Women Pastors? Help me.
- Thread starter DevonS
- Start date
-
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.
I never mean to offend. I am in total agreement that women are equal to men. That's not the question. The question is how God has given roles within the church. Women have, are, and will do great things for the cause of Christ within the church. I take the Bible literally and never allow culture to dictate what is stated in the Bible, nor am I going to change words or play the Greek game to make the Bible fit my theology. I believe the Bible states quite clearly that the role of a pastor should be a man. Most people responding take that and run thinking this means women are degraded in some way. I can't change their false assumptions.
L
oh John give it a rest already
you simply choose to ignore the scripture that puts the lie to what you state regarding women
whatever...boring already quite frankly
I stated way back I prefer men pastors...it's biblical text twisting I take exception to...as in women should shut up and they are lovely helpers but need to know their place
get over it
you simply choose to ignore the scripture that puts the lie to what you state regarding women
whatever...boring already quite frankly
I stated way back I prefer men pastors...it's biblical text twisting I take exception to...as in women should shut up and they are lovely helpers but need to know their place
get over it
No one has to have a seminary education to read Greek. You can learn yourself, or take a course from my professor on-line. He offers introductory Greek every fall, followed by a winter semester. I know several people here who have learned on their own and are certainly near my level. (Well, they have been scarce lately, I admit!)
What it really comes down to, is rather than discussing what I have written about the actual Greek words, you are throwing insults! And somehow wrapping homosexual pastors into the discussion. My "explanation" of 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 11-12, has nothing to do with homosexual pastors. One would hope they don't have multiple wives!
I do understand your fear of losing the inerrancy of Scripture. I heartily concur that we do need to know and obey the Bible. But when translations are totally wrong, resulting in wrong doctrines, and suppressing women who have been called by God, and show fruits of that calling, then it is time to look deeply into the Greek, and consider the cultural ramifications of that time period.
Sorry to have spent so many hours on post #123 when it is totally above your head! Well, maybe someone else will read it, and begin to realize that the Bible does never says women should not be in ministry, or be pastors!
I must agree with John146, 1Tm 3 seems to be about man.
Its true (as Angela pointed out) that some sentences in the chapter do not contain the words for man or "he" etc. But the overall context is about the man (verse two). And this context applies to the rest of the sentences.
Even the word episkopos is the musculine word. It would be strange if women were thought in the context.
Its true (as Angela pointed out) that some sentences in the chapter do not contain the words for man or "he" etc. But the overall context is about the man (verse two). And this context applies to the rest of the sentences.
Even the word episkopos is the musculine word. It would be strange if women were thought in the context.
I was just thinking about this topic a bit more. Really, all women should be doing the counseling. Because a pastor counseling a woman has ruined more marriages than can be told. A man with a woman, a man with power, in fact, or at least looked up to and respected, will result in a woman who is easily swayed and easily seduced.
If 52% of evangelical pastors look at porn, I think it is safe to say that a man counseling a woman is a snare and a trap!
I knew a woman in seminary, who had been a social worker before she was taken on to do all the counseling in her church. This was a Southern Baptist Church, too! Very strict! But she was more qualified, and had really worked some miracles in marriages and helping turn people's lives around.
She also was one of the most gentle, kind and spirit led people I know. It was the Spirit of God working through her that made changes in people's lives and marriages! And that, in the end, is all that matters!
My goodness John! I went through the verses you posted from 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 11-12 in great detail showing how King James and his translators changed the Greek meaning of a deacon from gender neutral to only men.
You even "Replied to post" although you certainly didn't address what I said. See post #123 on page 7, if you forgot!
How many times does the same thing have to be posted, before you understand what the Bible actually says, not the uninspired KJV?
By the way, I had forgotten about the Archbishop of Canterbury being part of the scheme to make men and kings, and certainly bishops, have primacy over the common people. That is why you had break away groups like the Puritans, and Baptists like John Bunyan, who wrote Pilgrim's Progress. He was put in jail for years, because he refused to used the Anglican prayer book for his sermons. He used the Bible, which goes to show you how far a wrong doctrine will go.
Imagine getting thrown in jail for preaching from the Bible?!! That is what the KJV legitimized.
PS. Would it help you at all, if I started another profile, and made it male, and then posted these things about how the Bible is not against women pastors? Is it just because you refuse, like Samuel to accept anything written by a woman? At least John Piper will read scholarly research written by a woman, even if he will not allow her to read the same exact thing aloud! Hypocrisy at its finest!
Well, it is not going to happen! I am a woman, I have studied to show myself approved. I am not perfect, and if someone can show me in the Greek where I have gone wrong, I will accept it. But so far, no one has addressed my posts, except maybe Lynn, who was "almost" convinced! LOL
I have no fear of losing the inerrancy of Scripture. I have it. I read it. I study it. I believe it. I allow the Bible to define itself, and it does. I have no need for Greek. I have the exact words I need in English. If I went to seminary or listened to your guy online, they would only try and talk me out of my belief in the Bible and teach me to correct God's word with my new found intellect. Thanks, but no thanks.
Titus 2 really was my ut-oh moment. Funny thing -- me being me, I was already taking a course in counseling. (Jay Adams, who, I was already figuring out wasn't going to be a good way of counseling too. 
) But it was geared to family counseling, so I had to face the fact that sometimes it was going to be couples. Knowing a bit about Jay Adam's style, my guess, (because I can't remember all these decades later), would be if the couple had abusive issues, then tell the spouse being abused to get out/run! I wasn't really thinking of abusive relationships at all. More of couples who just aren't united.
And I just have no rights to counsel a married man about his marriage. I get that from my "role" in Titus 2. But, no, I don't see any verses picking out this one aspect of being a pastor other than going back to the whole assumption pastors are supposed to be guys. 1 Tim. 2:12 again, but I don't see the heart of this verse changing even if authority becomes closer to the word domineering. I kind of thought it meant domineering all along.
I also think that there is something to a woman in Christ always having a mantle -- a man to submit to. Someone who would protect her as needed. Someone who would teach us how to act like those Titus 2 women. (Both the young ones and the older ones.) Growing up, that was Dad. (He is the not-saved kind of Catholic. More into superstitions than believing the Bible means anything it says, but he still protected me and taught me some stuff about how to be a good woman.) Now that I'm married, the mantle went to hubby. But I was single in-between. And I had pastors that I considered my mantle. (Not always great mantles, but there was always this sense they'd duke it out with anyone who attacks me, if I but ask. lol)
One of those pastors/mantles had a wife. She taught me the finer art of being the Proverbs 31 woman. But her husband was the one who wouldn't let me go to any whim of theology, even if that meant confronting the stooge who tried.
I'm a big woman. I haven't needed as much protection as most simply because I let it known I'm not afraid to use my knee and elbow to defend myself, and I mean that. And being big, men can calculate speed of trajectory, so decide not to push it usually.
When John was in the hospital and then the nursing home, the not-Catholic chaplain came by every once in awhile. (Not very helpful since she had to counsel anyone but the Catholic, so she was cool if you believed in a god, no matter who that god was.) She was feisty, but all of about 4'9" and in her 50's, at least. (I'm thinking 60's, but people in their 50's don't want to be called older. lol) I could see her going on the offense if some charlatan tried to steal one of her sheep, but she'd lose.
I hate to sound chauvinistic, especially given I am a true feminist, (equal pay and women have equal rights), but I'd even prefer a man to be my mantle, knowing the dynamics of gender relationships. A 5'3" guy is more intimidating than most women. Even me. I'd feel more protected if I weren't married.
I do get, in most ways, a woman pastor is equal to a man pastor, but in a couple of ways, I think something is missing too. I think 1 Tim. 2 was good counsel to have in the whole of the Bible, because it continues to bring God's word forward even if we are a different culture. (And considering how wild women have become today, I also wonder if we're all that different.)
We really are the weaker vessels. Sure, we can hold as much liquid as a thicker vessel, but I just fell apart emotionally. I sense that weakness at several levels lately. I really do need a mantle.
) But it was geared to family counseling, so I had to face the fact that sometimes it was going to be couples. Knowing a bit about Jay Adam's style, my guess, (because I can't remember all these decades later), would be if the couple had abusive issues, then tell the spouse being abused to get out/run! I wasn't really thinking of abusive relationships at all. More of couples who just aren't united.And I just have no rights to counsel a married man about his marriage. I get that from my "role" in Titus 2. But, no, I don't see any verses picking out this one aspect of being a pastor other than going back to the whole assumption pastors are supposed to be guys. 1 Tim. 2:12 again, but I don't see the heart of this verse changing even if authority becomes closer to the word domineering. I kind of thought it meant domineering all along.
I also think that there is something to a woman in Christ always having a mantle -- a man to submit to. Someone who would protect her as needed. Someone who would teach us how to act like those Titus 2 women. (Both the young ones and the older ones.) Growing up, that was Dad. (He is the not-saved kind of Catholic. More into superstitions than believing the Bible means anything it says, but he still protected me and taught me some stuff about how to be a good woman.) Now that I'm married, the mantle went to hubby. But I was single in-between. And I had pastors that I considered my mantle. (Not always great mantles, but there was always this sense they'd duke it out with anyone who attacks me, if I but ask. lol)
One of those pastors/mantles had a wife. She taught me the finer art of being the Proverbs 31 woman. But her husband was the one who wouldn't let me go to any whim of theology, even if that meant confronting the stooge who tried.
I'm a big woman. I haven't needed as much protection as most simply because I let it known I'm not afraid to use my knee and elbow to defend myself, and I mean that. And being big, men can calculate speed of trajectory, so decide not to push it usually.
When John was in the hospital and then the nursing home, the not-Catholic chaplain came by every once in awhile. (Not very helpful since she had to counsel anyone but the Catholic, so she was cool if you believed in a god, no matter who that god was.) She was feisty, but all of about 4'9" and in her 50's, at least. (I'm thinking 60's, but people in their 50's don't want to be called older. lol) I could see her going on the offense if some charlatan tried to steal one of her sheep, but she'd lose.
I hate to sound chauvinistic, especially given I am a true feminist, (equal pay and women have equal rights), but I'd even prefer a man to be my mantle, knowing the dynamics of gender relationships. A 5'3" guy is more intimidating than most women. Even me. I'd feel more protected if I weren't married.
I do get, in most ways, a woman pastor is equal to a man pastor, but in a couple of ways, I think something is missing too. I think 1 Tim. 2 was good counsel to have in the whole of the Bible, because it continues to bring God's word forward even if we are a different culture. (And considering how wild women have become today, I also wonder if we're all that different.)
We really are the weaker vessels. Sure, we can hold as much liquid as a thicker vessel, but I just fell apart emotionally. I sense that weakness at several levels lately. I really do need a mantle.
Lynn, are you sure this is not just culturally conditioned? I have always been much physically weaker than my husband. These days, with my hands being so weak, he even has to open jars and other things for me.
But that doesn't make me spiritiually weaker, or intellectually weaker. My husband has totally different strengths that me. He has a faith that is more solid than a mountain. Theologically, I will discover some great truth in the Bible, and he will reply something to me showing me that he has known it all along! He even thinks of questions that I needed to read on here, or in a book, about Calvinism or other topics.
He is a spiritual giant, in my eyes! But would he ever post on the internet? Never! That is my area of expertise. I have to work hard to get what he has, but it doesn't make me weaker, just different. I have more than made up for our differences by studying as hard as I have. He slipped away from reading the Bible a few years ago. I tried to encourage him, but he would not listen. A pastor in our last church did a sermon series on reading the Bible, and THAT got him reading again. Now, it just takes a gentle reminder to get him back on track.
Does that make him spiritually weaker? No, we are just different! God uses him in different ways than me. We compliment one another, which is what a godly marriage should do!
The idea that man has authority over every woman is ridiculous. That alone should cause you to question how its been interpreted.
In one Scripture Paul presents husbands don't even have authority over their own bodies, their wives do.
1 Co 7:4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
In one Scripture Paul presents husbands don't even have authority over their own bodies, their wives do.
1 Co 7:4For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
The way some people approach the Scriptures really is scary. Someone once wrote this.....
“The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
"What a strange saying! Whenever I hear it I think: “Well, that’s a nice idea. But if it’s really that simple, why can’t Christians ever seem to agree on what it says?” If you can just pick up the bible and understand it without any prior knowledge, context, or study—that is, if the bible is such an easy book (as this phrase seems to imply!), then why are there over 30,000 Christian denominations worldwide? Why can’t we agree on the bible if it’s so easy to just read it, believe it, and have our minds settled about what it says?"
"Though it has become a sort of catchphrase for evangelical Christianity, this is a horrible method for understanding the bible. Fundamentally, it errs in breaking what I believe to be the very first and most important rule of biblical exegesis (or explanation): taking context seriously. It’s a dishonor to the scriptures themselves to take them at their face value. As theologian Karl Barth once said, “I take the bible too seriously to read it literally.” "
"You absolutely cannot read the bible 2,000 years divorced from the original culture, language, and tradition it was written into and pretend to understand it the way it was meant to be understood!"
"What is really being said with this is, “I think this is what the bible says, I believe I’m right, and so I don’t have to listen to your dumb ideas!” "
"The bible is a difficult book. You can’t understand it by itself. Instead, it’s important to take the time and humbly come before the scriptures with respect, studying carefully what they mean. We far too often read the bible with a preconceived idea of what it’s about. However, if we are to be faithful to the bible we must come humbly before it without any such preconceptions."
"In marketing, they often say that “content it king”. But in biblical studies one might likewise say, “context is king”. Taking the bible seriously means taking the time to study the language, history, and current events that surrounded its original publication. Context is crucial to understanding the original intent of the biblical authors, and what we can learn from them today. Who is this passage written to? What purpose did the author have in mind? What sort of language is being used? These are crucial questions we must address every time we approach the bible if we are to be faithful to its witness."
“The bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.”
"What a strange saying! Whenever I hear it I think: “Well, that’s a nice idea. But if it’s really that simple, why can’t Christians ever seem to agree on what it says?” If you can just pick up the bible and understand it without any prior knowledge, context, or study—that is, if the bible is such an easy book (as this phrase seems to imply!), then why are there over 30,000 Christian denominations worldwide? Why can’t we agree on the bible if it’s so easy to just read it, believe it, and have our minds settled about what it says?"
"Though it has become a sort of catchphrase for evangelical Christianity, this is a horrible method for understanding the bible. Fundamentally, it errs in breaking what I believe to be the very first and most important rule of biblical exegesis (or explanation): taking context seriously. It’s a dishonor to the scriptures themselves to take them at their face value. As theologian Karl Barth once said, “I take the bible too seriously to read it literally.” "
"You absolutely cannot read the bible 2,000 years divorced from the original culture, language, and tradition it was written into and pretend to understand it the way it was meant to be understood!"
"What is really being said with this is, “I think this is what the bible says, I believe I’m right, and so I don’t have to listen to your dumb ideas!” "
"The bible is a difficult book. You can’t understand it by itself. Instead, it’s important to take the time and humbly come before the scriptures with respect, studying carefully what they mean. We far too often read the bible with a preconceived idea of what it’s about. However, if we are to be faithful to the bible we must come humbly before it without any such preconceptions."
"In marketing, they often say that “content it king”. But in biblical studies one might likewise say, “context is king”. Taking the bible seriously means taking the time to study the language, history, and current events that surrounded its original publication. Context is crucial to understanding the original intent of the biblical authors, and what we can learn from them today. Who is this passage written to? What purpose did the author have in mind? What sort of language is being used? These are crucial questions we must address every time we approach the bible if we are to be faithful to its witness."
I agree with everything, except it was King Henry VIII who started the Protestant Church, because they would not let him divorce Catherine of Aragon, who had only produced one daughter, who became Bloody Mary, as she tried to switch England back to the RCC. Because she killed so many people. After this, the English made a law that no one who was Roman Catholic could hold the throne. Catherine was past child-bearing age, and Henry was in love with Anne Boleyn, who he married, and she had Elizabeth, who became the famous Queen Elizabeth I, who saved England from the massive Spanish armada, and an invasion from Spain. Further, when Henry finally had a son, he had congenital syphilis, leading to his early demise, as a teenager. He was a fervent Protestant, who had studied the Bible extensively, and actually governed well. So Mary was next in line, and that started a couple of years of serious bloodshed.
King James was the homosexual, if you will remember. He assembled the translation committee along with the Archbishop of Canterbury, to consolidate the power of the king, the church, and men over women. Leading to some very bad translations in that Bible.
History lesson over! Tudor history fascinates me. Not so much the Stuarts, I admit!