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

[kaylagrl]

With this pride I see in you there is no way that you will be corrected. This is nothing but pie throwing you are engaging in, going on with "you, you, you...!" like a little kid. Cannot see any of your own wrongs. I asked you if we could stop this chat, but you are so contentious you must carry on and on. You think this entertains the readers? It defends your position on the topic discussed somehow?

Well that would be par for the course of your arminianism that you will somehow look to get the credit anyway, won't you? The fact is that you appealed to the public here how good and great you are and how experienced you are, questioning my integrity at the same time. Like if that has anything to do with what we are discussing here at an online board with people from all over the globe with loads of different faiths. Sigh.

Judgmental spirit? Baloney! Here goes your hypocrisy. You have made many judgments here about me, and you are continuing doing so, but it's OK, because you are doing it. If someone turn the table around and call you out for your doings then you will yell "judgmental". Hypocrisy to the limit. If you think we are tearing down on each other here, then why do you continue on and on to argue with me, doting about questions and strifes of words.

I was the one who said this first: you don't anything about me etc, and par for the course you must copy that and throw it at me. No change in your contentious posts. I still see you being nothing than childish, hysterical and emotional, because that is all these posts from you contain.

Who did I call names? And, yes, I call something evil when I perceived it to be so. I will not back off from that. What you put into that is your thingy. I will not ask you any permission for anything. And I don't care about your views about anything. Being totally uninterested in your person.

*shakes head* Do you see any log in your own eye at all, or does it have to be only when your sweet feelings have you to? Maybe you just realize that you cannot control me what I shall post here. Maybe with others you can succeed for that , but not with me.

A brother on here wrote me as to my response to you.Either we are misunderstanding each other or our personalities are rubbing each other the wrong way.We both have our reasons for what we believe and mine are very personal.I wont read or respond to what you wrote above because we are making this thread about you and me.So lets just disagree and not answer each other in this thread.Perhaps we will find we agree with each other on other subjects.I cant delete my responses now but I'll stay away from commenting to you in the future and I hope that will be a peaceful way of settling our disagreements.Blessings on you.

 

[MarcR]

What you are doing here in your recent posts with my name in them is an example of an ad hominem attack.

First of all, I have clearly stated my position. You even quoted it in your slew of posts directed at me. My position, stated clearly and precisely is:

A woman can do anything a man can, with respect to the issues of which we speak.

What is your position, clearly and precisely stated?

I'm looking for a clear and precise statement like: A woman can preach to and teach other women and children, but she can not do so if the group includes men.

Also, what is your understanding of the position of tribesman, phil112, notuptome, presidente, and Yeraza_Bats? Clearly and precisely stated.The names mentioned have been frequent and recent contributors to this thread.

I know what Angela's position is and I can clearly and precisely state it. Same for kaylagrl.

Now, you quoted my line of questioning regarding whether females are engaging in sinful behavior that must be repented and turned away from.

Are they?

If so, you then must clearly and precisely define exactly what that sinful behavior is.

As in, a woman who is involved in an adulterous affair is engaging in sinful behavior that must be repented and turned away from to be right with God. Right?

Likewise, if a female who is pastoring, preaching, teaching, etc., is engaging in sinful behavior, she needs to know exactly what that sinful behavior is, right? So that she can repent of that behavior and turn away from it, right?

Now, I've read every post on this thread. I'm confused about what some of you are saying a woman can and can not do with respect to pastoring, preaching, teaching, et al. I would guess that the women are even more interested in what exactly the right answer is, seeing that it their eternal destiny that is at stake, according to some.

Jack,

I have clearly stated my understanding of what the Scripture says.

I am not arrogant enough to presume that my understanding of this or any issue sets a world standard.

If my understanding is indeed correct; then indeed disobedience to God is sin.

If and when a believer is convicted (by the Holy Spirit) of sin they should then confess and repent.

Scripture clearly states that conviction of sin is His role not mine!

IMO Women are able to; but should not Preach, teach, or exhort men, in the assembled church,or serve on the governing board ; but may serve in any other capacity.

However my opinion is NOT authoritative; but Scripture is.

Is that sufficiently explicit?

 

[kaylagrl]

This post of yours was directed to tribesman, for those who can't tell.

This is a thread about women in the ministry.

You shared your personal experiences specifically related to the subject matter of the thread.

I can hardly see how fault can be found with that.

Now, some have said here in this thread that certain activities that a woman does with respect to the ministry are unacceptable, sinful, behavior, etc.

So you have said what you have done.

Did you engage in sinful behavior that must be repented and turned away from?

I would argue with anyone who said you did. But how could I offer an opinion if I didn't know exactly what your story is?

Now, Angela has also shared some of her personal story with respect to her role in the ministry.

She indicated that she is an ordained minister.

Is that in of itself sinful behavior that must be repented and turned away from?

Tribesman made a huge issue of the word ordained, and that only men could be properly ordained.

So does Angela need to burn her ordination certificate, repent, and never engage in ministerial activities ever again?

Inquiring minds would like to know what those who would have us discriminate against women have to say about that.

Yes I think you brought out a point,and I cant speak for sister Angela who is actually a pastor,but I am feeling personally attacked. Its not just an issue being discussed.As women we have been/are in ministry.To say we hate Jesus,we are sinners,we dont know Gods call or didn't hear Him correctly.These are personal attacks. Its not just a topic,its been our lifes work to lead people to Christ. And to have that maligned and our character torn apart by some Christian brothers is very upsetting.Again,I speak for myself.When I said that I had been in ministry then I was judged for the sin of bragging on top of it all.Its not a matter of being angry,its a matter of being offended and called a sinner for doing what you know God has called you to do. Now I know all those on the other side will jump me again with the same objections.But I would appreciate if you would take into consideration that you are actually talking with women in the ministry and be more careful of what you are saying. Thank you JackH for being considerate and supporting women despite being in the minority here.I appreciate it greatly.

 

[MarcR]

What you are doing here in your recent posts with my name in them is an example of an ad hominem attack.


You would be correct if my intent were to argue my position. I was only giving examples of a style of debate that I was trying to call attention to.

 

[JackH]

What you are doing here in your recent posts with my name in them is an example of an ad hominem attack.


You would be correct if my intent were to argue my position. I was only giving examples of a style of debate that I was trying to call attention to.

Is the issue style of debate?

My style of debate is one designed to get answers to the fundamental questions that are being posed.

The issue is what women can and can do, biblically speaking, with respect to ministry.

Is that the issue?

Now, you know what my position is, clearly and precisely stated.

Now I know what your position is, clearly and precisely stated.

You said: "IMO Women are able to; but should not Preach, teach, or exhort men, in the assembled church,or serve on the governing board ; but may serve in any other capacity."

What are the positions of others who would have us discriminate against women, clearly and precisely stated? I'm talking about the names I previously mentioned today.

Let's start with phil112. What is his position, clearly and precisely stated?

What is tribesman's position, clearly and precisely stated?

 

[JackH]

Jack, you said you read every post on this thread. Including this one?

So, how do you react to that?

Yes, I did read that post.

And I have been answering it slowly but surely. You just can't tell.

I will give you a clear and precise response soon to your lengthy post.

In the meantime, what is your position on this issue, stated clearly and precisely, preferably in one sentence?

 

[presidente]

The topic of women on 'church boards' as come up. I don't believe in 'church boards' that govern the church unless the 'board' is made up of Biblically qualified elder/overseers and/or the congregation. Having church planters (apostles) on a 'board' may make sense in some cases after a church has been newly formed, for example on the missions field.

I don't believe women should be overseers of the church. Of course they can be in the congregation.

I suppose deacons could have a 'board', but not the type that hires and fires pastors, etc. Some Baptists give a lot of power to so-called 'deacons' that doesn't seem to have any basis in scripture.

If God has already revealed aspect of ecclesiology, then we should go with that, not ignore it and make up some other structure.

 

[JackH]

. Again, your senility is affecting your reading comprehension.

I'm just trying to help MarcR out here.

What is your position on the issue, clearly and precisely stated?

I believe you said something to the effect that a woman could not serve in a leadership position, both within the church and within government?

Is that correct?

If not, please state your position clearly and precisely.

MarcR would appreciate it greatly.

 

[JackH]

The topic of women on 'church boards' as come up. I don't believe in 'church boards' that govern the church unless the 'board' is made up of Biblically qualified elder/overseers and/or the congregation. Having church planters (apostles) on a 'board' may make sense in some cases after a church has been newly formed, for example on the missions field.

I don't believe women should be overseers of the church. Of course they can be in the congregation.

I suppose deacons could have a 'board', but not the type that hires and fires pastors, etc. Some Baptists give a lot of power to so-called 'deacons' that doesn't seem to have any basis in scripture.

If God has already revealed aspect of ecclesiology, then we should go with that, not ignore it and make up some other structure.

Could you summarize your position into one clear and precise statement please?

It would really help out MarcR.

I doubt there were any "church boards" and such at the time of Acts chapters 6 through 9.

What do you suppose churches were like at that time?

 

[presidente]

I've noticed an inconsistency with the Feminist/egalitarian approaches to certain issues in evangelicalism.

When we get to Ephesians 5 and I Peter 3, some people will say, oh, Peter and Paul are following the writing genre of the household codes, which were rather restrictive to women, though Paul and Peter aren't as heavy handed. Then they argue the household codes are just there in the Bible so the church will fit into the culture better, implying that God doesn't really want us to follow what Paul and Peter said. I'm thinking of Peter telling slaves to submit to their masters, and 'likewise' wives are to submit to their own husbands, even as Sarah obeyed Abraham.

So they argue that the Bible is telling wives to be too submissive just to fit into the culture.

Then they get to I Timothy 2. Paul doesn't say anything about the Diana cult. He appeals to Genesis. But the same people will argue that Paul is being so strict with women teaching men and women being silent as a reaction to women priests dominating religion in Ephesus. So the idea is the apostles are being 'too strict' in reaction to what I'll call too much entitlement to women in the society. Then the idea is that the church now doesn't really have to follow what Paul taught because they were reacting against a culture where women had too much of a leadership role.

So what we see is on the one hand, they are arguing that the apostles are being strict with women just to fit into the culture. On the other, they argue that Paul is being strict with women in reaction to the culture. The common element is to say 'blah blah blah' about culture and to conclude that we don't really need to follow what the Bible says, because hey, there was such and such in the culture.

But the irony is, on one hand, they argue that the apostles were just wanting everyone to fit in with the culture. On the other hand they argue that the apostles didn't want the people to fit in with the culture? There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to whether the apostles want believers to conform with cultural expectations. It just seems like any old cultural arguments that gets them to the conclusion they want is used.

 

[MarcR]

I'm just trying to help MarcR out here.

What is your position on the issue, clearly and precisely stated?

I believe you said something to the effect that a woman could not serve in a leadership position, both within the church and within government?

Is that correct?

If not, please state your position clearly and precisely.

MarcR would appreciate it greatly.

Jack,
This is yet another example!

It is NOT your role to tell others what I would find helpful

 

[JackH]

-

A 13 year-old girl pitched the winning game in the 2014 world series of Little
League baseball. She afterwards went on public television to state "And
that's throwing like a girl". Oh, was it? No, it wasn't, because had she
thrown like a girl she wouldn't have been competing in a boy's sport. Make
no mistake about it: she threw like a boy and that's why her team won. No
doubt she's now a poster child for other girls her age aspiring to undertake
a role reversal; in effect: aspiring to a weird sort of cultural sex change.

I doubt anybody is even close to you with respect to number of words per post.

In one clear and precise statement, would you please state your position on the matter at hand?

MarcR needs to know.

 

[presidente]

Could you summarize your position into one clear and precise statement please?

Probably not. Nor do I care too. The issues is complicated enough. My few short paragraphs are short enough.

I doubt there were any "church boards" and such at the time of Acts chapters 6 through 9.

I don't know if the elders had been appointed yet. The apostles probably met together. The elders may have. The seven may have after they were appointed. I suppose we could call that a 'board' or committee.

I'm not in favor of creating a 'board' that doesn't correspond to anything in the Bible, not one that governs the church, and definitely not one where people aren't expected to meet the Biblical requirements just because we haven't given the board a Biblical name.

What do you suppose churches were like at that time?

That's a broad question. At the time, the believers were either in Jerusalem or had just scattered throughout Judea and the surrounding region. The new churches probably either had elders or didn't have appointed elders yet. The apostles would have visited and taught and given some direction to the newer congregations especially.

A meeting of believers probably would have involved a meal and/or a gathering where people took turns speaking to edify the assembly. Prophets would have prophesied, and all were allowed to prophesy. Paul's commandments of the Lord in I Corinthians 14 were apparently a universal church practice, or meant to be, that were practiced elsewhere. There would likely have been reading from what we now call 'the Old Testament'. And believers would have been primarily Jewish at the time.

 

[JackH]

In this as in any issue on the forum there are two (or more) divergent points of view.


On both sides of the issue there are three distinct approaches to discussing it:


1) Clearly state your position based on your understanding of Scripture

I agree.

Let's get those positions clearly stated.

 

[kaylagrl]

The topic of women on 'church boards' as come up. I don't believe in 'church boards' that govern the church unless the 'board' is made up of Biblically qualified elder/overseers and/or the congregation. Having church planters (apostles) on a 'board' may make sense in some cases after a church has been newly formed, for example on the missions field.

I don't believe women should be overseers of the church. Of course they can be in the congregation.

I suppose deacons could have a 'board', but not the type that hires and fires pastors, etc. Some Baptists give a lot of power to so-called 'deacons' that doesn't seem to have any basis in scripture.

If God has already revealed aspect of ecclesiology, then we should go with that, not ignore it and make up some other structure.

" Of course they can be in the congregation." Well I am glad we are at least allowed that! It just sounds a little odd when you put it that way.

 

[MarcR]

Is the issue style of debate?

My style of debate is one designed to get answers to the fundamental questions that are being posed.

The issue is what women can and can do, biblically speaking, with respect to ministry.

Is that the issue?

Now, you know what my position is, clearly and precisely stated.

Now I know what your position is, clearly and precisely stated.

You said: "IMO Women are able to; but should not Preach, teach, or exhort men, in the assembled church,or serve on the governing board ; but may serve in any other capacity."

What are the positions of others who would have us discriminate against women, clearly and precisely stated? I'm talking about the names I previously mentioned today.

Let's start with phil112. What is his position, clearly and precisely stated?

What is tribesman's position, clearly and precisely stated?

The style of debate is:

Intentionally misstating the other person's positiom
Making snide remarks
insulting people
taking upon yourself to determine others motivation

 

[JackH]

Jack,
This is yet another example!

It is NOT your role to tell others what I would find helpful

I thought you were trying to get everybody to state their position clearly.

I said it would be helpful to you if some stated their position clearly and precisely.

Isn't that what you want?

 

[JackH]

The style of debate is:

And your style of debate is to beg the question.

 

[kaylagrl]

I thought you were trying to get everybody to state their position clearly.

I said it would be helpful to you if some stated their position clearly and precisely.

Isn't that what you want?

I think this thread is now beating a dead horse.Fairly simple sides.Women should be silent in the church and not be over a man in any way.The other side of the coin is Paul was talking to women in a specific situation and that does not hold for all women all through time.Its a subject that both sides have dug their trench in and I dont see either flying the white flag soon.I'm not sure anything more productive can be said in defense of one side or another.In fact Im surprised the thread hasn't been closed.All we are doing now is making enemies of each other.The thread has deteriorated beyond the point of no return I think.If this issue hasn't been solved since the time of the first Christians I doubt it will be settled here.All we can do is as the Bible says "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling". I think we know personally what we believe to be right in this situation and we should abide by it.Neither side is about surrender any time soon.Maybe its best to call it a draw and let it end with a little dignity. JMO

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

A 13 year-old girl pitched the winning game in the 2014 world series of Little
League baseball. She afterwards went on public television to state "And
that's throwing like a girl". Oh, was it? No, it wasn't, because had she
thrown like a girl she wouldn't have been competing in a boy's sport. Make
no mistake about it: she threw like a boy and that's why her team won. No
doubt she's now a poster child for other girls her age aspiring to undertake
a role reversal; in effect: aspiring to a weird sort of cultural sex change.

OK, back on "ignore." Sheesh!