Women "Preachers"

No problem.

I'm inclined to leave this thread open though, in hopes of it getting redeemed and/or just forgotten. It's a relevant topic and one I've had some interesting conversations about with my family.

I'm actually in agreement with the OP that women shouldn't be pastors. I never really questioned it until the church I was attending some years ago addressed it. They had three teachers who would rotate giving sermons - one of whom was a woman. And it was when she taught from the pulpit why they believe women should be preachers too that I began second-guessing... because she/they had to do some pretty major mental/textual gymnastics to defend that position IMO. The churches I've attended since hold to the understanding that only men should teach and this seems most in line with Scripture as far as I can tell. But it looks like I may be in the minority here; maybe someone (slightly less abrasive than Rockrz) can share why they understand differently than me.

Kerrick wrote:
I'm actually in agreement with the OP that women shouldn't be pastors.  I never really questioned it until the church I was attending some years ago addressed it.  They had three teachers who would rotate giving sermons - one of whom was a woman.  And it was when she taught from the pulpit why they believe women should be preachers too that I began second-guessing... because she/they had to do some pretty major mental/textual gymnastics to defend that position IMO.  The churches I've attended since hold to the understanding that only men should teach and this seems most in line with Scripture as far as I can tell.  But it looks like I may be in the minority here; maybe someone (slightly less abrasive than Rockrz) can share why they understand differently than me.  

I must be in the minority too because (despite my snark to that troll) I also agree that a pastor position is a men's position...  but...  I don't think out of all the things Christians should concern themselves with in life, "women pastors" should be at the top of the list of things to fight about or against.

Sure, Paul straight up said women shouldn't be pastors, but he also said in 1st Corinthians that its a shame for men to have long hair.  (as its "covering for women")

Eh.  Meh.  
I'd put more thought into it if things like these were directly labeled as "sin" instead of being more of a "church don't" or a "shame".

I know what you mean about the "major mental/textual gymnastics to defend that position" - I've seen that too.  Like Paul was just talking about particularly loud women, only at that church is letter was too.  ...or insert reference on Priscilla and Aquilla (2 women) "fixing" Apollo's preaching in Acts 18.  I've even heard some examples online on Paul being "sexist" or "misogynistic" and verses to support that....  which is ridiculous, IMO.  (like the cancel culture today taking something someone did/said 30 years ago and trying to smear them like they did it this week, despite the sensitive societal climate we have right now)

Actually, a woman pastor married my wife and I.  I imagine it would have caused a number of problems if I "demanded" "a man preacher" instead.  (since this is my wife's grandparent's church, and only 1 pastor, a woman, and my wife wanted to be married there)

Nice lady.  No I don't think she's sinning for being a preacher, she's pretty passionate about God's word. She's more like doing a don't, if you ask me.
My marriage is definitely legal so...  her lack of a penis didn't disqualify the paperwork or ceremony.

Sometimes I get the impression that some of Paul’s teaching was his preference of what is acceptable. Why would long hair on a man make a difference in God’s eyes? Some weird nonessential gripes imo... 

And I doubt Jesus’s hair was short.

I've heard a couple sermons that have stated that the male cult prostitutes wore their hair long, and Paul's statement was mainly against that. One thing I think we have to think about is the definition of "long". Men could cut their hair short, or bald back in the day, but I am sure it was easier to wear it at some length. I don't think the Bible considered that long. The long way in which a woman (back then) wore their hair is probably what was being addressed, and some one wearing it to look feminine. That is the same as when the Bible addresses the way we dress.

Though popularly portrayed as having long hair, I doubt Jesus did. He was a carpenter. It would get in the way of his work.

I tried to really look into this once and purchased a book where different theologians explained their positions.  The first one (and the one that I wanted to understand) was the position that nothing properly understood in the NT was intended to disallow female pastors/leaders.  It was very technical, and I saw very clearly that in order to really understand, I would need to go back to seminary level Greek if not further than I'd ever learned, and I just didn't care enough personally to invest the probably couple hundred hours in order to fairly interact with the argument. 

The basic, plain reading of the NT does seem pretty straight forward, and is usually a reliable guide, but there are some issues where translating the language without understanding the culture don't provide a real understanding.  Imagine if somebody in our culture wrote to a church not to fly a rainbow flag, as many do.  Take that easily understood instruction, and then put it without cultural context into a people group thousands of years away and on the opposite side of the world.  Of course there would be no understanding.  Some things just aren't easy.

There have always been guys with long hair throughout history. There is obviously a difference between a regular masculine guy and a man wearing makeup like a tranny. Or you could have a short haircut like Julius Caesar and be a homosexual.

Grindboy wrote:The basic, plain reading of the NT does seem pretty straight forward, and is usually a reliable guide, but there are some issues where translating the language without understanding the culture don't provide a real understanding.  Imagine if somebody in our culture wrote to a church not to fly a rainbow flag, as many do.  Take that easily understood instruction, and then put it without cultural context into a people group thousands of years away and on the opposite side of the world.  Of course there would be no understanding.  Some things just aren't easy.

Yep, whilst I am of the opinion that it is more clearly taught in the Bible that men should show leadership in the Church and be the dominate teachers, in reality this is not how it works all the time and there are many grey areas. I'm thinking of female Youth Group leaders and Bible study groups. I think there is stuff going on in these letters from Paul that pertain to cultural issues which we have no understanding of. Whilst in my Church they have a very clear practice of not letting a woman preach, they are more than happy for them to pray upfront and share their ministry. To me this is teaching and I do not have a problem with that. 

I think the bigger issue is not who does the teaching but what they are teaching. The NT has much more to say about this.

I remember Rockrz. Got banned from Firestream years ago for the same reasons, I believe

Erasmus wrote:

Grindboy wrote:The basic, plain reading of the NT does seem pretty straight forward, and is usually a reliable guide, but there are some issues where translating the language without understanding the culture don't provide a real understanding.  Imagine if somebody in our culture wrote to a church not to fly a rainbow flag, as many do.  Take that easily understood instruction, and then put it without cultural context into a people group thousands of years away and on the opposite side of the world.  Of course there would be no understanding.  Some things just aren't easy.

Yep, whilst I am of the opinion that it is more clearly taught in the Bible that men should show leadership in the Church and be the dominate teachers, in reality this is not how it works all the time and there are many grey areas. I'm thinking of female Youth Group leaders and Bible study groups. I think there is stuff going on in these letters from Paul that pertain to cultural issues which we have no understanding of. Whilst in my Church they have a very clear practice of not letting a woman preach, they are more than happy for them to pray upfront and share their ministry. To me this is teaching and I do not have a problem with that. 

I think the bigger issue is not who does the teaching but what they are teaching. The NT has much more to say about this.

I agree with this.

TZ75 wrote:Sometimes I get the impression that some of Paul’s teaching was his preference of what is acceptable. Why would long hair on a man make a difference in God’s eyes? Some weird nonessential gripes imo... 

I think most people think of Samson when they think of a man in the Bible with long hair....  but also, one of David's sons...

(NLT)2 Samuel 14:25 Now Absalom was praised as the most handsome man in all Israel. He was flawless from head to foot. 26 He cut his hair only once a year, and then only because it was so heavy. When he weighed it out, it came to five pounds!

Speaking of David, in 1st Samuel 16, when God told Samuel to head to Bethlehem to meet Jesse's sons (which one will be the next king)

(NLT)1 Samuel 16:6 When they arrived, Samuel took one look at Eliab and thought, “Surely this is the Lord’s anointed!” 7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Don’t judge by his appearance or height, for I have rejected him. The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

I don't think its too far off to say... that what someone looks like, mattered more to Paul, than it does to God.  

Although Paul was an important servant of God. He was also a flawed human. And obviously opinionated...

This thread looks like a great springboard for me to duel some of you guys  

And getting banned in the process I guess

Kerrick wrote:Alright, enough is enough.  Rockrz is banned for not heeding my warning and instead continuing to troll and be contentious to the n-th degree.

Thank God! Who was this fool?!! So much angst and negativity. Trying to bait true believers.

I don't think that I could ever be a member of a church with a woman pastor, but I am not going to say that God didn't move them to speak.  I just don't feel comfortable with it, personally.

For instance, there is no precedent in Scripture for women preachers.  Sure, God used Deborah, Esther, Ruth, and a myriad other females to convey His message...but they were never officially assigned that role.

BaleMaster wrote:For instance, there is no precedent in Scripture for women preachers.  Sure, God used Deborah, Esther, Ruth, and a myriad other females to convey His message...but they were never officially assigned that role.

I don't know-Mary was the first one to carry the gospel! 

Quite Literally heh

I have wondered on this from time to time not to where im losing sleep or anything but i have to think the issues and things of that time were a big factor.

I think it's undeniable that the ordination of female ministers is explicitly banned by Paul, and for reasons which go all the way back to the Fall in Genesis 3 (so any claims of it being just for the cultural moment of his day are rendered false). Yes, Paul was a sinful man like all of us, but the Word of God is inerrant, so anything contained therein is true.

Edit: Just realized this thread is about a month old. Sorry if no one wanted it bumped. Haven't been active here in a while and this one caught my eye.

^Well said.

And no worries about bumping an old thread.  It's nice to see you on here again!

Thanks Kerrick!

CrimsonWarrior wrote:I think it's undeniable that the ordination of female ministers is explicitly banned by Paul, and for reasons which go all the way back to the Fall in Genesis 3 (so any claims of it being just for the cultural moment of his day are rendered false). Yes, Paul was a sinful man like all of us, but the Word of God is inerrant, so anything contained therein is true.

Exactly. I can attest though, how hard it is for Scripture to correct your preconceived notions that have been forced upon you by your own cultural context. It took me years to accept this.

Man, I generally end up most comfortable with the same position, but it's really not as simple as "undeniably explicitly banned."  Plenty of "evangelical" (quotes because I don't love the tag, not because I'm questioning the "evangelicalness" of anybody) scholars have come to quite the opposite conclusion, while still maintaining full belief in the authority and inspiration of Scripture.  I actually, a little bit, tried again to work through some of the opposing arguments and interactions.  It's really tough.  They really make very solid sounding arguments, and then everybody's responses to one another are all "I made this point and it stands, but they made this point and it's unconvincing."  But once you dig in and try to consider, say, Craig Keener's argument for egalitarianism, it's not so simple as I would have liked to believe.

By the way, Crimson Warrior, nobody minds the bump as long as you're not a troll.  I'm sure we all remember you, it's cool.

The kind of argument that I typically hear to try to justify female pastors is that everything that Paul said about that was just for his day and not for ours. The problem is that this ignores the whole point of what he said. He didn't say that women shouldn't be church leaders because of anything specific to the first century culture, but for reasons which go all the way back to Genesis 3.

That same sort of argument is what people use to try to justify homosexuality. It's wrong and deceitful to twist Scripture and reject how it has been understood for centuries just to cave to modern Western culture.

CrimsonWarrior wrote:

That same sort of argument is what people use to try to justify homosexuality. It's wrong and deceitful to twist Scripture and reject how it has been understood for centuries just to cave to modern Western culture.

Of course we all agree that it’s wrong to twist Scripture.  

I’ll say that any argument I’ve heard for the acceptance of homosexual activity has been, to my view, embarrassingly weak.  But in regard to egalitarianism/complemtariansim I think it is much more difficult, and that the two issues are nowhere near the same level of clarity nor “unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials.”  Though, again, I do still come down as a complementarian, but just with home hesitancy.