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

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
Utah, a man cannot become a woman, and a woman cannot become a man. You could go to the doctor and have him hack up your private parts and make them look like something else if you want. A man can become a mutilated eunuch. But he can't become a woman. Your DNA gives you away.

If a crazy mad scientist doctor kidnapped you and cut stuff off and changed things around down there, would that change your gender?
I have a rule in life:

When a woman becomes a man, its a man. And when a man becomes a woman, its still a man! :cool:

As far as post 1037, relax and be at peace. I was not attacking you. I wanted to respond but felt you did not answer the question at heart. I'm interested in learning and that's why I commented to you -- seeking information, not attacking.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,755
113
I have a rule in life:

When a woman becomes a man, its a man. And when a man becomes a woman, its still a man! :cool:
If you were a single man looking for a date, those rules would be helpful if only from a utilitarian perspective.
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
If you were a single man looking for a date, those rules would be helpful if only from a utilitarian perspective.
That's what I meant. It was a joke! Guess I chose the wrong thread. I can see where folks would think I meant it pertaining to women in ministry.

On another note, it's Friday, 5:00pm! You know what that means!!! :cool:
 
P

phil112

Guest
........................On another note, it's Friday, 5:00pm! You know what that means!!! :cool:
Yeah, it means you don't live in californication. It's 4 pm here.:)
I prolly need to further explain, I don't live on the left coast either. It's 4pm here in okie country.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
The negative attitude toward women has been mostly established in the Church of our day by two passages from the writings of Paul. Here is the first - I will comment further on the second as time allows...

1 Cor. 14:34-38 (KJV)

[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.

After reading on the subject I think that in both cases he was addressing local errors in the Church; and he was not making a general statement for all time for all of the Churches.

The one thing that has to be considered is the writings of St. Paul are often answers to problems or questions that he has been presented with either by letter or by a visitor from that Church. So we are only hearing one side of a conversation. So when he is answering a question we have to deduce from his answer what the question or statement that he is responding to was. Most letters were lost to history. And so that is what we have to do with this passage. 1 Corinthians 14:36-38 is his response to an important situation, which was detrimental to the Corinthian Church. So what problem is he addressing in our text? What is he reacting to?

After writing on boards like this for 20 years it is interesting how many times that this issue of women keeps coming up again and again; and of course the problem that spiritually savvy Christians have with these passages is the manifested spirit of St. Paul and his kindness and respect for women is in direct conflict with this stated text. And so we struggle with our apologetics in order to reconcile the two. Of course to those who are more legalistic about this problematic text – they have no problem.

It is unfortunate that the Koine Greek does not have quotation marks. If it did I don't think a lot of us would be struggling with this passage like we do. For the sake of this post allow me to add quotation marks to the appropriate text of this passage.

1Corinthians 14:34-37 (KJV) [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.”

In vs. 34 & 35 St. Paul is quoting the words of someone in the Church probably a "Judiazer," someone from the Circumcision Party, who opposed Paul at every turn - who in judging from the text - considered himself a prophet in that local body.

Moreover, I Corinthians 14:34,35, if taken totally literally, cannot refer to the Old Testament Scriptures when speaking of the Law for there is not one trace from Genesis to Malachi of any such prohibition of women to literally keep silent in the church nor is there a single word in the whole "law of Moses" dealing with the subject. Therefore the words, "it is not permitted" and "as also saith the Law" must refer to some rule outside of Scripture. There was no other but the Oral Law of the Jews appealed to by the Judaizers in the church in their efforts, at that time, to bring Christianity back within the confines of Judaism.

The Jewish Oral Law did teach the silencing of women. The Talmud also taught that it was "a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men". However, the Oral Law of the Jews is not Scripture. Again, the reference to the "law" is, of itself, sufficient to show that the Apostle who labored so earnestly to free the Christian Church from the very shadow of Judaism was not expressing his own conviction in the language attributed to him. Paul never appealed to the "law" for the guidance of the Church of Christ, but, on the contrary, declared that believers were dead to the law by the body of Christ" (Romans 7:4) that they might serve in newness of spirit and not the oldness of the letter (v.6).)

Now lets look at St. Paul's response to this quotation. I have used the old KJV because it uses the word “What” in its translation as do several other versions. This should be read in a mocking angry sarcastic tone of voice.

[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.

What” is an expression of outrage at the preceding quote. He follows with a denouncement of the comments of the Judiazer. He didn't dwell on the problem probably because he only wanted to correct the situation and not to destroy or run off the individual.

So in summary the text of 34 and 35 was not composed by St. Paul, but was only quoted by him in making a correction to the words of this Judiazer. Actually, the exact opposite of the text was intended in this passage of Scripture. Paul was a very sarcastic fellow and I'm sure that if he knew that his letters would eventually become scripture He would have been more carful in expressing himself as he did.


Yes, I agree.

And another point that may have some relevance is 1 Corinthians was not written until around 57 AD.

So Paul's pronouncements that many use to discriminate against women were made over 25 years after local "churches" began to be formed, mostly in homes.

Were some of those churches "shepherded" by women?

Where is the evidence of somebody saying they couldn't be?
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
Were some of those churches "shepherded" by women?

Where is the evidence of somebody saying they couldn't be?
Gave 'em to you three or four times. But hey, I understand. It's a big thread.
 
P

phil112

Guest
.......................Where is the evidence of somebody saying they couldn't be?
Do you have me on ignore, do you just not read my posts, or do you just not care about what some parts of the bible say?
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
In an ancient first, second, and third century Roman world men outnumbered women... except in the Christian church where women greatly outnumbered men.

This occurred in part because Christians did not "discard" female infants and Christian women did not have a substantial mortality rate from abortions done in a world without antibiotics or even a practical working knowledge of germs.

Also, it occurred because despite the persecution levied against Christians women were more likely than men to convert to Christianity.

There are various reasons for this with one being that the Christian worldview imparted higher value to women which contrasted with the status of the average woman of non-noble birth under ancient Roman paganism (nobility; however, was an entirely different matter). You see, ancient Greco-Roman paganism taught that the gods had played a trick on man by creating woman of inferior material, etc... See: http://ncbible.org/resources/fword01.pdf

Without getting too wordy, it was in the assemblies which were primarily composed of women that false doctrines, myths, and other speculative ideas (in addition to gossip) were entering (1 Tim 1:3-4). Upon reading 1 Timothy, for example, one becomes immediately aware that the integrity of the Christian faith is at stake in some (not all or most) of these assemblies. Paul's concern in response is to maintain and guard the truth of the Christian faith (1 Tim 1:19; 2:4–7; 3:14–16; 4:1–3, 6–7, 16;6:1–5, 12).

Some of these women had wandered into vain debates and were attempting to act as teachers without understanding and discernment (1 Tim 1:6–7). There is throughout a concern for maintaining and guarding the truth of the faith (1 Tim 1:19; 2:4–7; 3:14–16; 4:1–3, 6–7, 16;6:1–5, 12).

We do not know the identity of the false teachers or the full content of their teaching. From the instructions given, we can conclude that the false teaching led to a disregard for proper decorum and practices in the church (1 Tim 2:8–15) as well as to a rejection of the institution of marriage (1 Tim 4:3).

In light of this last aspect of the heretical teaching, it is noteworthy that particular attention is directed to young widows (in 1 Tim 5:9–15), who are urged to marry, have children and manage their homes (1 Tim 5:14). When these normal, socially prescribed roles and functions are neglected or rejected, these women are prone to "gossiping" and being "busybodies, saying things they ought not to" (1 Tim 5:13).

On the basis of this data, at least two reconstructions of the situation in Timothy’s congregation at Ephesus are possible: (1) the women in the church at Ephesus were the primary advocates and promoters of the heretical teachings which were upsetting accepted patterns of congregational and home life; (2) the women in the church had been particularly influenced by the heretical teachers. Such a situation in the Ephesian church is addressed in 2 Timothy 3:6–9, where women, the special targets of those "who oppose the truth" (2 Tim 3:8), become "unable to acknowledge the truth" (2 Tim 3:7).

In either case, Paul’s restrictive word in 1 Timothy 2:11–12 must be understood within a context where false teaching is at issue. The general prohibition against all those who "teach false doctrines" (1 Tim 1:3) is now focused specifically on the women who have fallen prey to such false teaching or who are involved in its promulgation.

This does not extrapolate to women being barred from correctly and properly teaching God's Word or holding ministry positions in a godly manner within the context the entire NT provides.
Yes, I agree.

And I'll make a similar point to that I made on Jasher's post.

1 Timothy was written around 63 AD.

If these things needed to be said to all churches, why wait more than 30 years?
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
In an ancient first, second, and third century Roman world men outnumbered women... except in the Christian church where women greatly outnumbered men.

This occurred in part because Christians did not "discard" female infants and Christian women did not have a substantial mortality rate from abortions done in a world without antibiotics or even a practical working knowledge of germs.

Also, it occurred because despite the persecution levied against Christians women were more likely than men to convert to Christianity.

There are various reasons for this with one being that the Christian worldview imparted higher value to women which contrasted with the status of the average woman of non-noble birth under ancient Roman paganism (nobility; however, was an entirely different matter). You see, ancient Greco-Roman paganism taught that the gods had played a trick on man by creating woman of inferior material, etc... See: http://ncbible.org/resources/fword01.pdf

Without getting too wordy, it was in the assemblies which were primarily composed of women that false doctrines, myths, and other speculative ideas (in addition to gossip) were entering (1 Tim 1:3-4). Upon reading 1 Timothy, for example, one becomes immediately aware that the integrity of the Christian faith is at stake in some (not all or most) of these assemblies. Paul's concern in response is to maintain and guard the truth of the Christian faith (1 Tim 1:19; 2:4–7; 3:14–16; 4:1–3, 6–7, 16;6:1–5, 12).

Some of these women had wandered into vain debates and were attempting to act as teachers without understanding and discernment (1 Tim 1:6–7). There is throughout a concern for maintaining and guarding the truth of the faith (1 Tim 1:19; 2:4–7; 3:14–16; 4:1–3, 6–7, 16;6:1–5, 12).

We do not know the identity of the false teachers or the full content of their teaching. From the instructions given, we can conclude that the false teaching led to a disregard for proper decorum and practices in the church (1 Tim 2:8–15) as well as to a rejection of the institution of marriage (1 Tim 4:3).

In light of this last aspect of the heretical teaching, it is noteworthy that particular attention is directed to young widows (in 1 Tim 5:9–15), who are urged to marry, have children and manage their homes (1 Tim 5:14). When these normal, socially prescribed roles and functions are neglected or rejected, these women are prone to "gossiping" and being "busybodies, saying things they ought not to" (1 Tim 5:13).

On the basis of this data, at least two reconstructions of the situation in Timothy’s congregation at Ephesus are possible: (1) the women in the church at Ephesus were the primary advocates and promoters of the heretical teachings which were upsetting accepted patterns of congregational and home life; (2) the women in the church had been particularly influenced by the heretical teachers. Such a situation in the Ephesian church is addressed in 2 Timothy 3:6–9, where women, the special targets of those "who oppose the truth" (2 Tim 3:8), become "unable to acknowledge the truth" (2 Tim 3:7).

In either case, Paul’s restrictive word in 1 Timothy 2:11–12 must be understood within a context where false teaching is at issue. The general prohibition against all those who "teach false doctrines" (1 Tim 1:3) is now focused specifically on the women who have fallen prey to such false teaching or who are involved in its promulgation.

This does not extrapolate to women being barred from correctly and properly teaching God's Word or holding ministry positions in a godly manner within the context the entire NT provides.
Looking at historical context is a very valid way of interpreting Scripture.

My only reservation regarding this analysis is that I don't see historical evidence that such a heresy was being dealt with.

Please give some historical evidence.
 
P

phil112

Guest
Gave 'em to you three or four times. But hey, I understand. It's a big thread.
Good thing because he has me on ignore. :D

Do you have me on ignore, do you just not read my posts, or do you just not care about what some parts of the bible say?
Yes, I agree.

And I'll make a similar point to that I made on Jasher's post.

1 Timothy was written around 63 AD.

If these things needed to be said to all churches, why wait more than 30 years?
I guess no need for saying "okay, I'm on ignore". Probably best after all, since you don't much care for bible truth.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
Presidente, that's not answering the heart of the question.
You got the point.

It must be the black and gold blood.

I wonder how many of those who would have us discriminate against women can explain the Immaculate Reception.

Yes indeed, I would think that a woman who is contemplating entering the ministry should be counseled on what she can and can not do before and not after.

The after is like telling a woman who has been divorced four times that she has a problem with God after she gets married for the fifth time, instead of before.

Of course I would, and I assume you would do the same, tell a woman who is contemplating the ministry and from all indications would be a fine pastor et al, "You go girl" without suggesting there are constraints imposed by God (or those who wrongly use the Bible) on what she can or can not do.
 
K

keepitsimple

Guest
Perhaps God does, in fact, work in mysterious ways ... and maybe something to think about ?



Acts 13:2-3


[SUP]2 [/SUP]While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” [SUP]3 [/SUP]So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 15:36-40

[SUP]36 [/SUP]Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” [SUP]37 [/SUP]Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, [SUP]38 [/SUP]but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. [SUP]39 [/SUP]They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, [SUP]40 [/SUP]but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord.

 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,755
113
You got the point.

It must be the black and gold blood.
I think my response was very relevant and on-point. If someone goes to seminary and borrows a lot of money and isn't qualified for a role as overseer in the church, their career needs don't qualify them or override the teaching of scripture. Most of the points he made had been addressed many times in this thread.

Ministry roles don't exist to give people a job to earn a living or to attain to some kind of self-actualization on the Maslow hierarchy of needs.

I wonder how many of those who would have us discriminate against women can explain the Immaculate Reception.
I'm not sure of your point. I didn't know women played in the NFL, and there is good reason for discrimination against them doing so (like cracked bones and the risk of death, not to mention nudity in the locker room.)

If you mean Immaculate Conception, I still don't get your point. I don't think anyone is for discriminating against women any chance they get in any way they can. If something the Lord has revealed goes against your own ideas of discrimination against women, meh, so what? God can do as He pleases.

Yes indeed, I would think that a woman who is contemplating entering the ministry should be counseled on what she can and can not do before and not after.
You'd think her church would do so. I've been in a situation where a woman asked if me and a bunch of other people if she should pastor a church. I said no. Other people were telling her go for it. I wasn't against her ministering, but the role she was going into wasn't Biblical. She was a non-Anglican wanting to pastor an Anglican church in another country.

Of course I would, and I assume you would do the same, tell a woman who is contemplating the ministry and from all indications would be a fine pastor et al, "You go girl" without suggesting there are constraints imposed by God (or those who wrongly use the Bible) on what she can or can not do.
[/quote]

What are these indications? The fact that she doesn't mean the Biblical church overseer qualification of being a man would be an indication against it.
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
I think my response was very relevant and on-point. If someone goes to seminary and borrows a lot of money and isn't qualified for a role as overseer in the church, their career needs don't qualify them or override the teaching of scripture. Most of the points he made had been addressed many times in this thread.
You're interjecting "if" and "isn't". Like I said, you didn't answer the heart of the question.
 
L

LostBattle

Guest
Could someone please explain why it even matters if the preacher/pastor is a man or woman if both would preach the same thing and that said preaching would be from the word of God?
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
Could someone please explain why it even matters if the preacher/pastor is a man or woman if both would preach the same thing and that said preaching would be from the word of God?
God forbid a woman brings someone to Christ and nourishes them as their spiritual leader.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
Could someone please explain why it even matters if the preacher/pastor is a man or woman if both would preach the same thing and that said preaching would be from the word of God?
I, and most people who believe a woman should not preach, believe that a woman is capable of doing anything a man can do except father children.

The issue is not ability it is about accountability. Some of us believe that God wants the pastor's role to be a male role.

People, regardless how capable or well intentioned make mistakes; and when that happens God wants a man to take the heat!
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
In my opinion, God intends for an obedient man not only to provide for and protect his own family; but also to help and protect any woman without other protection. When Jesus expressed concern for the care of widows and orphans he was referring to this responsibility which arises from Lev chapter 19; and which Boaz exemplified with Ruth.

Male leadership of the family and of the church (If we understand correctly) is not about domination or discrimination; it is about the man being answerable for the mistakes; so that the woman may be spared that accountability.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,093
1,755
113
Could someone please explain why it even matters if the preacher/pastor is a man or woman if both would preach the same thing and that said preaching would be from the word of God?
God had Aaron and His descendants serve as priests. Do you think it would matter if other people who weren't from that line just put on priestly robes and started working as priests, performing the sacrifices and rituals?

God had a certain clan of Levites carry the ark by sliding poles through rings in the ark and lifting it up and walking. Do you think it would matter if they just put the ark on an ox cart instead, and instead of using the poles, someone could reach out and grab the ark?

God said not to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge and good and evil, but do you think it would matter if Adam and Eve decided to eat that fruit instead of the fruit of one of the myriad of other trees in the garden?

You also equate pastoring with preaching a sermon, which isn't a Biblical assumption.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0


Women aren't prohibited from leading children's Bible classes. They are only
prohibited from leading a class with Christian men in it.

That loop-hole opens the door for competent women to lead not only
children's classes, but also women's classes, women's prayer groups, and/or
women's home Bible studies.

Something else I should mention is that Paul's rules governing female
spiritual leaders are site-specific; viz; they only apply in church. Women at
large like Ann Graham Lotz are exempt.

=================================
A quote from Ann Graham Lotz:

"I have experienced this discrimination firsthand. I am a woman. And I am a preacher. That combination has cost me privileges and position in the man’s world in which I have moved. I have stood up to speak and had men turn their backs on me. I have been offered a seminary professorship, only to have the offer revoked when I refused to sign a statement that said women were to submit to men. I have had invitations withdrawn because of the threatened furor my presence on the platform would create. Multiple times, I have been directed to speak from a microphone positioned on the sanctuary floor of a church because I was not allowed into the pulpit."