Women pastors

[methinkshe]

We have 4 female pastors and 4 male pastors. Our female pastors teach all of us. We have a School of Leaders and they all teach us. They are all as capable and worthy as each other. In fact, our lead pastor's wife is also his co-lead and she is also in authority along with her husband over the other pastors, male and female.

It is exactly as it was in the days of Paul, the New Testament churches. We are a church that is blessed by God, with eharts that seek after Him and His will in all things. We are a growing and prosperous Body, with salvations that are consolidated regularly.

I could have worked that out from your posts before you told me. There is a subtle difference between the responses of women taught by women and women taught by men, sufficient for me to be able to discern it on this board. Whether or not such differences have import in terms of God's order and God's plan is another matter.

Ruth

[Floatingaxe]

We have 4 female pastors and 4 male pastors. Our female pastors teach all of us. We have a School of Leaders and they all teach us. They are all as capable and worthy as each other. In fact, our lead pastor's wife is also his co-lead and she is also in authority along with her husband over the other pastors, male and female.

It is exactly as it was in the days of Paul, the New Testament churches. We are a church that is blessed by God, with eharts that seek after Him and His will in all things. We are a growing and prosperous Body, with salvations that are consolidated regularly.

I could have worked that out from your posts before you told me. There is a subtle difference between the responses of women taught by women and women taught by men, sufficient for me to be able to discern it on this board. Whether or not such differences have import in terms of God's order and God's plan is another matter.

Ruth

Can you tell I was taught by both men and women? Our men have been also. It is all according to God's order. There is neither male nor female in God's Kingdom. He looks upon the heart and He calls each one of us to obey HIM.

[methinkshe]

I currently attend a fellowship where men and women teach and pastor ( it's all that is available within reasonable travelling distance and even then it's 15 miles away.) Actually, women seem to do so more than the men. And that's one of the things I find disturbing. I look around and see receptive men and ejaculating women (spouting teaching) - and it doesn't work well. We have dancing where women of my age - 50 ++ a few years, put on their ballet shoes and attempt to float their abundant bodies before the congregation on tippy-toes with their scarves aloft and their skirts just about covering their wobbling flesh, which I find quite distracting. It's like when all the oldies get up and try and do a Mick Jagger dance at a wedding reception - faintly embarrassing! But that could just be me, I'm quite reserved. The men meanwhile sit quietly in their seats. The women pastors/teachers go for an emotional high, dancing and waving and holding hands, while the men embarrassedly feel a need to join in, and under the direction of a female leader, hug the person to their left or right, as directed. So last Sunday, me and the adjacent male kind of cringed and did as we were told - but we both felt uncomfortable. I would far sooner listen to a man authoritatively teaching God's Word and forget the emotionalism that women seem to find so essential to worship and the building of Christ's body on earth.

Ruth

[methinkshe]

I was watching Dr. D. James Kennedy yesterday. (07-22-2007) I have no idea of how he stands on women pastors, but something he said in reference to another subject fits this discussion. He said that the pentecostal church is sweeping the the world like wildfire. He said it is growing by leaps and bound while the Presbyterian church (his denomination) is drying up. He said that the Presbyterians sat back and did nothing. He said they were lukewarm and did not fulfil their calling. He said that God simply moved this calling to the Pentecostals because they were willing to do it. He said when we refuse to do the will of God, he moves on and gives someone else the task.

How might that apply to women? Men have not been doing what God instructed them to do, so women have had to fill the positions. Just a thought.

I think you are right - women are doing the job because men won't, but the problem is one then gets caught in an ever-descending cycle where the more women DO, the less men want to do, or are capable of doing.

Ruth

[exrockstar]

How might that apply to women? Men have not been doing what God instructed them to do, so women have had to fill the positions. Just a thought.

i may agree.

you have men not coming forth

and you have men supporting female pastors.

however, it is written for it to be this way.

When Christ rules with an iron rod do you think He'll rule like that because we arent loving one another?

This era is setting up the next era.

tell me where it says in scripture it says that when Christ comes that there

is a big party and He smiles down on the world?

No one is saying to act like we dont care but no one is saying to take matters into your own hands.

think about this...if this forum existed 2500 years ago then this TOPIC would stop at page 1 because you'd know

there no such thing as female rabbi's. 500 years ago it would stop at page 2 and all agreeing that men should be "leaders."

we are in 2007 and have passed 20 pages.

put aside the women topic for a second. We are in a point of the Church age's life that no one knows where to go and people are taking matters into their

own hands and are running with it. you have people running into every single direction.

200 years from now I WOULD BET MONEY that the topic would be "female pastors" and it will end at page 1 with all agreeing to "yes."

scripture doesnt say to turn the Church upside down.

this is what scripture says about the last generation of Christians:

7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

isnt it funny how 2000 years ago it was one point of view and now its another?

The Church is run by the bible (which is the Word of God).

So who is running the church now? The bible or the people that is "ever-learning but resist divine truth?"

[methinkshe]

How might that apply to women? Men have not been doing what God instructed them to do, so women have had to fill the positions. Just a thought.

i may agree.

you have men not coming forth

and you have men supporting female pastors.

however, it is written for it to be this way.

When Christ rules with an iron rod do you think He'll rule like that because we arent loving one another?

This era is setting up the next era.

tell me where it says in scripture it says that when Christ comes that there

is a big party and He smiles down on the world?

No one is saying to act like we dont care but no one is saying to take matters into your own hands.

think about this...if this forum existed 2500 years ago then this TOPIC would stop at page 1 because you'd know

there no such thing as female rabbi's. 500 years ago it would stop at page 2 and all agreeing that men should be "leaders."

we are in 2007 and have passed 20 pages.

put aside the women topic for a second. We are in a point of the Church age's life that no one knows where to go and people are taking matters into their

own hands and are running with it. you have people running into every single direction.

200 years from now I WOULD BET MONEY that the topic would be "female pastors" and it will end at page 1 with all agreeing to "yes."

scripture doesnt say to turn the Church upside down.

this is what scripture says about the last generation of Christians:

7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

isnt it funny how 2000 years ago it was one point of view and now its another?

The Church is run by the bible (which is the Word of God).

So who is running the church now? The bible or the people that is "ever-learning but resist divine truth?"

I think that whatever God has prophesied concerning the church does not let us off the hook. Even while the outcome may be known, we are not released from our mission to present the truth of God's Word every day, every year, every century until Jesus' return when ALL shall bow, and those things that now we "see through a glass darkly", shall be known.

Ruth

[Neopatriarch]

Thanks for answering to my second paragraph but I noticed that you didn't answer my first which I posted above. Before you can claim or interpret that Paul is reverting back to the plural of v.10 by using 'they' in v.15 BECAUSE 'she' (as you claim) refers to Eve as the prototypical woman you need to answer to what link Paul makes between Eve being created after Adam.

Wait. Why is it necessary for me to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation? The reason for Paul's use of the anarthrous noun γυνή is because he is setting himself up to argue from the prototypical man and woman.

It would be strange to have only one particular woman in the church with this special relationship to Eve, the prototypical woman. What makes this woman so special that Paul calls her out for this proscription against teaching men that doesn't apply to other women? Does she have some unique relationship with Eve that other women do not?

From http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2499, Terri Darby Moore says:

Most commentators and scholars see these two verbs in 1 Tim 2:15 as both referring generically to all women, with the conditional clause qualifying the discussion to refer to Christian women in particular. The singular swqhvsetai applies collectively to the whole sex while referring especially to the representative woman, Eve, mentioned in the previous verse. The shift to the plural in the conditional clause makes it clear that the entire sentence refers, not merely to one woman, but to the women addressed in the entire passage. Thus the main clause of the sentence cannot be separated from the conditional clause since it must be interpreted in light of the qualifications presented by the ejavn clause. The shift from Eve to the women at Ephesus is subtle, with the proper name, Eve, used in verse 13, the generic noun (hJ gunhv) used in verse 14, the singular verb in verse 15a, and the plural verb in verse 15b. The entire paragraph (verses 9-15) concerning women often shifts from the plural to the generic singular, thus explaining the awkwardness of the change in number here. The plural use of gunhv in verses 9-10 refers to the larger sphere of women, the singular uses in verses 11-12 and in verse 14 referring to Eve have a generic or representative force, and verse 15 expands from the representative back to the larger sphere of Christian women with which the passage began. This shift in number is a characteristic of paraenetic style and occurs throughout the passage, thus there is no reason to interpret it as connoting a change of subject.

Given the problems with the alternative (taking γυνή to refer to some particular woman), I'm not sure why these arguments for understanding γυνή as a generic noun aren't sufficient for you.

-Neopatriarch

[Ovedya]

Thanks for answering to my second paragraph but I noticed that you didn't answer my first which I posted above. Before you can claim or interpret that Paul is reverting back to the plural of v.10 by using 'they' in v.15 BECAUSE 'she' (as you claim) refers to Eve as the prototypical woman you need to answer to what link Paul makes between Eve being created after Adam.

Wait. Why is it necessary for me to explain Paul's reference to the order of creation? The reason for Paul's use of the anarthrous noun γυνή is because he is setting himself up to argue from the prototypical man and woman.

It would be strange to have only one particular woman in the church with this special relationship to Eve, the prototypical woman. What makes this woman so special that Paul calls her out for this proscription against teaching men that doesn't apply to other women? Does she have some unique relationship with Eve that other women do not?

From http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2499, Terri Darby Moore says:

Most commentators and scholars see these two verbs in 1 Tim 2:15 as both referring generically to all women, with the conditional clause qualifying the discussion to refer to Christian women in particular. The singular swqhvsetai applies collectively to the whole sex while referring especially to the representative woman, Eve, mentioned in the previous verse. The shift to the plural in the conditional clause makes it clear that the entire sentence refers, not merely to one woman, but to the women addressed in the entire passage. Thus the main clause of the sentence cannot be separated from the conditional clause since it must be interpreted in light of the qualifications presented by the ejavn clause. The shift from Eve to the women at Ephesus is subtle, with the proper name, Eve, used in verse 13, the generic noun (hJ gunhv) used in verse 14, the singular verb in verse 15a, and the plural verb in verse 15b. The entire paragraph (verses 9-15) concerning women often shifts from the plural to the generic singular, thus explaining the awkwardness of the change in number here. The plural use of gunhv in verses 9-10 refers to the larger sphere of women, the singular uses in verses 11-12 and in verse 14 referring to Eve have a generic or representative force, and verse 15 expands from the representative back to the larger sphere of Christian women with which the passage began. This shift in number is a characteristic of paraenetic style and occurs throughout the passage, thus there is no reason to interpret it as connoting a change of subject.

Given the problems with the alternative (taking γυνή to refer to some particular woman), I'm not sure why these arguments for understanding γυνή as a generic noun aren't sufficient for you.

-Neopatriarch

Amen!

[Ovedya]

Incidentally, I think the argument that, "Well men aren't doing the job so women have to step in and take over" is specious at best. Who says that men aren't doing the job? In my opinion, mostly women who want the job!

[Smalcald]

I am going to be perfectly honest. I do not know the answer to women pastors. Paul prohibits women from serving as pastors or deacons by the qualifications he gives for the office. However, he later says "there is neither male or female, Jew or Greek." I honestly think that it is a gray area. The more I study it, the more I become torn between the passages. I would like to point out that most of the Churches who enforce "no women pastors" do not enforce "women must remain silent in church." Why enforce one and not the other? The two go hand in hand. If you prohibit women from being pastors, why allow them to speak in church? I see a double standard in the application of Paul's instruction. You can not pick and choose. Either enforce all of Paul's instruction, or enforce none of it. You can not have it both ways.

Paul is not talking about offices within the church when he says there is neither male or female, Jew or Greek in that passage. He is saying salvation is now open for all men and women and that the cross was for all regardless of background, gender or race. Passages discussing qualifications for offices are clear and discussed elsewhere.

sw

That is your opinion St. Worm. Many would contend that if there is neither male nor female in the body, then there is neither male nor female in the offices. Are women silent in your church? If not, then why not let them pastor? Scripturally, what is the difference?

Because scripturally as St. Worm has correctly pointed out, the passages discussing qualifications for offices are clear and discussed elsewhere. It is not Worm's opinion any more than it is my opinion. Now we can say that the bible was a product of its time and due to that fact we should moderate what it says for today's society. Fair enough, I would not be interested in that, but I understand the argument. The argument you cannot make logically is that scripture allows women in leadership, it clearly does not but as I said

It certainly does say that women are totally equal to men, and it says that women can do many great things within the Church if they so desire and obviously have done so both in scripture and through today, that is not the point.

Part of it is where we are coming from. I think Worm and I have both seen the horrible impacts of moderating scripture to meet modern ideas.

Personally I would have no personal problems having a female minister, I work for a women and have great respect for her so competence and ability are not the issues at least for me.