Women Pastors

[Ovedya]

God-Man:

You said: "the point at which a man is instructed by woman in the Word of God is the point at which there is a contradiction with the Word and the order which God has ordained for His people."

So can I take that to mean you have never received instruction from a woman? (I am not asking to be snotty or anything like that...merely trying to understand.) Also several ladies have posted here that they have been called by God to be ministers, what do you believe about that? Is it okay to be a "minister" of sorts as long as women aren't "senior pastors"? Or is it any kind of instruction to men in general?

Well of course my mother instructed me when I was a child. And women instructed me in school. But the kind of instruction that Paul is addressing in 1 Tim. and 1 Cor. is with regard to the definition of doctrines and church teaching. I also believe that there is a reasonable and logical distinction drawn between women teaching in the church (As in the context of a church meeting) and women teaching "Sunday school." Age being the factor there.

Anyone in the church may "minister" Christ. In the NT to minister is to dispense something in the way of feeding. A minister of Christ is just a slave of Christ who dispenses Him into others. In the Bible we are all charged to minister Christ to others - both the saved and the unsaved. Unfortunately it is religion and the traditions of men who have turned this into a kind of church office.

[Ovedya]

Would you mind quoting a few of these, so that I can read whatthey wrote on the subject?

You can do a search on the internet. Just type Percilla, author of Hebrews and it will pull up diferent sites for you.

Now I never said I believe or disbelieve this. Just stating that there are many who believe it to be true and can't help but ask myself what if it where.

I typed it into Google as you suggested.

The first link that came up was: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/ruth_hoppin.htm

Pretty interesting how at least one of these scholars is a woman "pastor" who wrote a book in the subject.

[Orr v'emet]

God-Man:

You said:

[apothanein kerdos]

Okay, let's begin.

First, you asked for scriptural references of women who were placed in a place of authority... I will give three, there are probably more, but I am at work and so I have limited resources and time. Sorry! 

1) Deborah (like that name! HA!  )- We see the story of Deborah in Judges 4 and 5. I will not go over the story, you can read it for yourself.

When looking at Deborah we have to realize there are a lot of problems with trying to use her to justify female pastors. Deborah played a supportive role to Barak and not a leadership role to him at all. Barak was the true leader in the situation (however incompetent he was) who required Deborah to go with him. Likewise, Deborah was a prophetess. There is a massive difference between a prophet/prophetess and a modern pastor. A prophet did not hold authority over the land. They delivered the Word of the LORD however did not rule the nation. We see numerous times in Judges that everyone did what was right in their own eyes, which indicates that the Judges of Israel "ruled" by Word of God and not by a recognized authority.

2) Esther

Esther wasn't in authority over Israel.

3)Priscilla- her leadership can be seen throughout Paul's epistle's.

Her leadership is never mentioned unless it is with her assumed husband Aquila. Likewise, she took on more of a servant role than she did a leadership role. On top of that, you contradict yourself by saying that Paul used Priscilla for leadership yet later go on to say Paul did not use women in authority. So which is it?

You mentioned 1 Corninthians 14:34-35. I always wondered about this verse and then I did a little research on it and I was interested to find that Paul was talking about the church in Corinth specifically. They were having a serious problem with prostitution and the prostitutes would come in to the church and start trying to lead the men astray. Therefore Paul was trying to nip this problem in the bud. It wasn't a blanket statement. He was addressing the particular problem that church was having.

On the surface this always seems like the logical explanation. However it doesn't take long to see that it holds no weight. For one, we have no historical documents that state this. It is all based upon assumption. Secondly, it's impossible to say one part of a letter is for the Corinth church while another part isn't. Context and logic do not support this claim at all. For one, it would be easy to assert that the belief on sexual immorality is soley to the Cornithian church. Under the logic that you have brought forth, this would be a completely justifiable claim. Thus it's false to try and say that this is merely a cultural issue or Corinthian issue. We use these books to dictate how we run the church, thus we cannot leave one part out simply because it contradicts the ideals of today. That is letting todays culture and beliefs interpret the Bible, something we should never let happen.

What I find interesting in this verse is the word "I". Paul says that he doesn't allow women to teach over a man. This isn't a command, it is Paul telling us how he ran the church. Now, if he said, do not allow women..that would be an entirely different matter.

Going back to your contradiction, if Paul didn't use women in authority, how can you justifiably claim that he used Priscilla?

Moreover, this is a command from Paul. If we look to verse eleven we see that Paul is dictating an order. He carries on in what he means in verse twelve. Again, it's all about the context. If he was only mentioning his opinion, he would have done so like he did other times in his writings.

Well, I guess there are a lot of women who violated the Scriptures then

You're right, there are. A church will not be as blessed as they could be if they put a woman in their pulpit. Likewise, a church that puts a man in their pulpit that is not called of God will suffer the same fate. I've watched churches with men and women pastors grow, but they never reached their full spiritual potential. The average person at that church stayed about two years before growing tired of it. A church that goes against the Will of God will not grow spiritually.

God is not prescriptive in His work.

God also doesn't contradict His Word. Again, could someone please validate for me in scripture why God would contradict 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians.

I believe that regardless of title, responsibility, or office, the point at which a man is instructed by woman in the Word of God is the point at which there is a contradiction with the Word and the order which God has ordained for His people. It's not a matter of a man being superior to the woman. It is simply a matter of preserving the order which God has ordained

Very well put God-man. People often ignore the order that God has set up prior to these verses and how he explains why he says what he says.

This would seem that the ofice of deacon was for a man during this time...however what I find interesting is that Phoebe was a deaconess (possibly).

I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Romans 16:1-2

First off, 1 Timothy 2:12 isn't refering to deacons, it's refering to those in authority. During Paul's time a deacon was the same as a servant. The Elder's and Pastor were the ones that held authority, not the deacons. Thus, many women were deacons, yet we never once hear of a women holding authority by being an elder or a pastor.

Phoebe probably delivered the letter to Rome. Paul commended her as a sister in Christ and a servant (Greek diakonos). The feminine form of servant is not used in the Greek, to interpretations are possible. She could have been a deaconess or this could be a general reference to her service in the church.

Uh....the Greek word for "servant" is (transliterated) doulos, which is the same as slave. Likewise, the lexical form of doulos has the male article omega with a rough breathing mark over it, making the pronounciation "ha". Thus doulos is always in a masculine form. The word you bring up, diakonos can have the Greek article omega or epsilon, making it either masculine or feminine depending on how it's used. We do get our word "deacon" from it, however, it does not in anyway, shape, or form mean servant. It means a courier (not a messenger, that's aggelos), or someone who delivers a written letter. Either way, it does not show a position of authority or servantship.

I also want to give the example of Priscilla, along with her husband Aquilla teaching Apollos (a man).

And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: Acts 18:24-26

I think I answered the questions you have...if not let me know!

This doesn't mean she held authority over him. Notice how her husband is listed. It shows that there was a mentoring relationship going on. If Priscilla was the head of this mentoring relationship, it would have been innapropiate and left it open to an adulterous affair. It's no different than a young pastor gaining guidance under an older pastor and his wife. Right now I am poised to have an internship with one of my professors. He instructs me in many things, however his wife will also give me information that will be helpful in ministry. This does not mean that she holds authority over me but simply that God has given her insight.

Onto Koppen:

when you are CALLED by God ...MAN"S OPINION MEANS NOTHING!

First off, you say this and then draw your evidence out of one book that has a biased view. Again, if you're going to enter into a debate, make sure your actions don't contradict yourself.

Read Galations 3:28

Oh, that's a terrible application of Galatians 3:28. First off, to say that this applies to authority, we would then see Paul contradict himself in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy when refering to the authority within the nuclear family and the church family. Secondly, Paul is showing the Gentiles that they are no less than the Jews. Paul is attempting to convey to the Gentiles that no matter what our sex, race, or social rank is, all are qualified to be saved and filled by Christ. Third, The believers are on in Christ by His resurrection life and his diving nature to be the one new man, as mentioned in Ephesians 2:15. This one new man is absolutely in Christ. There is no room for our natural being, our natural disposition, and our natural character; in this one new man Christ is all and in all (Colossians 3:10-11). This oneness in Christ is acheived through baptism, which terminated all the divisive distinctions and ushers the believers into the divine organic union with the processed Trinune God, resulting in the believers' subjective assurance that they are one with another.

The Pharaoh, is a representation of a religious spirit' that puts women in bondage. The truth of God's Word concerning women has been grossly misrepresented over the years. We must study the Bible in it's FULL context, considering the culture and times, as well as the Greek and Hebrew translations.

First off, where do you draw this concept of Pharaoh being female bondage from?

Likewise, if we truly use the culture of the day to interpret the Bible and guide it's relevance for today, about 80% of the Bible would no longer apply.

Women have been pushed down even to this present hour. They have been held back, and looked down upon as less, when God never intended for them to be. Where in His Word does it say, "women are lesser"? Religion has put women in a box, when He intended for man and woman to be one, one in unity and one in purpose. "Fill up and complete my joy by living in harmony and being of the same mind AND ONE IN PURPOSE?" (Phil 2:2) Its been acceptable for the church to send women out to the frontlines as missionaries. At home they are Sunday school teachers or intercessors, religion has put limits on women! There is no limit to God?s Spirit.

Frist off, to your question of where does the Bible say women are lesser. Never does it say women are lesser. This is a femenistic philosophy that has interjected intself to equate roles and rank as the same thing. They are not. God have given men and women different roles within the church. If we are to assert that roles equate rank then a person who is a pastor is greater than a person who is not a pastor. Inevitably this belief destroys itself through contradictions.

Secondly, the verse you quoted does not apply at all to this debate. Paul is saying that we all have one purpose. What is that purpose? The purpose of reaching out to the world and leading others to Christ. However, each of us will do this through different roles. Some through music, some through personal relationships, and others through preaching. Phillipians 2:2 in no way negates the fact women are not suppose to be pastors.

Third, while acceptable to send women out as missionaries, most of these women have been doing servant work. It is not acceptable (biblically) for a women to establish a church in a foreign nation. However there is nothing wrong with them going as servants for Christ. Both a church planter and servant are serving the same purpose in the same mind but simply with a different role.

For this is the last hour, the time of harvest, the last preparation, and He is looking for those who will work in His vineyard. As He looks to and fro for workers for His vineyard He has found many of His women standing idle. Now He asks them, "Why do you stand here idle all day?" His women reply, "Because nobody has hired us." (Matt. 20:6 &7) God?s women have been idle for too long! They have been confined in the pews for years! God knows they have maintained a servant?s heart that has been clothed in humility. Now He desires to bring them forth in this hour, to raise them up, for they have been faithful with little now God is trusting them with more. Yes, faithful to the Body of Christ they have been.

Time out! Let's not interject philosophy and belief into the Bible. matthew 20:6-7 does not in any way show that God is speaking to women. Your message is inspirational but definately not theological or factual. No one is asserting that women cannot witness. Another femenistic philosophy that seeks to muddle the debate is equating witnessing/spreading God's Word with leadership. If the two are truly not seperate then a person who is not a leader (i.e. a pastor) cannot witness. What you are asserting in this is that because women can't be pastors they can't witness. If we reflect on this statement long enough, we can easily come to the conclusion that no one can witness. Thus, the philosophy fails.

It was the women who came with the anointing before and after the resurrection. An anointing that was considered a waste by man, but praised and considered of great value by Christ Himself. (Matt 26:7) Jesus even gave the women the first gospel message yet their claim of His resurrection was mocked by the Apostles. (Luke 24:22)

Again, what does this have to do with leadership?

He is causing the women to rise up with equal rank in the anointing and power of His Spirit to do His work. (Matt 20: 12) "Arise and shine for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon you?" (Isaiah 60:1) There is no line of gender here. In this hour those that have been pushed aside and considered lowly will be exalted. "?and those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness?" (1 Cor 12:23-25)

First off, Matthew 20:12 is out of context. You seem to believe this is refering to women when it's not. It's talking about how those who have been Christians for 2 years as opposed to 20 years have the same rank in Jesus' eyes. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE THE SAME ROLE. Is Jesus lesser than God? Is the Holy Spirit lesser than Jesus? Of course not! Yet, all three have different roles and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are under the authority of God, yet all three are equal and one. Thus, how can you justifiably say that just because women are not allowed to be authority they are automatically lesser? If this philosophy is true, than Jesus and the Holy Spirit are lesser than the Father.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are about the culture that Paul was addressing. I have understood the verses most quoted about this subject to show that Paul was merely trying to show that there should be order in worship and that kind of thing. I mean, to take the context of all of those verses literally women should sit back and never utter a word. I'm trying to gain some understanding and would like for you to expound more.

The problem is though we have no texts that teach us the culture of the day in that light. The belief that the women disrupted the services is merely a theory, thus dangerous to place our theology on it. We know in Paul's culture that women were actually allowed to be powerful. In fact, if the culture of the time dictated that women should not be powerful, then there would have been no point in Paul stating this, it simply would have been redundant of the cultural norm.

I would also like to add there are MANY well know bible scholars who believe Priscilla to be the one who wrote Hebrews but never signed her name because she was a woman. If this is true.......wouldn't that make her an authority in all our lives. A teacher and pastor to us all? Just thought I would throw that out there.

First off, many scholars do not, only a few do. Many sue to however the writing style is extremely similar to Paul. So much so that many scholars believe that the Book of Hebrews might have been one of Paul's earlier works before he began writing other epistles. This also matches up logically in that Paul's ministry first started to the Jews and then moved onto the Gentiles. Almost all of his epistles are written to Gentiles, yet Romans is the only one written to the Jews. Thus, many scholars believe it is Paul. The reason he would not have assigned his name to it is due to the fact that early on he was a hunted man by the Christians and Christians would avoid him. Early Hebrew Christians would have been fearful that they recieved a letter from the infamous Saul. Again, just theory, but there is nothing to indicate that Priscila wrote the book of Hebrews. Likewise, the refrence to Timothy and the tone of fellowship also point to Paul as the author. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Priscila wrote Hebrews, it's nothing more than a though made out of a vivid imagination. Hebrews, according to the evidence and lingquistic studies, leads us to believe Paul wrote it. However, there is evidence that Peter might have written it as well, but that is off topic so I'll stop.

ike I said earlier my husband's grandmother is a pastor, now, her husband does preach sometimes and he is co-pastor I would guess...Anyway...she is the pastor of that church, but her association her church under is led by a man...wouldn't that in a sense be her under the authority of a man? I would think so....just a thought....

I'm confused by what you're saying. Are you saying that your husbands grandmother preaches and all the authority in the church is from her husband or what?

That doesn't make His word fallable, it would just mean those who would doubt it just because a woman wrote it would be judgemental.

Then who wrote, what man wouldn't sign his name? Someone obviously didn't sign for a reason. And this isn't my conclusion it is suspect to bible scholars who have studied this topic.

First and foremost, name one scholar you know of that is a major proponent of this belief.

Secondly, that's sexist to state that all men would write their names (as if though it were arrogant). Paul did later so everyone would recognize that the letter was written out of authority. However, as I explained earlier, Paul would have had his reasons not to ascribe his name to Hebrews.

Okay, so I think I covered it.

[Guest koppen]

God-Man:

You said:

[apothanein kerdos]

*sigh*

Why are my post always ignored?

[Ovedya]

Kelli,

Do you then believe that the Bible is wrong in some respects, and that God is free to contradict His own word?

[Guest koppen]

Kelli,

Do you then believe that the Bible is wrong in some respects, and that God is free to contradict His own word?

God man..No i do not...I said MAN is wrong not the word of God..eEvery thing that I have psosted concerning women ministers hasbenn ignored..as well as scripture...The Lord calls whom he sees fit to call ..Not man!

[Ovedya]

I understood what you wrote. But I am asking you if you believe the Bible to be the absolute and inerrant word of God. That is, every word of the Bible.

[apothanein kerdos]

Kelli,

Do you then believe that the Bible is wrong in some respects, and that God is free to contradict His own word?

God man..No i do not...I said MAN is wrong not the word of God..eEvery thing that I have psosted concerning women ministers hasbenn ignored..as well as scripture...The Lord calls whom he sees fit to call ..Not man!

*bangs head on desk*

Okay, what the poop? I made a huge long post, you don't respond, and you say that it hasn't been responded to?