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

A distinction few will make. Pastoring often includes preaching but preaching does not necessarily include pastoring. A woman can preach outside the church if we allow giving witness and testimony for Christ as preaching.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Ann is wrong. She is self declared to be what she wants to be. She demonstrates more of a Jezebel spirit than the Spirit of Christ.

I do not know this woman but if what is presented here is representative of her attitude then she is out of order in the body of Christ. I say that with all due respect.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

She is Billy Graham's daughter.

So then, you are saying that she is engaging in sinful behavior that must be repented and turned away from, to be right with God?

Or is she merely disobeying God, as some would attempt to make a distinction?

And where is WebersHome defending his favorite female preacher?

I wish I could say that the heresy was quickly suppressed and orthodoxy reigned and everyone lived happily ever after. I have no doubt that's exactly what God wanted to happen. But sinful creatures are easily deceived by the "father of lies" and what really happened is that while orthodoxy remained orthodox; rebellious heretical factions fractured off the church as they were misled by the pagan worldview surrounding them. The Judaizers greatly exacerbated the situation.

The largest and most threatening of all these heretical spin-offs were the Christian Gnostics whom began mixing Christian thought with pagan Gnosticism and vying with orthodox Christians for new converts amongst the general population just as false cults do today.

Jesus, so the Gnostics argued, had entrusted a secret wisdom to certain teachers before he ascended. These teachers, in turn, passed on this special truth to other teachers. And they, in turn, to others. The Gnostic teachers were liars who falsely asserted that they had Jesus's true revelation rather than the apostles and the Christian (e.g. Catholic) church. If Gnosticism had supplanted genuine Christianity early on, Christianity itself would have become just another Roman mystery cult and died off with the rest of them (assuming God did not intervene, in that scenario, of course).

Fortunately, educated orthodox Christians took up the challenge with vigor releasing apologetical refutations such as Irenaeus's (who was the bishop of Lyons in Gaul) five monumental books against gnostic heresies and a sixth book dedicated to apostolic preaching in the second century.

Ultimately the Christian Gnostics were soundly refuted by orthodox Christian apologists and their fabricated heresies deposited into the trash bin of history where they belonged. But other heresies arose in their place and themselves were ultimately refuted as well and so on and so forth right up to the present where we have modern day fabricated heresies like Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-Day Adventism, etc...

What I was looking for was some evidence specifically linking the (debated) prohibition against women preaching with an heretical practice

Yes, well there's about ten heresies or so that threatened the early church with Gnosticism being the greatest threat. And in Gnosticism, the female presence was prominent in its very theology. Gnostic sects allowed women to serve in the highest ecclesiastical roles. As these pagan women began to enter small Christian house churches which began themselves to grow exponentially; some couldn't resist marrying their pagan philosophies with Christian theology and seeking authority to teach it in these orthodox assemblies!

That's how Christian Gnosticism came into being with ancient manuscripts from the period revealing many new syncretic heretical "theologies" such as heresy of the Holy Spirit being female and women being light-and wisdom-bearers of the Divine in feminine form, for example.

Orthodox Christian (e.g. Catholic) assemblies were opposing the activity of women in the heretical sects such as Gnosticism, Montanism, etc... because they opposed the heresy and heretical sects themselves. It was NOT because they opposed women.

If you're looking for actual historical citations showing this, they're available. It's late here so I'll have to dig them up for you but a few come to mind immediately. Tertullian (160-220) identified the false teaching at Ephesus as an early form of Gnosticism; for example, describing and denouncing the goddess Artemis syncretistic heresy some women were introducing using Paul’s own expression of “myths and endless genealogies” adding, “which the inspired apostle [Paul] by anticipation condemned, whilst the seeds of heresy were even then shooting forth" (see Against the Valentinians by Tertullian). So did Ireneaus and Eusebius.

You know at times I would rather see a young strong women tell me the gospel rather than an old bald headed man.

we live in a culture that basically has gotten rid of the need for men. So ,do we bring those philosophies in the Church to make it more likable for people?

ChristInUs said:

You know at times I would rather see a young strong women tell me the gospel rather than an old bald headed man.

Click to expand...

Best not to share your midlife crisis on a board like this, man.

Personally, I would rather watch Megyn Kelly do the political stuff and tweet her as opposed to Bill O'Reily. And I would rather watch Erin Andrews do the sports stuff and tweet her as opposed to Chris Berman.

The current technology (Twitter et al) prompts me to ask this question:

What about a woman who has an internet ministry where she preaches, teaches, and pastors?

Is this sinful behavior or disobedience to God? (Some here have made a distinction, which I don't see.)

The issue with some here has to do with a woman being the pastor of a local church.

What about shepherding the flock over the internet?

You can reach people in China, not just down the street.

Strong Black women at that!

Good point well made! I need time to consider implications. I don't usually give Tertullian much credence, since he subscribed to both the heresy of Montanism and Catholicism; but your citation is independent of those.

Ageofknowledge,

Eusebius is your strongest case since imo he demonstrated by attitude, action, and content that he was Spirit led.

Can you give a more specific citation.

Actually Eusebius isn't the strongest case at all. Those who preceded him addressed the matter in far better detail. Much more interested in the topic of heresy (and second century female heretics) were Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, for example. But, he did write about it.

Eusebius, like his predecessors (of whom I haven't done justice on this topic due to being very busy this weekend) noted with alarm that women were often involved in heresy and schism in the early church.

Eusebius himself appears to write about it regretfully; however, as he was much more interested in praising notable women and listing notable female martyrs (e.g. Blandina, Biblis, Potomiaena, Quinta, etc...) who refused to compromise their Christian witness when faced with severe persecution and death than in writing about those who strayed into heresy which today is a topic that fascinates early church historians.

Also interesting is that in contrast to writing about the wicked behavior of some pagan emperors, Eusebius (see NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library) often depicts their wives and female rulers in a favorable light noting that the wives and children of pagan emperors sometimes embraced the Christian cause early on. Examples include Mammaea (e.g. emperor Alexander Severus's mother).

But, Eusebius disallowed women formal leadership roles in the church and would not entertain the idea that women could be priests as he talked about heretical women infiltrating the early Christian (e.g. Catholic) church and seeking to turn it away from orthodoxy with strange "new" doctrines.

Eusebius asserted that orthodox theology existed from the apostles forward writing that this "Christian truth," the heretics had rejected, was "orthodox" and "shines more gloriously when contrasted with the spiritual and moral deviance of heretics and schismatics." See Averil Cameron's 'Constantinus Christianus' and Rudolph H. Storch's 'The Eusebian Constantine.'

He then begins naming women heretics such as Helen who became Simon's travel companion and insisted that she was the alleged incarnation of the "first emanation" accepting worship in rites that involved pagan "incense, sacrifices, and libations" until Peter himself silenced her in Rome. See G. A. Williamson's 'Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine.'

He gives accounts of women like Priscilla and Maximilla who were "false prophetesses" and talks about Montanist women who were participating in "ecstatic practices" listing sources such as Apolinarius of Hierapolis, Apollonius, and Serapion of Antioch.

But though he did address the topic, Eusebius wasn't nearly as interested as writers before him in second-century heretics and their fabricated complex theologies.

And that is a distinction that can be very confusing.

In the early days of "the church" wouldn't you think that most of the gatherings were in people's homes?

Do you think some distinction was made regarding who could preach and who could pastor in 40 AD?

He then begins naming women heretics such as Helen who became Simon's travel companion and insisted that she was the alleged incarnation of the "first emanation" accepting worship in rites that involved pagan "incense, sacrifices, and libations" until Peter himself silenced her in Rome. See G. A. Williamson's 'Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine.'

should read

He then begins naming women heretics such as Helen who became Simon's travel companion noting that SHE insisted that she was the alleged incarnation of the "first emanation" accepting worship in rites that involved pagan "incense, sacrifices, and libations" until Peter himself silenced her in Rome. See G. A. Williamson's 'Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine.'

In 40 AD, the vast majority of Christians were Jews. The church ('militant') was lead by Jewish leadership.

Jews already had male elders, rooted in Old Testament tradition and teaching. 'Elder's' in Hebrew means 'bearded ones.' It's a rather male-sounding word. Synagogues had elders. The churches followed this pattern and also had elders.

I wouldn't expect any female elder/overseers in any church in 40 AD, even before the qualification requiring that one be a man was written in Paul's epistles.

When I said that Eysebius was your best case, Iwas referring to the details you cited in your refutation.

Eusebius had a gentleness about him and a positive attitude toward women, which makes anything he says on the subject less subject to a charge of cultural bias.