but good. I'm firm with you Freddie boy because you judge everyone harshly and unjustly whereas I offer the Love of God in Jesus Christ's name, and I do so, get this, lovingly. How about that?

Fred, I don't dislike you; I sincerely pity you. In all seriousness, you better examine your heart, because the Scripture you shared with me, Matthew 7:21-23 was written with you, not me, in mind. I pray your heart will soften.

 

[Utah]

Hey Utah! I think you, along with me and others, just got insulted. I think we were called "ignorant carnal/flesh". Not exactly the best insult but I guess it's a start

My Brother, when an individual I respect is insulting, I am forced to look at myself and reflect upon my shortfalls that brought forth such comments in the first place. However, when someone like Freddie boy makes such statements, I wear it as a badge of honor!

 

[sc81]

why can't women accept being a preacher is the only job they aren't allowed to do out of thousands.

it's like the garden of eden, that one piece of fruit she couldn't eat was the one she wanted to.

If God had wanted them as preachers or in leadership roles in religious institutions he would have had them back in the temple, yet he never felt the need to. Neither did Jesus feel the need to have 6 male disciples and 6 female disciples, you know for equality sake. You can't just blame it on a man made cultural thing related to the period as it was a culture based entirely on rules made by God.

I would not got to a church with a female preacher because I'd know she doesn't read her Bible.

 

[MadParrotWoman]

On reading some of these comments I frequently have to pinch myself to remind myself that yes it is 2015 and yes this is Christianity and not Islam. Some of the men here have this "high and mighty" attitude that makes them feel they can lord it over women. I pity their wives (if they have them) for being made to feel inferior, I'm fortunate in that I don't have to listen to such drivel if I don't wish to. Really you guys sound like a bunch of dinosaurs and your thought process is dangerously close to that of Islam...sorry but it is.

Angela has already explained why Paul wished for women to cover their heads, the context it was written in and the reasoning behind it - which is no longer relevant and others have explained that it was not a commandment that women should not preach indicating Paul's words simply reflected the time and place but these guys don't want to know, they don't want to hear it or have their mind-set changed - it's so sad that in their rebellion against women's roles within the church they completely forget Jesus' most important teaching and that is to love - or was it just men that we're supposed to love? Their nasty comments aimed at other men here who have a vision for women's roles in the church and their anti-female rhetoric. I ask you guys to re-read your comments and ask yourself is this the love Jesus spoke of? To not allow women to teach within the church would be to miss out on some gifted speaking and it's so sad that male pride is taking precedence over this...

This will be my last post on this subject because it's clear that I'm wasting my time as some people are simply not listening. Blessings to all.

 

[sc81]

On reading some of these comments I frequently have to pinch myself to remind myself that yes it is 2015 and yes this is Christianity and not Islam. Some of the men here have this "high and mighty" attitude that makes them feel they can lord it over women. I pity their wives (if they have them) for being made to feel inferior, I'm fortunate in that I don't have to listen to such drivel if I don't wish to. Really you guys sound like a bunch of dinosaurs and your thought process is dangerously close to that of Islam...sorry but it is.

why does it being 2015 mean anything, "progressive christianity" is dangerous because it's people throwing out doctrines they don't like to make it sit better with their conscience. I see no support for female preachers in any context in the Bible, this does not mean I think females are inferior or they can't serve God and their fellow christians in literally hundreds of other ways.

it's actually shameful that muslims are more adherent to their theology than alot of christians

 

[didymos]

On reading some of these comments I frequently have to pinch myself to remind myself that yes it is 2015 and yes this is Christianity and not Islam.(...)

Angela has already explained why Paul wished for women to cover their heads, the context it was written in and the reasoning behind it - which is no longer relevant and others have explained that it was not a commandment that women should not preach indicating Paul's words simply reflected the time and place but these guys don't want to know, they don't want to hear it or have their mind-set changed...

Interestingly you yourself have shown in the Forums that you take scripture quite literally, yet you certainly aren't a dinosaur or a muslim, but a good christian. But now the topic concerns yourself, as a woman, you suddenly interpret the text in its historical context. When a text concerns a certain group, and the literal reading doesn't suit its purposes or agenda, it usually decides to interpret it in a (sometimes hypothetical) historical and/or cultural context. For instance, LGBT groups don't like to take Lev 18:20, 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 literally. If you accept that a contextual reading is also a possibilty (with ANY text) you also have to respect other people who sometimes prefer a contextual reading where you prefer a literal one. That's why it's my principle to take God's Word literally...
ALL of it.

 

[oldthennew]

Spiritual wisdom and understanding are amazing things,
knowing from Whom they come and growing in them
is amazing also.

as Christians, we know the Holy Spirit will always speak truth,
but we also must realize that our 'human-understanding' will
many times try to but-in and try to usurp with what we have
always thought about things before our conversion -
we are a work-in-progress, for the rest of our lives -
part of The Tree, reaching for, desiring only, our Master -

Listening to the Holy Spirit, it's a learned skill, for we are
cautioned about our own desires, for the heart is deceitful
above all things and desperately, who can know it?'

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

I often read things about the bible, things that people always call "only relevant to that time it was written" when they dont like something. When I told a a group of my online friends I couldnt be transgender anymore, an atheist friend I had tried to tell me it wasnt even relevant anymore, because in the same book I was shown it was something God hated, there was a law on how to build a roof for a house safely so visitors wouldnt get hurt. He talked about how this was a "wacky" law and that I shouldnt follow what God had shown me Himself because that law was no longer followed. How many people whop read the bible believe that Christ did in fact come to Paul and tell him and others that he was in fact the man Christ chose as His messenger? And what he wrote about women and preaching lined up with Gods word, and Christ never taught us anything that goes against it. And Christ told us, His will was not to make us feel good for ourselves, it was to do Gods will. I dont think that changing times affect Gods will. From all the things that have happened to me in my life, I dont believe there is a single thing God has commanded of us that He has changed with the times, but believe that it is we who have changed and want God to change with us.

Like I said, I dont protest it, I dont get angry about it, I wouldnt tell any female pastor they are evil. But Gods word is still the same, in every book of the bible. Though yeah God can and does speak through women, He still said that He didnt want women to preach in the bible, so I cannot believe that He has called any women to that job. We are told, many times, that our people are rebels from our birth. That is why Christ had to die on the cross for us, because our people always want what we want, both men and women, and every race. I would listen to a female pastor, I have before. But I dont believe they were called into it.

 

[MadParrotWoman]

Interestingly you yourself have shown in the Forums that you take scripture quite literally, yet you certainly aren't a dinosaur or a muslim, but a good christian. But now the topic concerns yourself, as a woman, you suddenly interpret the text in its historical context. When a text concerns a certain group, and the literal reading doesn't suit its purposes or agenda, it usually decides to interpret it in a (sometimes hypothetical) historical and/or cultural context. For instance, LGBT groups don't like to take Lev 18:20, 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27 literally. If you accept that a contextual reading is also a possibilty (with ANY text) you also have to respect other people who sometimes prefer a contextual reading where you prefer a literal one. That's why it's my principle to take God's Word literally...
ALL of it.

Thank you for your kind words. I think there is an element of truth in what you say, I think we are all at times guilty of choosing the scripture that we are comfortable with to suit our own situation. I have no desire to speak in church at any time or on any topic. Public speaking is not something I'm comfortable with so I'm certainly not guilty of twisting this to suit my own agenda. However I do not cover my head in church - nor does anyone else in my particular church. I don't see why women should be singled out for this. God knows what is in my heart and I really do not think he cares what I am wearing. The only thing I am careful with is not showing too much flesh - but that also goes generally, not just in church. it's all about how we want to portray ourselves isn't it?

Sorry I had really wanted to end the conversation with my last post but yours got me thinking.

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

MPWs post kinda makes me think of the story of when Christ went to eat with the people, and the pharisees brought up how they didnt wash their hands. Christ told them its not what goes into their body that defiles them, its whats in their heart. I sometimes wonder how this applies to our world and what we do, to what extent. I believe that if anyone does keep the teaching in their heart, and follows God as they can, over claiming His words dont apply to our people, that that is what He is worried about. His mercy is great, and though we shouldnt test it, I am sure His mercy still goes out to women who dont wear those things when they pray.

Though I believe our world would be better if we followed Gods law entirely, I dont believe we should do anything to anyone for not doing it entirely right, because not one of us actually do it.

 

[JackH]

Why do you think that Jesus choose 12 male and not a female ?

Sexual harassment.

Think about it.

If you and some of these other chauvinists can't figure it out, I'll explain it to you later.

I don't have time now. I'm going to go hear the lady pastor preach.

 

[Sirk]

Sexual harassment.

Think about it.

If you and some of these other chauvinists can't figure it out, I'll explain it to you later.

I don't have time now. I'm going to go hear the lady pastor preach.

I was thinking sort of the same thing. Jesus was just protecting His ministry from any "hint of sexual immorality"

 

[Yeraza_Bats]

I dunno, I mean the bible tells us they were around women. But that gave me another idea. Maybe God didnt want women to preach partly because how our world works, women being .....well....sexually objectified by our people. Many men and women like, revel in this way of living, and maybe thats part of the reason God didnt want that to take place.

But I dunno about sexual harassment, Christ talked to and worked with many women as well as men in the time he spent on earth in the flesh.