Jump to content
  • 0
Annette

Should Women Be In Leadership Positions in Church?

Question

Posted (edited)

I love a number of ministries led by women and know of some amazing women speakers. A friend of mine told me that it is not right for women to have that roll, tries and if they do, they should not be surprised when a man does not respond as the leader may expect. Should it matter whether a man or tries to get a similar message across?

P.S. Thank you guys for your thoughts and input. I am not sure how to answer each of you, but have been reading through what you wrote. Blessings.

Edited by Annette
Wanted to add a note to those who have answered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

161 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Since the OP has decided her question was answered back on 4/22, and the thread has deteriorated into nothing more than back and forth bickering, I am closing the thread.  I PMed the OP about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
6 hours ago, Spock said:

Come on Abby- Joy, we both know Phoebe wasn't using her brain or spiritual gifts and talents in that church. She was making brownies and cleaning up after the mess the men had made when  they finished lunch.

  Don't you see?????? She was called the SERVANT of God!  Servant.......think slave!  That girl worked her butt off, just like most women are expected to do today.   Nothing has changed that much. Oh, and leave all that important spiritual stuff to the men.  Father knows best, right? 

🤦🏻‍♂️😜😸

a playful spock

Someone slap me (just having fun Moderators, we all need a good laugh, right?) 

Yes servant , Paul called himself a bond slave of Christ Jesus.  Phoebe was called a ministrant or deaconess , servant of the Church.  Romans 1:1 "Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
54 minutes ago, Wolf Bridges said:

These pastoral epistles(aka/letters), are the only thing being used to insist God says women cannot assume a leadership role.

He did not say they cannot assume a leadership role over men.... He simply told them not to, and showed what happens when they do,  as confirmed all through church history, especially the last 75 years or so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
1 hour ago, Wolf Bridges said:

What probably is the cause of something not seeming fair to you is that you're ignoring what has been talked about in the other thread that is now closed. That the Pauline Pastoral Epistles were Paul's letters to his churches. Not revelations delivered from God. But Paul's letters governing the running of the churches he founded in Corinth, Thessolonia, and elsewhere. 

These pastoral epistles(aka/letters), are the only thing being used to insist God says women cannot assume a leadership role. This is not the case because those pastoral letters are not God's revelation. They are Paul's letters to the churches in his time. And some scholars even question the writing style of the Epistles in 2Timothy as being accorded authorship to Paul.
It is not speaking for God to say God calls women to preach. It is in evidence in the world among the faithful to God and Jesus Christ that there are women pastors in the world. And as such that is evidence of a calling to be a pastor of the word of God itself. 

What is speaking for God is launching from the pastoral letters of Paul to his churches and using that as God's dictate to the world's people to say women cannot assume leadership roles in the church.

Quote

If that were true there wouldn't be a woman on earth who felt called to ministry. 

And to specifically address the excerpt of my remark that you quoted, I meant what I said. Someone saying they know what God thinks of this thread is speaking for God. And that is not within the purview of any member or any person here. If God were believed to be watching threads in forums a lot of believers in God would likely write different posts than what is currently able to be found on the net. 

It is merely your opinion Wolf to dismiss Paul's teaching as only applying to that one church - what about Titus 1:6? .   And Yes, I've read  ALL the posts.   I used to belong to a Church that agreed with you & was raised to believe that was right and then the Lord called me out of that Church and got saved and read the Bible & realized the cherry -picking was just more signs of human rebellion against God and His Word.

Just because someone WANTS to do something does not make that desire from God. Have you read the Bible? LoL It is filled with tales of people following after their own desires instead of the commands of God.

No one is saying the women can't teach there are Plenty of opportunities for women to teach, to serve, or to be in leadership roles but JUST not to be Pastoring a Church or exercising authority over men. As scripture explains God laid out His pattern in Genesis & Paul referenced that , and the fact that Eve was deceived and in transgression. FYI,  I've been to many spiritual conferences during the 90's  and I can tell you , at least 90 % were women and they all were deceived and eagerly brought back the teachings to their family & husband.  

This topic gets discussed  every 6mths or so btw. Many get tired of responding to this repetitive heated debate . My post was just to point out that you were scolding other people for what you continue to do yourself. :noidea:

Titus 1:6 " 6An elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who are believers and are not open to accusation of indiscretion or insubordination. 7As God’s steward, an overseer must be above reproach—not self-absorbed, not quick tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not greedy for money.…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
41 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

He did not say they cannot assume a leadership role over men.... He simply told them not to, and showed what happens when they do,  as confirmed all through church history, especially the last 75 years or so...

Read Enoobs post

 

46 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

1 Corinthians 11:8 (KJV)

[8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

[9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1 Timothy 2:10 (KJV)

[10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

the fact that God takes us to the created instance removes all cultural consideration and is in fact a created order that cannot be change by culture...

Amen Enoob!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
1 hour ago, Wolf Bridges said:

Titus 1:6 doesn't support the contention women cannot pastor. But it does provide an admonishment for the ill tempered in threads like this. 

What is being argued here is that God discriminates by gender. Of course that's a sin. There is nothing in scripture where God says women cannot pastor. Just because someone insists the letters Paul wrote to the churches mean the churches today cannot act outside of those parameters doesn't mean it is true. Paul was a Pharisee. Legalism was an issue. Culture was an issue in those times.  Jesus had women in his company when he walked with his apostles. And those women learned right beside those apostles. Something women in that era would not have done. Being allowed to be equal in education to the men being educated. 

Jesus broke the societal norms by example. Showing that we are all one in him even when he walked and delivered his ministry. A woman was the one that discovered he had risen. And it was unto her he entrusted his message to go and beckon the other apostles to come see. 
That today's women especially think to abrogate Jesus' example because they wish to call Paul's letter as cause is unfortunate. It isn't what Christ did. Invoking Paul's letters as the reason for gender discrimination while ignoring God's scriptures that tell us he is no respecter of persons. Which means he isn't one to prefer males over females, just doesn't comport with following the word of God. As is claimed by those who insist God discriminates against women because of Paul's pastoral letters. 

That Jesus set the example in his day of having women with him in his company of disciples, women who were also disciples, and to then invoke Paul's letters as reason to ignore all Jesus did in uniting his followers above the societal norms that segregated by gender, isn't righteous. It is something else. But it is not what Jesus exampled. 

See, this is the word of God we're talking about. And the religion that carries Jesus' teachings forward. This isn't Paulianity.This is Christianity. And Jesus example and God's word is what carries the day. 

God isn't a bigot. Paul's letters to his churches should be easy to understand. TO the church in Corinth. TO the church in Thessalonia.  What is hoped to be accomplished by saying in effect Paul's letters TO his churches supersede God's inspired word to the world that said well before that, God is no respecter of persons. Which necessarily means, he does not prefer males over females in service to his will. 

Those who insist that is not true are well able to have faith in the opposite of that. God's word stands eternal to rebut the falsehood. As does every woman pastor on the face of the earth who believes herself called to his service. The opinion that insists that isn't of God is the hubris that insists mischaracterizing letters of one man TO churches he founded overcomes by mortal opinion that God, contrary to his word, is a respecter of persons being he discriminates to say men are more apt for his service. God's will for the whole of his people is to communicate every woman pastor on earth is wrong for being there. Or, worse in the case of the most adamant of gender bias advocates invoking the name of God in the process, because this is a Godly faith not a Pauline faith, God erred when he appointed women to the pulpit. 

Because those mortals opposed to women in the pulpit know he really didn't mean it. And why? Because reading Paul's letters talking about wives tells them so. 

And all those prophetesses in scripture, old and new testaments, well those weren't called of God either. Or, worse? The gender bias argument that insists God called women to prophecy his will, but not to deliver the good news of the prophecy come true in his son Jesus Christ. 

 

Again , here is a prime example of "God" according to Wolf again. So sad if someone disagrees or questions your opinions they are labeled "ill tempered". Your worldly context & rants are Not equal to the Word of God which must be our Only and Ultimate Authority. It is  essentially accusing the Creator of gender discrimination - is this because according to Genesis God did not create Eve first-so Is that discrimination? I am defending the Scripture and I'm getting back a portrait of Jesus according to oprah winfrey or Roma Downey- i.e. the worldly view.

There are tons of people -male and females preaching exactly your way way in pulpits and they are deceiving themselves and leading people away from the Word of God & into their contemporary view. All human words amount to nothing- when it contradicts the Scripture and shows no careful exegesis of Scripture has been applied. A prophet or prophetess is not the same as Pastor of a church.

 I have found there is no way to convince a person when they value their own thoughts & words over God's Scripture. All scripture is God-breathed--2Tim 3:16  "16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work.…" 

 The only way to know God is through and using the scripture.  The problem is the" god" of your imagining you end up creating will always be conveniently in agreement with your own human reasoning.  The opposite is what we are called to do -We have to be submitted to the scripture as our only ultimate Authority.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
On 5/19/2017 at 11:33 AM, Abby-Joy said:

You just cannot exclude the examples in scripture where women do have God-given leadership roles, to suit your views.... falling back on only certain verses to interpret what you want them to say.  The scripture must be in agreement with scripture.... this is just pointless.  

How many female disciples did Jesus send out 2 by 2 to prepare / preach/ heal/ in the towns He was going to ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -1
4 minutes ago, Wolf Bridges said:

Where does God say so? 

Already covered that, but it is not accepted.

4 minutes ago, Wolf Bridges said:

And please reconcile how Paul said there is no male or female we are all one in Christ Jesus, when you then claim we are segregated by gender which then divides us from being one du

Already covered that but it is not accepted within the context of what it says.

And anyhow I guess I will leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -2
5 minutes ago, Abby-Joy said:
Rom 16:1
"I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:"

 

1249. diakonos
Strong's Concordance
diakonos: a servant, minister
Original Word: διάκονος, οῦ, ὁ, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: diakonos
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ak'-on-os)
Short Definition: a waiter, servant, administrator
Definition: a waiter, servant; then of any one who performs any service, an administrator.
HELPS Word-studies

1249 diákonos (from 1223 /diá, "thoroughly" and konis, "dust") – properly, "thoroughly raise up dust by moving in a hurry, and so to minister" (WP, 1, 162); ministry (sacred service).

1249 /diákonos ("ministry") in the NT usually refers to the Lord inspiring His servants to carry out His plan for His people – i.e. as His "minister" (like a deacon serving Him in a local church).

[A. T. Robertson, "1249 (diákonos) properly means 'to kick up dust,' as one running an errand." 1249 (diákonos) is the root of the English terms, "diaconate, deacon."

This root (diakon-) is "probably connected with the verb diōkō, 'to hasten after, pursue' (perhaps originally said of a runner)" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 147).]

Come on Abby- Joy, we both know Phoebe wasn't using her brain or spiritual gifts and talents in that church. She was making brownies and cleaning up after the mess the men had made when  they finished lunch.

  Don't you see?????? She was called the SERVANT of God!  Servant.......think slave!  That girl worked her butt off, just like most women are expected to do today.   Nothing has changed that much. Oh, and leave all that important spiritual stuff to the men.  Father knows best, right? 

🤦🏻‍♂️😜😸

a playful spock

Someone slap me (just having fun Moderators, we all need a good laugh, right?) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -2
1 hour ago, Abby-Joy said:

slap-1.gif............................ housewife-smiley.gif

Is it appropriate to use the secular imagery of keeping women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen to mook those who are merely backing up their understanding of Gods will.?

This place is loosing it's luster as far as a place for serious contemplation of God's design and turning into a theater for thumbing of the nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×