The arguement that women are not called to be pastors!

[Deborah13]

The Biblical teaching on women pastors seems pretty clear, but is many decades out of date with the trend of society. Women are not being put in leadership roles across the spectrum of government and private industry merely because the law requires it, but because they are capable leaders and bring a valuable perspective. If I were a Biblical hard-liner, I suppose I'd feel compelled to defend the Biblical teaching on women pastors, bit I feel certain that in 100 years (or some reasonable period of time) homosexuality will be just about as big a deal within the Christian community as divorce now is and 50% or more of Southern Baptist pastors will be women. This is the inevitable trend. Christians keep drawing lines in the sand and then eventually acquiescing as those lines are erased. Put a 16th Century Puritan in the middle of today's "strictest" evangelical community, and Ye Puritan would be completely aghast at the decadence.

I'd actually find it kind of appealing to live in a modern day Qumran, where a little group of believers fanatically tried to live by the strictest Biblical principles. I'd probably hate it after six weeks, but I'd be willing to give it a shot. This would be preferable to me to being part of a supposedly Christian community where we draw increasingly silly lines in the sand and then inevitably acquiesce as they are erased.

Maybe, just maybe, the church has redefined the authority that a pastor has. I don't see where a pastor has anymore authority or honor given them than a teacher. I don't see where the pastor has more authority than any other elder in the church. The protestant church of the Reformation pretty much made pastors the pope of their church. I don't see that in scripture.
We also seem to ignore the word translated in the KJV as 'usurp'. Women must not 'usurp' the authority of men.
That means to take it 'violently'. In other words overstep their authority and take it rather than accepting what is given to them.
The church is not the same thing has a marriage between a husband and wife. Christ/husband/wife.
The church is Christ/Body of Christ. Christ is the husband, the body is His wife.
The very idea that woman should never teach men is proven to be false by the scriptures themselves. Priscilla taught the Jewish Apollos. Acts 18:26
Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary - 1798-1838 quote:
"They took him unto them - This eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, who was even a public teacher, was not ashamed to be indebted to the instructions of a Christian woman, in matters that not only concerned his own salvation, but also the work of the ministry, in which he was engaged. It is disgraceful to a man to be ignorant, when he may acquire wisdom; ..."
It appears that the description of an elder, bishop, deacon is all the same. And yet Paul speaks of Phebe, as a deacon/ministrant.
Rom 16:1 And I commend you to Phebe our sister--being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea--
1Ti 3:12 Ministrants--let them be of one wife husbands; the children leading well, and their own houses,
How could Phebe be the husband of one wife????

When Eve listened to satan rather than Adam she 'usurped' his authority. She didn't ask for his approval, she just took it, in a violent act that had terrible consequences.

 

[reba]

Another good post Deborah13

 

[JohnD]

Thought I had posted to this topic here. Must be on another message board / forum. That and my memory is funneled through a 54 year old brain... Oy gevaldt!

I was once a vehement advocate of the women should not teach or usurp authority over males over the age of accountability (barmitzvot).

I mean I dogged men and women who believed otherwise and especially women preachers. I argued 1 Timothy 2:12-15 into every possible option / argument / objection. The Prophetess Deborah, I submitted, was proof of this in that her prophecy and leading the war effort shamed the men who did not step up for either. The Priscilla and Aquila teaching of Apollos I submitted was not distinguishable as to who did what (I suggested we do not know for certain if Aquila did all the teaching while Priscilla ministered to their needs as hostess, a ministry of deacons).

To counter the Junia being outstanding among the apostles did not suggest she was an apostle but that the apostles simply thought highly of her.

The arguments went on and on in Hebrew and Greek until I wore down the opposition.

Then one day the Spirit said to me "So it would be better that the Gospel not be taught than that a woman should teach or usurp authority over an adult male?"

He got me! I was undone. "That's a good point, LORD," I responded.

Then all the times God used women in the Bible came to mind and heart when men were too afraid, too inept, or too worldly to step up to the ministry... to their shame.

Today we live in the time and covenant of the priesthood of the believer (every single one of us). And rather than having an over abundance of preachers we have a severe lack of them. And women who step up should be supported and lauded. IF and I mean ONLY IF her doing so is not to further some feminist agenda or to oppose God's natural order of things and sloughing off 1 Timothy 2:13-14 because it is a fact and a consequence no amount of liberation or liberal thinking can undo. Our sins have a high price. The highest price when you consider Calvary.

 

[Runner]

Maybe, just maybe, the church has redefined the authority that a pastor has.

I'm not sure what in my post your post is responding to. I come out of (and indeed "out of," since it is now in my rearview mirror) a Southern Baptist background, where the position on women pastors is as follows (quoting an SBC text):

Even a cursory reading of the pertinent [Biblical] texts reveals three important observations: (1) there were no known women pastors in New Testament times; (2) none of the instructions regarding church order include instructions for women pastors; and (3) some texts on church order explicitly forbid women to occupy that role. Paul, in 1 Tim. 2:12, states, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (NIV) . This verse is introduced by a statement that women should learn "in silence," and it is followed by the statement that "she must be silent." The word silence means being possessed by a calmness of spirit and peaceful disposition. It is set as the opposite to "teaching" and "having authority over a man." Paul does not expect that women will not or can not learn or teach (compare with Titus 2:3-5 and 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14,15). He states that they cannot teach or have authority over men. Thus, they cannot have a pastoral position, or perform the pastoral function, for that puts them in authority over men.​

If I were a hard-liner, I would find little wiggle room in 1 Tim. 2:12 (and 1 Tim. 3:2).
There is no question (in my mind, anyway) that the New Testament, consistent with the Jewish culture of the time, assumed a patriarchal society. This is surely why Jesus appointed twelve male apostles; a female in this role would have simply been unthinkable. It would not have been a matter of "she's not qualified" - it would simply have been unthinkable, to the society at large if not to Jesus. Really, the prominence of women in the New Testament is quite remarkable and reflects a profound shift.
I do happen to believe that militant feminism and all that has flowed from it has been one of the true disasters of our age. Not that women did not have entirely legitimate beefs, which they absolutely did and still do, but I believe these could have been addressed within the Biblical framework without turning society upside-down and pretty well destroying marriage and the family structure in the process. To a large degree, men and women have not become "equals" so much as they have become "enemies."
I don't disagree with your point that the churches may have adopted a hierarchical structure that Jesus never pictured and that is not really Biblically required. If this is true of Protestant churches, it is equally true (in spades) of the Catholic and Orthodox hierarchies. If I were starting a church, I might well adopt a flat, everyone-is-equal model in which there was no hierarchy and no "authority" figure at all.
My point on this thread really has little to do with the role of women in the church, an issue which has never been more than a blip on my personal radar screen. My points are (1) the obvious inconsistencies in the positions of many Christians who profess to be following the Bible, and (2) the sad way that the Christian community inevitably bends to the will of society, so that what the Bible supposedly demands now is quite different from what it supposedly demanded 300 years ago and will supposedly demand 300 years from now.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Maybe, just maybe, the church has redefined the authority that a pastor has. I don't see where a pastor has anymore authority or honor given them than a teacher.

You must agree this is speaking of an elder being much more than just a teacher:

1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another..." (1 Peter 5:1-5 NASB)

I don't see where the pastor has more authority than any other elder in the church.

I'm confident the pattern for a hierarchy of capable leadership given to Israel (by Jethro ) to lead and judge Israel was intended for the church as well:

"...you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens." (Exodus 18:21 NASB)

Why do I say that? Surely you can see Paul's inspiration for the qualifications of an elder in that very same verse. I can't think of any reason why the hierarchy of leadership itself in the verse should not also be the inspiration for how the church leadership is to be constructed.

We also seem to ignore the word translated in the KJV as 'usurp'. Women must not 'usurp' the authority of men.
That means to take it 'violently'. In other words overstep their authority and take it rather than accepting what is given to them.

I see 'usurp' meaning to not take what is not yours for the taking, not to take something in an improper way. The point being, a woman should not have authority over a man...period. Vine's seems to defend this understanding of the word 'usurp'.

The church is not the same thing has a marriage between a husband and wife. Christ/husband/wife.
The church is Christ/Body of Christ. Christ is the husband, the body is His wife.

Sounds good, but the very place in the Bible where Paul lays out the God ordained order of headship (God/Christ/man/woman) it is in the context of the church and how each, man and woman, is supposed to act because they are a man or a woman in an order of headship. Because woman is after man in the order of headship she is to, in the example of cultural head coverings, cover her head, while the man is not to. Paul is definitely relating the order of headship for man and woman to the church, not just the marriage.

The very idea that woman should never teach men is proven to be false by the scriptures themselves. Priscilla taught the Jewish Apollos. Acts 18:26

This is what I was getting at when we don't understand this subject well because we don't make a proper distinction between the gifts. Teaching in the context of leadership is what women are not allowed to do. Certainly women can preach and teach. Last Sunday I posted a YouTube video of Melissa Scott doing a wonderful teaching we can all learn from, men and women alike. Her church are the ones who have to sort out her role as an authority figure in the church. But teaching in and of itself hardly equates to usurping the order of headship laid down by Paul.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Maybe, just maybe, the church has redefined the authority that a pastor has.

This is what I was getting at when I said the office of pastor seems to be more the office of 'ideas person' at this time in church history. Anybody, make or female, can be an ideas person. Leadership is something else altogether.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Really, the prominence of women in the New Testament is quite remarkable and reflects a profound shift.

Yes! To think that Jesus made sure the story of the woman who anointed him for burial would be told wherever the gospel is preached is truly an honor above honors.

13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done , be told for a memorial of her. (Matthew 26:13 KJV)

As I like to say, some people, as their appointed service to God, tell others the good they should do. Others actually do it. This woman is a beautiful example of that. She taught more about life in Christ by her example than the most eloquent sermon by even the most manly of men.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm not sure what in my post your post is responding to.

I bounced off your post because you talked about the outside influence of the secular world.
We shouldn't be influenced by that world but by the scriptures and any other 1st and 2nd century evidence that we may have available to us today. I was hoping you could should light on the scriptures I posted and what they could mean to our understanding of them.

It appears that the description of an elder, bishop, deacon is all the same. And yet Paul speaks of Phebe, as a deacon/ministrant.
Rom 16:1 And I commend you to Phebe our sister--being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea--
1Ti 3:12 Ministrants--let them be of one wife husbands; the children leading well, and their own houses,
How could Phebe be the husband of one wife????

Jethro Bodine , can you answer my question? How could Phebe, be the husband of one wife?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro Bodine , can you answer my question? How could Phebe, be the husband of one wife?

Sure. Without looking I'm confident that the word 'ministrat...whatever is not strictly defined as you are suggesting but can be used to describe ministry in general. Perhaps what is 'all the same' in the use of the word is ministry itself, not the specific ministry of pastor.

 

[Runner]

Jethro , can you answer my question? How could Phebe, be the husband of one wife?

I won't presume to answer for Jethro, but there is certainly plenty of discussion on the Internet about the interplay between these verses. This from Bible.org seems to me like a balanced discussion: https://bible.org/article/may-women-be-deacons-prelude-dialogue I think the role of women in the church has to be viewed in the larger context of the patriarchal Jewish culture out of which Christianity arose and the New Testament writings as a whole. I mean no offense because this is by no means a hot button issue for me, but it does seem to me that relying on the description of Phoebe in Romans 16:1 and relating this to 1 Tim. 3:12 is trying to get an awful lot of mileage out of pretty thin evidence, especially in light of the Jewish culture and the other New Testament writings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...it does seem to me that relying on the description of Phoebe in Romans 16:1 and relating this to 1 Tim. 3:12 is trying to get an awful lot of mileage out of pretty thin evidence, especially in light of the Jewish culture and the other New Testament writings.

That's exactly what I was thinking.
(You must be a pretty smart fellow )

 

[Deborah13]

but it does seem to me that relying on the description of Phoebe in Romans 16:1 and relating this to 1 Tim. 3:12 is trying to get an awful lot of mileage out of pretty thin evidence

Not trying to get mileage just asking a question that there is a simple answer to, that does not gain anything. But it does show that there were deacons and deaconess' in the first century church.

viewed in the larger context of the patriarchal Jewish culture

Christianity did not arise out of the second temple culture which was so corrupt that Jesus was continually setting them straight.
Would you post something you see in the OT scriptures which support your view of a purely patriarchal society.

That's exactly what I was thinking.
(You must be a pretty smart fellow )

If you want to show how smart you are, just answer the question.

 

[Deborah13]

I won't presume to answer for Jethro, but there is certainly plenty of discussion on the Internet about the interplay between these verses. This from Bible.org seems to me like a balanced discussion: https://bible.org/article/may-women-be-deacons-prelude-dialogue I think the role of women in the church has to be viewed in the larger context of the patriarchal Jewish culture out of which Christianity arose and the New Testament writings as a whole. I mean no offense because this is by no means a hot button issue for me, but it does seem to me that relying on the description of Phoebe in Romans 16:1 and relating this to 1 Tim. 3:12 is trying to get an awful lot of mileage out of pretty thin evidence, especially in light of the Jewish culture and the other New Testament writings.

http://christianthinktank.com/

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If you want to show how smart you are, just answer the question.

Deborah, I'm hurt. I did answer your question. Perhaps you simply missed it(?)

Your defining 'ministrant' too narrowly. We see from it's usage that it is not defined by how Paul is using it in regard to appointing men to be 'ministers' (church deacons) at Ephesus (1 Timothy 3:8, 12 NASB), no more than the way John uses it in regard to the household 'ministers' (servants) at the wedding in Cana specifically defines it (John 2:5 NASB).

And besides, the word is not used in regard to pastors as far as I can see(?)

 

[Deborah13]

I did answer your question

No the simple answer is that when the word is used for Phebe it is in the feminine form of the word.
In Timothy it is the masculine form of the word.
I do agree that the word is used for servants in the ministry of Christ, in many different capacities.

And besides, the word is not used in regard to pastors as far as I can see(?)

1Th 3:2 and did send Timotheus--our brother, and a ministrant of God, and our fellow-workman in the good news of the Christ--to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith,

Php 4:2 Euodia I exhort, and Syntyche I exhort, to be of the same mind in the Lord;
Php 4:3 and I ask also thee, genuine yoke-fellow, be assisting those women who in the good news did strive along with me, with Clement also, and the others, my fellow-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

I'm not saying that woman should be pastors but I believe that the actual position of women in the church has been diminished since the 1st and 2nd century church, even to the beyond that.
There has been archeological proof found that women were presbyters, bishops, in the 1st century church of at least one tombstone naming a woman presbyter.
There are many memorials spread through the middle east naming women as presbyters and deaconess. This book lists about 62 of them I believe. Even up into 500-600 AD.
Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History
edited by Kevin Madigan, Carolyn Osiek

Then there is the clear reading of ...
1Ti 3:8 Ministrants--in like manner grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not given to filthy lucre,
1Ti 3:9 having the secret of the faith in a pure conscience,
1Ti 3:10 and let these also first be proved, then let them minister, being unblameable.
1Ti 3:11 Women--in like manner grave, not false accusers, vigilant, faithful in all things.
1Ti 3:12 Ministrants--let them be of one wife husbands; the children leading well, and their own houses,
1Ti 3:13 for those who did minister well a good step to themselves do acquire, and much boldness in faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Adam Clarke's Commentary
"Even so must their wives be grave - I believe the apostle does not mean here the wives either of the bishops or deacons in particular, but the Christian women in general. The original is simply: Γυναικας ὡσαυτως σεμνας· Let the women likewise be grave. Whatever is spoken here becomes women in general; but if the apostle had those termed deaconesses in his eye, which is quite possible, the words are peculiarly suitable to them. That there was such an order in the apostolic and primitive Church, and that they were appointed to their office by the imposition of hands, has already been noticed on Rom_16:1 (note). Possibly, therefore, the apostle may have had this order of deaconesses in view, to whom it was as necessary to give counsels and cautions as to the deacons themselves; "

 

[Runner]

You're defining 'ministrant' too narrowly.

This.

http://christianthinktank.com/

I can only admire - truly admire - Brother Think Tank's sincerity, enthusiasm and dedication, but I was a bit disappointed to discover that the "Christian Think Tank" is a single IT executive. I did read his section on "Women's Roles in the Early Church," which I thought was well done. Some of his conclusions would, I believe, be pretty far outside the mainstream - e.g., "women were accorded apostolic status." As a lawyer, I deal all the time with "creative" opposing arguments that rely on obscure "authorities" or a single 1932 case from Iowa when there are 485 more recent cases from the other 49 states (and perhaps even Iowa!) to the contrary. This isn't to say that someone like Brother Think Tank can never be right, but this is still what I would call thin evidence. I really don't feel as though I have a dog in the fight as to whether Phoebe was a full-tilt deaconess; I only note that it would be very surprising in light of the patriarchal nature of Jewish society, the general thrust of the New Testament, and Paul's statement that he does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. FYI, I only linked the passage from Bible.org because it was one of the most balanced discussions that appeared on the first page of Google results, but it does seem to me to reflect more widespread, mainstream scholarship. I know the temptation, both as a lawyer and a Christian, to find something, anything to support the way I would like for the law or Christian doctrine to be, even if it is just that one 1932 case from Iowa; but I also know that, 99.7% of the time, that 1932 case is not going to convince the judge.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Okay, so this may be random.

I feel it is the absolute nature of things that women are behind the scene. Just like the male mallard duck is beautiful and colorful and the female is camouflage.

The male is the one the hunters will see first and shoot. Maybe a little gruesome, but that is why I see the reason for women not out front. That doesn't mean we don't have major input into the body of Christ, cause we definitely do.

 

[Runner]

Would you post something you see in the OT scriptures which support your view of a purely patriarchal society.

I decline to become involved in Bible-verse battles, even when I am convinced "my verses" are more persuasive than "your verses." They inevitably go nowhere and devolve into shouting matches and hurt feelings. As a refugee from the "other" Christian Forums, I am never going down that path again.

I don't believe I said the Old Testament portrays a "purely" patriarchal society. I would say an "overwhelmingly" patriarchal one. Most pertinent to the discussion of women pastors, Jewish law has prohibited women as rabbis until very recent times; now women are more commonly found as rabbis, just as I feel sure they will increasingly be found as pastors. The question, even for those of us who may think this seems like a good thing, is whether it is Biblical. We are surrounded by a world that we may not think is the way we would have designed it if we had been God (hence the Problem of Evil), but we must trust in God's superior wisdom and goodness.

Out of sheer laziness, I will quote from what seems to me like a well-written blog concerning the patriarchal nature of the Old Testament while acknowledging that this guy carries no more weight than Brother Think Tank:

It is an undeniable fact that God primarily used men, flawed men for certain but men nonetheless, as His prophets and the leaders of His people in the Old Testament. God made His covenant with Abram, not Sarai. God commanded Noah to build the ark, not Noah's wife. God used Moses to lead His people out of Egypt, not Miriam. God made David the King, not his wives. God revealed the coming of His New Covenant to Jeremiah and used Isaiah to prophesy of the Suffering Servant, the Prince of Peace. Samuel, Aaron, Elijah, Malachi, Nehemiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and on and on. God is often described (and describes Himself) as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God used men as His primary vessel for revelation. That is irrefutable.

That doesn’t of course mean that God never used women in the Old Testament, just that He primarily, normally and overwhelmingly, used men as prophets, priests and kings and that women often functioned and served differently. As one example, when God proclaimed judgment on His people, one of the condemnations was especially pertinent to this conversation:

My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12)

It doesn’t sound as if God was too keen on men abdicating their leadership to women. I imagine He looks at the general passivity of men in the church and is similarly displeased when men step aside and leave their responsibilities to their wives. This leadership role is not one that is reserved to the corporate “people” which under the Old Covenant would be the Jewish nation and under the New Covenant would be Jew and gentile alike who have been regenerated and adopted into the family of God. It is also something we see in the family. Fathers are called to pass on the teachings of God to their children (Psalm 78: 5; Joshua 4: 21-24). Fathers were called to slaughter the Passover lamb in Egypt (Exodus 12:3) on behalf of their family. From start to finish the Old Testament is patriarchal.​

http://thesidos.blogspot.com/2011/04/biblical-patriarchy-old-testament.html (Not an endorsement by me, since I had never seen this blog until four minutes ago.)

 

[Deborah13]

Okay, so this may be random.

I feel it is the absolute nature of things that women are behind the scene. Just like the male mallard duck is beautiful and colorful and the female is camouflage.

The male is the one the hunters will see first and shoot. Maybe a little gruesome, but that is why I see the reason for women not out front. That doesn't mean we don't have major input into the body of Christ, cause we definitely do.

Very random and I'm positive you don't hunt. I have been hunting big game animals for almost 40 yrs.
You are correct that female birds are most often not very colorful but it has nothing to do with male dominance. Two things are at play that I know of. The male uses his stunning plumage to attract females to mate. Females are camouflage colors because they lay the eggs, usually brood the eggs, and later the chicks (in birds such as ducks and grouse) follow mama around on the ground. The camouflage helps protect them from predators.

In herd animals like elk and deer, the males are seldom in the lead of any herd. With elk there is always an older lead cow (female) that the herd follows. If she runs they all run. Very often the bull will protect himself by traveling in the middle of the herd surrounded by the cows, he's no fool.
Buck (male) deer are very cautious, they will often wait until the female crosses a clearing before they stick out their necks, leaders they aren't.
Hunters cannot choose to shoot a male or female most of the time. Licenses are issued for one sex or the other. I always apply for a cow validation because the meat is more tender and tastes better, not all that testosterone going on. Couldn't careless about collecting big antlers. Although we do have a mounted elk head on our wall.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Deb, I think you were missing my point........but what you wrote is very informational!

I was trying to say that men are supposed to be "look at me, look at me"....................so we don't get killed. They do.
Just as in the Catholic church. Cardinals wear red, to show that they are willing to be killed.