Does the Bible say, “Women can be pastors”? This is a heavily debated subject, and Ekklesia does not require the congregation to fully-agree with the position of the pastors on this one. The short answer to this question is, “Yes.” However, in part, because our history is clouded by a great deal of cultural conditioning and biased-Biblical interpretation, answering “yes” to this question leads to suspicion on the part of many. In order to respond to the controversy, the explanation must be a bit lengthy, because we must deal with many years of ignorance… ignorance that has sent us down a long and winding road of confusion. We believe women can be pastors, because the Bible says it, not because it is “politically correct,” or “cool”, or “popular,” or whatever.
In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” That pretty much sums it up doesn’t it? Women can’t be pastors, right? Wrong… Whether or not you’ve read the whole Bible, you know it’s a very, very long book. This very long story has a lot to say about this issue. In order to understand this passage, we must understand more of the book.
Let us begin in Genesis.
When Adam and Eve rejected God’s leadership, they disconnected themselves from the source of all that is good. When anyone is disconnected from God, bad things happen. There are consequences. In Genesis 3, God lays out some of things that would happen, now that they had disconnected themselves from Him. In Genesis 3:16, God said to Eve, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Keep in mind, this is not the way things were supposed to be.
Now, we’ve seen this scenario played out over and over for centuries, haven’t we? Often, but not always, women place more emphasis on intimacy than they do authority. Often, but not always, women will sacrifice their leadership status, if it means they will be able to improve their relationships. Often, but not always, men value authority over relationship. Often, but not always, men will do things that will elevate their leadership status, even if it means they must hurt the ones they love.
After the fall, men were quick to lust after leadership. Not only did they want to lead, but worse yet, they didn’t even know how to. No one did. Not without God. Violence filled the earth. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that women were better than men, or anything like that. Men and women are totally depraved without God. We are both equally evil. We are nothing without God.
When it came to leadership, look at the ways civilizations wanted to spread their fame and increase their territories, largely by wars propagated and fought by men. Sin caused human beings to totally misunderstand and misuse the concept of leadership. Men would try to get other men to follow them. But even if that didn’t work, at least they could tell the women what to do. Many times they’d use their physical strength and stature to “put women in their place.” These are just a few of the many pathetic results of human rebellion against God.
God had a plan to redeem and restore creation, even before people rejected Him. Eventually, Jesus (100% God, 100% human) would come to us, suffer the consequences of sin (death, separation from God), and defeat them by rising from the dead, destroying the power of sin. Creation is on it’s way to one day living perfectly under the leadership of God, back to the way things were supposed to be in Genesis 1 and 2. That being said, there are many specific commands in the Bible that directly teach us how to live, right here, right now. However, the Bible does not explicitly and directly tell us what to do in every single situation.
Think about the Old Testament. There are over 600 laws, commandments that say “do this… do that…” or “don’t do this… don’t do that…” That’s a lot of rules. You might think that God would have dealt with every form of moral evil under the sun in these 600+ laws. However, not one of those laws says anything against polygamy. After the fall, men started taking many wives. Interestingly enough, God hates polygamy, but He allowed it. Polygamy was immensely destructive to society. And God allowed it?
Among those 600+ laws, God said that kings should not take “many wives” (Deuteronomy 17:17). He allowed them to take multiple wives, but just not “many.” God doesn’t even define what “many” is. It’s like when God says, “Don’t get drunk.” Well how many drinks does it take to make someone drunk? One state says the acceptable driving BAC is this, one state says that. But they didn’t have BAC tests back then… What is drunk? God expects the hearts of men and women to seek His desires, and then they will know the answer. Can you hear what the Spirit is saying?
Some people may wonder, “Why doesn’t God just straight out say ‘No’ to polygamy like He does with so many other bad things?” Well, maybe we can ask God that when we get to heaven. For now, it is important to understand that this is how God chose to deal with this very destructive pattern, a pattern that resulted from the fall.
Let’s look at another example: divorce. God hates divorce, big time. However, in that list of 600+ laws, God permitted divorce. When Jesus walked the earth, He told people how much He couldn’t stand divorce. Some people asked him, then why did God allow it in the Law, through Moses? “Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:8-9).
Get this, God hates divorce, but He didn’t deal with the situation directly for thousands of years, because our hearts were too hard. Our hearts and minds were too jaded to understand this concept, so God dealt with it “indirectly.” People read the Bible, got divorced, engaged in polygamy… because they didn’t hear the Spirit of the text.
Back to our original statement, “Women can be pastors”. Understanding how God dealt with polygamy and divorce sheds light on the strategy that God has used to make it clear that women can be pastors.
As the centuries progressed, God communicated that women can operate in the spiritual gifts in the same way that men can. God didn’t just “come out and say it,” like we wish He would have. He expects us to overcome our prejudices and allow our hearts to grasp what the Spirit is saying.
In Judges 4, we read about a woman named Deborah, a prophet. God made Deborah the Judge over the entire nation of Israel. Don’t go thinin’ “Judge Judy” or “Judge Joe Brown.” There was only one Judge of Israel, and this position does not compare to the modern day judge. This is a position that was even more powerful and influential than today’s American president. God choose her. God gave her the gifts to lead. God led Israel through her. This was totally against the grain of culture. If the Bible were written by humans, and not God, it would never have said that God chose Deborah to be the Judge of Israel. This was unacceptable.
Also in the Book of Judges, we read about a woman named Jael, and how God used her to kill a king who’s kingdom threatened the existence of Israel.
In the Gospels, we discover the very first people to preach the resurrection of Jesus. You might guess it was Peter and John, right? Wrong. It was a group of women. God revealed the resurrection to women first. You may not think this is a big deal. Get this… In the first century, in the eyes of their society, this kind of testimony would have been worthless on the tongues of women. If the Bible were merely authored by humans, it would never have said that women were the first ones to understand and spread the message of the resurrection. This would have been incredibly distasteful, and made the movement look like some kind of cosmic joke! However, this is how God chose to use the “weak” to shame the “wise.”
In Acts 18, we read about Priscilla, a leader in the church. Priscilla had a husband named Aquila. However, many times in the New Testament, Priscilla’s name is written first, before her husband’s. In the first century language of Koine Greek, this is making a huge statement. In a male dominant society, it was not “proper” to mention the wife before the husband, but this is how God wanted it written. We also learn that Priscilla and her husband both taught the Word of God to a highly educated man, Apollos. Priscilla instructed Apollos. She taught him the Bible. She taught him to be a very influential church leader. Wait a second… didn’t 1 Timothy say that women can’t teach men…? Oh my, oh my… Does the Bible contradict itself…? Absolutely not!
In Acts chapter 21, we read about Philip’s four unmarried daughters. They were all prophets. That means these women prophets spoke God’s words. They said things like, “The LORD says this…” Then they delivered a message directly from God. How much more authoritative can speaking get? Doesn’t 1 Timothy say that women should be quiet? Oh no, another contradiction…? Not a chance!
In Romans 16, we read about a woman named Junia. Quite sadly, for a few centuries in the early beginnings of the church, some men could not accept Junia’s name being in the Bible, so they changed it to “Junias,” a man’s name. Why? Because the Greek text seems to communicate that Junia was an apostle. Apostles were pastors, on steroids! Apostles started and pastored many churches. Based on the way it is written in the most respected Greek manuscripts we have, we would be wise to accept that she was an apostle. Men in the first centuries sure believed she was an Apostle, which is why they changed the text. Eventually, people caught wind that God’s Word was being adulterated in Romans 16, and they put a stop to it.
So what’s with the few texts in the New Testament that seem to say women can’t preach, teach, and/or lead men (1 Corinthians 14:34-38; 1 Timothy 2:8-3:7; Titus 1:5-9)? It’s important to remember that these verses come from letters written by Paul, and they are addressing specific situations that he is dealing with. In some cities, women were mature enough to lead, prophesy, and preach. In other cities, the women just weren’t ready for it.
In some churches, women were abusing their newly discovered liberty in Christ, and they were misusing the power of leadership. They wanted to get back at men for the centuries of injustice. They were trying to exercise authority over men. Remember the curse from the fall? The man will have “authority over” the woman? That being said, in some situations, Paul said “no” to women leadership, because their hearts were too hard.
Here’s a modern example. I was in Africa for nine months. I spent a lot of my time living in a mud hut, in a remote, Muslim village. One of my projects in the village was to help the people build a school for their children. Well, in order to build the school, we had to take out a bunch of massive palm trees. By the way, we had to do it with machetes and shovels? Not my idea of fun!
It would’ve been much easier for me to buy a few chainsaws and give them to the people to use. In fact, some of the people actually asked me to buy them. However, the community didn’t know how to use chainsaws. They didn’t grow up using powered equipment. If I would’ve dropped these things off, and then come back the next week, there might have been a few dozen body parts laying on the ground. Why? Are chainsaws bad? Of course not! But the people weren’t ready for them. So, it was better for me to say, “No to chainsaws.” In the right situation, if people were ready for them, I would say “yes.”
It was right for Paul to say, “No to women being pastors”, when the specific church he wrote to wasn’t ready for it. However, Paul affirmed women leadership in other situations, when the time was right. There are no contradictions whatsoever. We must understand the way Paul was communicating. Many people make this sound so complex, but it is actually quite simple, really…
Let’s look at one more example of how this works.
How about slavery? We know God hates slavery. Nevertheless, He reluctantly permitted it, because God worked with us on our levels. What about Paul? Well, he hated slavery too. However, do you remember all those passages where Paul talks about slaves “obeying their masters?” He even tells them to remain slaves, even though they had become disciples of Jesus. He said, “Don’t run away.” Why doesn’t Paul just outright overthrow slavery? Why doesn’t he just tell it like it is? Because, promoting the saving truth of the Gospel was the first priority, and he didn’t want to overshadow it. If a person understands who Jesus is… what He has accomplished through His life, death, and resurrection, then it should eventually be obvious that slavery is evil.
Let’s not forget, Paul did challenge slavery in the book of Philemon. A slave named Onesimus ran away from his master, Philemon, then he became a disciple of Jesus. Running away from your master was punishable by death, or at least some really severe torture. Paul told Philemon to let it go, and take Onesmius back as a brother in Christ, not a slave. Wow! This is huge! Paul didn’t say, “Hey Philemon, slavery is wrong! Let’s start up an abolitionist movement right now!” No, it should be obvious to anyone who follows Jesus that slavery is wrong. Period. If our hearts are in tune with the Spirit, it is obvious!
Well, it sure took a long time for American Christians to figure that one out… For hundreds of years, American Christians quoted the Bible. They said things like, “See, it says right here! You’re a slave. I’m your master. God says obey your slave masters! That’s just the way it is, and you better believe it, because the Bible says so!”
But when we go back to Genesis 1 and 2, we learn that God never intended anything like this…
Back to our original statement, “Women can be pastors”. Of course they can, if they’re called by God. By the way, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).
God leads churches through the Holy Spirit, through leaders, through pastors. Being a pastor requires gifts, gifts that come from God, not men (1 Corinthians 12). God gives them to whoever He chooses. May we follow His leadership.
Email This Post
Loading ...
Monday, 10. August 2009
I tend to agree with everything said here. It makes sense as to why other apostles are addressing situations in certain churches. But what about the symbolism of marriage? All throught the new testament Jesus talks about how marriage should look like his relationship to the church. Then it says men lead you wives like Christ leads the church. It doesn’t say women lead your husbands like Christ leads the church.
I agree that the bible contains no paradox. I think that our definition of the church and Jesus’ definition could be vastly different.
Monday, 10. August 2009
Re: Jon
Excellent comment! Very insightful…
Ephesians 5:23 says, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, His body, of which He is the Savior.”
The husband was created to be the head (”kephale” in Koine Greek) of his wife, even in Genesis 1 and 2. In Ephesians 5:32, Paul makes clear that marriage has always been a representation of Christ and His church. Headship looks far different than the way the typical person often understands it. It looks like Jesus sacrificially leading His bride, the church, without becoming a doormat who loses the vision (to make the church beautiful).
I’m sure you’ll agree, it would be hard to find a good woman who wouldn’t want to be married to a husband who sacrificially leads like Jesus.
Back to your point though. The gender roles of a marriage are different than the gender roles of church leadership. All true churches are led by Jesus Himself, and He leads by raising up pastors. The pastors lead because they are given gifts. That’s where their authority comes from… God.
God has shown us that He will distribute those gifts to men and women.
Keep in mind, the Ephesians 5 passage says that the husband is the head of the wife as Jesus is the head of the church. It doesn’t say that the husband is the head of his wife like “men” are the heads of churches.
How does this sound?
Monday, 10. August 2009
I’d agree with that. That’s kinda what I meant when I said our interpretation of church ( denomination, building, congregation, pastors, and pot lucks) and Jesus’ interpretation of church ( anyone who seeks and follows him) are vastly different.
To say a woman cannot be pastor of a church is to say Say god will never grant the gift of leadership to a woman. That statement doesn’t even sound Christian. God has called everyone to serve.
I think most of the confusion comes when a woman is a speaking pastor. Being the pastor that everyones sees preaching every Sunday. But I’m betting those same people probably wouldn’t have a problem calling a woman a music pastor or a childrens pastor or a food ministry pastor. As long as she doesn’t preach on Sunday.
Jesus’ church has pastors of every variety, including gender,skin color, cultural background, and nationality. I’d argue that a person could be a pastor without ever forming a 501(c3), and without ever passing a collection plate around
Monday, 10. August 2009
Your first point from Genesis was the curse (punishment) of the sin. In Genesis 3:16, God said to Eve, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” This is not the way things were suppose to be, but the way things are. The first part is also true, Your desire will be for your husband, (How is that punishment???) Except when you combine the two it becomes a punishment (Your desire will be to rule your husband but he will rule over you.) Part of the “Should Women be Pastor” problem is born from the problem of only ordained leadership, only clergy can preach, teach, lead others which historically was only men. This is cultural and historically wrong, so modern women unlike the biblical Priscilla was denied leadership, which now is equated to Pastorship. I think your augument is flawed at the point of equating leadership with Pastorship as if to say that since men have been dead-beat dad, then women can be fathers or better fathers than men. No matter how good a mother a woman is she can never be father by nature.
Your arugument sound like Sojourner Truth argument that “A woman carried the Word for 9 months, therefore only women should continue to carry the Word of God” or as some have suggested: The woman of Samaria was an evangelist, the women at the tomb was the first gospel preachers. They were Witnesses as every Born Again Believer should be (Acts 1:8). Pastors are NOT the only witnesses, Proclaimers of the Gospel message, Ministers of the Faith…Pastors are Christ representives as Head of the Church as Jesus is the Head of the Body. There is nothing in their male DNA that quilifies them for the position, they are not worthy or deserving but by God’s Grace he uses cracked pots to bear his treasures.
I believe that only men can be pastors but that does not mean that women can’t have authority in the congregation.
I’m sorry for the confusing language, next time I’ll clean the argument up before I present it.
Monday, 10. August 2009
Chris, this is the most well thought out and communicated writing on this subject I’ve read on the internet. This is a message that can really bless people that care to read and pray on it.
Monday, 10. August 2009
Where would the distinction between having authority in a congregation and being pastors arise? That’s not laid out in the Bible. Also, do pastors have “authority” in a congregation? How much is that laid out? Is being a leader always (or ever) about authority?
Monday, 10. August 2009
Re Alex:
I’d like to understand your first question, but I don’t quite get what you’re asking.
Authority in church leadership is given by God and can be taken away. If a pastor is properly exercising his or her God-given gifts, in love, then the congregation should submit to that pastor’s authority, because this is submitting to God. Rejecting that authority is rejecting God.
Here are some Scriptures on authority.
Matthew 10:1
He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2 Corinthians 10:8
For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it.
2 Corinthians 13:10
This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down.
1 Thessalonians 4:2
For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
Titus 2:15
These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
Here are some Scriptures on Pastors/Elders.
The word “pastor” can be interchanged for the word “elder” in the Bible. They mean the same thing.
Elders in All the Churches that Paul Founded
Acts 14:23
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.
Elders in the Church at Jerusalem
Acts 15:2
AThis brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
Elders in Ephesus
Acts 20:17
From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church.
Elders in All the Churches of Crete
Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
Elders in All the Churches of the Dispersion of the Roman Empire
James 1:1; 5:14
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:
Greetings…. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.
Elders in All the Churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia
1 Peter 1:1; 5:1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,…To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed…
Monday, 10. August 2009
Re: Travis
Thanks for the encouragement bro. If it’s good, it must be God
I just checked out your website. I like the improvements. Keep up the good work!
Monday, 10. August 2009
Re: Nathan
Oh no you didn’t, Reverend Robertson!
Jason and I talked about this for what seemed like hours out in Boston, and you just stayed quiet… but now you’re bringin’ the heat…
Is that how they do it in Texas? Don’t make me get all Ekklesia up in your church blog!
Monday, 10. August 2009
Sorry Chris. My post was actually meant for Nathan R.
Tuesday, 11. August 2009
Pastor Mark Driscoll founding and preaching pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle recently had a book published titled “Vintage Church”. In chapter 3, which is 22 pages, he explains the biblical view that pastors (elders) should be men. Frankly, his reasoning trumps yours. For example, he talks about the fact that God held Adam responsible even though Eve sinned first (see Gen. 3:9). Secondly, Driscoll points out that every book of the Bible was written by a MAN through Holy Spirit inspiration. Thirdly, Driscoll mentions that all the leaders Jesus picked out to be his Apoltles were men. Read all 22 pages of Vintage Church and you will perceive your arguments are weak. I will state that Mars Hill does not consider this a “closed handed” issue that would require division because we differ, but Driscoll would argure that you are wrong and we would agree to disagree peacefully!
Tuesday, 11. August 2009
Re: Mike O’Dea
Hey Mike, thanks for writing!
I love Mark Driscoll, and I’ve read a few of his books, including the one you mentioned. I like your closed-hand analogy, and a peaceful disagreement on this one sounds wonderful. Mark has a lot of great things to say, and I’m very encouraged by the work God is doing through him in Seattle. Two thumbs up for Mars Hill!
Tuesday, 11. August 2009
Chris, I try to listen to both sides. You and Jason brought some very interesting points, which I had to ponder and consider. I just wanted to give an opposing view and thanks for clearing up “authority” for me.
I simply think that the home is the model for the church at least that is my reading of Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3. Now because the home is so dysfunctional nowadays this same dysfunction shows up in the local church. But I don’t think we should change the “ideal” to accommodate our shortcomings. For example the ideal is one man one woman joined together in holy matrimony as the foundation for the family and raising a child in a God-fearing, Christ Believing home. However, single parent homes dominate our culture and the Father and Mother in the home is becoming abnormal rather than the norm. But that does not mean that we adjust our theology to accommodate culture.
Thank you for sharing, my mind is open on the subject because I want to be righteous and not just right.
Please don’t get all Ekklesia up in our church blog, it took me a whole day to explain your listerine comment about witnessing ; ). God Bless you and your family.
Tuesday, 11. August 2009
What about the elder, dear lady that John is writing in 2 John. To say this is the church is a stretch that is not often taken when hermaneutically interpreting scripture but for years this has been suggested that he is talking to “the church”. When has the church ever been interpreted as an elder? I thought hermaneutics says to translate literally unless you have to do otherwise? Is Gaius also the church in 3 John?
Tuesday, 11. August 2009
Perhaps also dear lady is a Greek word that could possibly be… her name?
Tuesday, 11. August 2009
@Chris: Is there a way that we can reply to specific blog comments, the way you do, by indenting our posts underneath them?
@Mike O’Dea and Nathan R: I agree with Chris on the issue, so let me say that I’m really encouraged by the tone of your posts and by having Christian brothers and sisters whose work in the Lord has common purpose with my own (even when we disagree about issues) and who endeavor always to speak the truth (or what they believe) in love. Keep up the good work!
Tuesday, 11. August 2009
Re Alex:
I don’t think so. Probably only administrators can. That’s a question for Jonathon.
Tuesday, 11. August 2009
Tami I believe chris equated elders with pastors not elders with the church.
Mike and nathan you make some very compelling arguments. God chose men to most of the big events in the bible, including writing it. But as I thought about this I thought of this it would seem to me that it makes sense that God chose men in a male dominated society. Women would not have been taken seriously.
However even with that being said I’m still not convinced you are wrong. I mean God did in fact send his son not his daughter. So to say that women and men are exactly the same would obviously be false.
Hmmm perplexing indeed. So now it just comes down to defining a pastor apart from someone with authority in the church. God obviously raises up women to do his work,see mother teresa, but does he have them lead or pastor a church? Would you consider mother teresa a pastor? These are all rhetorical questions as I really don’t have an answer. To say she hasn’t lead the body of Christ would be untruthful however she never lead a congregation.
Hmm there’s another distinction we have to make. Congregation vs. Church. Church is the entire body of Christ while congregation is just a finger. So god didn’t use women to lead the finger but he did use them to move the blood? Deep stuff I’ll have to think about it more
Tuesday, 11. August 2009
Re Jon:
Some people may wonder why God didn’t raise up more women leaders in the Bible…
However, I stand in awe at how many women He did call. I’m blown away that there were so many of them! In such a male-dominated society, like you said Jon. Wow. Now that’s incredible…
Remember how God dealt with polygamy and divorce and slavery. He didn’t directly solve the problems over night. Or even in 2000 years…
About elders/pastors, every New Testament church had elders, and they all had powerful authority. The words “elder” and “pastor” are interchangeable. It is important to study the examples of churches in the the New Testament. They were all led by teams of elders, elders who had been commissioned to leadership by the laying on of hands by other elders who commissioned them to the work.
Mother Teresa did not experience this type of commissioning, nor did she express the desire.
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
@chris. Keyword you used there was leaders. God raised many women to be leaders there’s no question of that, but how many did he raise to be pastors of a congregation? It seems pastors and leaders do not mean the same thing.
I’m still not convinced either way but I do agree with nathan, this should not be a dividing issue. It would not surprise me if in heaven when we are asking of the many mysteries in the bible that there’s truth to both sides.
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
@Jon. I appreciate the fact that you keep responding, and with deep insight. This is very, very good. Excellent discussion! By God’s grace, we are all learning from each other. Here’s my response. I look forward to yours!
You are right, not all leaders are pastors, but all pastors are leaders.
Here’s the deal: these three texts, 1 Corinthians 14:34-38; 1 Timothy 2:8-3:7; and Titus 1:5-9, are what cause some people to say women cannot be pastors. They say “women can’t teach men”, yet you have Priscilla teaching Apollos. They say, “women can’t preach the Word of God”, yet you have women prophesying the words of God in the presence of men, and women were the first ones to understand and preach the resurrection. They say “women can’t lead men”, yet you have Deborah leading the entire nation of Israel.
So what do you make of those texts? I say we believe them. And we understand the kinds of situations they are dealing with.
Some would say, “Hey, God didn’t raise up any women pastors in the Bible. That means He’s against it!” (Even though Junias was most likely an apostle, which is a pastor at an even higher level).
200 years ago, many Americans would argue like this: “If God is against slavery, then why didn’t God just free the slaves? Why does the Bible tell the slaves to obey their masters? Why doesn’t the Bible just tell masters to free their slaves? You see… God wants slaves to be slaves, and masters to be masters.”
This is horrible reasoning, and it definitely misses the heart of God.
Today, some men and women will argue like this: “If God is for women being pastors, why doesn’t He just come out and say it?”
I say, “How much more do we need?”
God gives us more examples on this issue than He does with slavery. Let us make sure our hearts do not lead us astray. Why did slave masters not want to accept the Spirit of the Word? Because they wanted to keep their slaves.
Read 1 Corinthians 14:34-38. Does that look like Paul would want a woman worship music leader, in that church? Does that look like Paul would want women leading in a prayer, in that church? In this situation, Paul is telling women not even to ask questions… Wow. That tells us how messed up that situation really was.
Yet when Paul speaks of Priscilla, who taught the Bible to men, he speaks very highly of her. He even mentions her name first in Romans 16:3 and 2 Timothy 4:19.
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
Those who are against women being pastors may like this video
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
@ Tami Fontaine. You are on to something.
Based on the way it is written in Koine Greek, it could potentially mean that the address in 2 John 1:1 is written to an actual woman. It is also possible that in Greek either or both words “chosen lady” are actually proper names. A well-respected early church theologian, named Clement, thought her name was Electa. Possibly she was an elder in her church. “Chosen lady” could also be a reference to the entire church.
Good work Tami
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
Chris that video was ridiculous I didn’t even understand what he was saying most of the time. I understand the point that he was making though. God created man and woman differently for a reason.
You used the example of slavery to say that god didn’t end slavery so people interpret it as well god wanted it. It’s true that’s not the correct interpretation, but you could use the same method of arguing against your statements or just about any statement.
I think of the book of mark Jesus says that he talks in parables to both hide the truth and reveal it. I see the parables as an invitation to get into the word and discuss it. Like were doing now. God doesn’t clearly tell us that women can be pastors so he invites us to read the word and figure it out. And also like in mark, just when we have it all figured out Jesus gives us a reality check and says if you don’t understand this parabel you don’t understand any of them. Another invitation. I’m not sure you can without a doubt “prove” either point
To the people that would just take one passage out saying women should not lead men or to anyone that comes up with all the women leaders, Jesus wants both to dig deeper.
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
One other thing there in timothy it does say that an elder must have only 1 wife. He doesn’t say 1 spouse.
Other thing I noticed was in Corinthians Paul clearly states that “I do not allow a woman to teach a man” he doesn’t say god doesn’t allow it.
LOL I’m arguing both points. Just thinking out loud really.
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
@ Jon. Nice!
Paul is writing to Timothy, who is in Ephesus, a church not ready for women elders/pastors. Of course he wouldn’t say, “or a woman with one husband.” That would be ridiculous, because he previously made it clear that women shouldn’t be elders/pastors in the setting Timothy is in.
It’s like when God regulates divorce in the Old Testament. It’s not cause God likes divorce. It’s cause He’s dealing with culture on it’s level.
The whole slavery thing is not about developing some kind of slick argument that can be pulled out whenever it is beneficial to the interpreter. It’s about pointing out exactly what happened.
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
Er, I wrote a huge comment on this subject, then my cat walked across the keyboard, so I suppose I will have to be happy with this statement.
Don’t confuse proper vernacular of the times with ‘law’. “A man is only as good as his word.” doesn’t mean women are -not- as good as their words, or that only men can properly annunciate words, or that women don’t know enough words to be as good as said words. It’s a idea that is trying to be presented by the statement and as such, is not to be taken literally.
Proper vernacular of the times stated that a proper sentence had a male connotation.
Just a thought.
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
Thanks Kristy! I agree!
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
First, let me point out that I have 2 degrees from Southern Baptist schools, known for their strong sentiments against women as pastors. At one of the schools, I graduated as the leading student in my Christian Studies major. At the other, I was one of the only M.Div. students to TA a class–Biblical Greek. I’m pointing this out specifically to show that I am qualified, not simply by emotion or experience, but by training to speak on these weighty matters. Not only that, my training is CONSERVATIVE training… and, perhaps this is prideful, but I should point out that I did better in that training than the majority of Southern Baptist men who say I cannot be a pastor.
Yet, I agree with Chris. For one thing, Nathan’s argument from Genesis is based on a post-fallen condition. Christ already died for our sins and initiated the process that should culminate in new creation. If you are going to argue that women cannot be pastors based on Genesis, then your argument leaves little room for Christ’s work.
Yet Jesus broke the social mores of his time in almost every NT encounter we see with women. He touched them. He had theological discussions with them and let them sit at his feet as disciples. He defended their worship. He used them, as Chris points out, as witnesses to the Resurrection.
Certainly, whatever happened in the early church led to great social changes. That is the reason why we have the Household Codes or the passages like Ephesians 5 that one of you spoke about. In Greek, Ephesians 5:22 (Wives, submit to your husbands) does not actually have a VERB. In fact it is not even a separate sentence. Ephesians 5:18-22 is a big run-on sentence. This lack of verb was normal in Greek and the rule of thumb in translation is to borrow the previous verb form from what we call Ephesians 5:21. We translate this, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” THAT is the topic heading of what follows (although the whole passage is a description of what it means to be filled by the Spirit). Husbands being told to love their wives belongs under the same topic heading as 5:22. Both are meant to amplify the verb form (participle) of 5:21.
This is not simply me saying this. Gordan Fee, a fairly conservative, well-respected Biblical scholar says this. He also notes that in such passages MEN are being addressed in unprecedented ways (and I would point out that they are addressed 3x to the women, children, and slaves’ one in these passages, and at least in the case of husbands and wives in the Ephesians passage, Paul devotes many more words to the men, most of which we ignore while we concentrate on getting women to submit. Yet sometimes sheer word quantity can tell us where an AUTHOR puts his emphasis). Anyway, my point is that this is an address to Roman households, where SOCIETY already ASSUMED male authority, so if Christ had not radically changed things, there would be no need for MEN to be addressed. He doesn’t tell them to take the place they already held and assumed. He tells them to take one of submission, just as Christ did. He is not simply assuming that the man had absolute rule, as Roman law did. He did not change the structure or break the law, as Fee points out, he simply made it “irrelevant.”
Ephesians was a letter read to a house church and women, children, and slaves are hearing their husband, father, and master addressed and told to care for them in a way that would have been SHOCKING in Roman society. Men did not marry women to LOVE them. They married them to use them for childbearing and got to keep mistresses on the side. LOVE was a new concept, a radical concept, a Christlike concept. Paul’s address also gave women moral agency and choice when previously their obedience was assumed. Totally radical!! By addressing both parties, he makes our human structures irrelevant and demonstrates equality in Christ. You can read about this here, although you will have to register: http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/cultural-context-ephesians-518-69
If then, as one of you commented, God wants the church to look like the family… Then we must ask what kind of family? One that doesn’t really mirror the Biblical text about families? That is what you have assumed with interpretations that disconnect Ephesians 5:22 from 5:18-21. (I should also ask if we want to impose a Roman law/model of household on modern contexts. That’s a huge jump with no regard for the rest of history). Along with that, I would add what you describe as God’s model of family really is simply another form of a single-parent family. Single parenthood ain’t great whether it’s Dad or Mom as the head, sir! (And in actuality, there was no such thing as what we call a senior pastor in the church. Pastors was always found in the plural form… just so you know).
Along with that, I would add that NONE of the Biblical pastors, apostles, teachers, or deacons had roles that resemble our modern-day church. We can simply make correlations. You say that Chris has only proven female leadership and not pastorship. I disagree. He pointed out for example that Priscilla had a teaching role… which is the role we commonly correlate with pastors/church planters. He also pointed out that Junia was called an apostle and that other women were called prophets. We correlate all of those roles with our modern ideas of pastorships.
I would also like to comment on the idea one of you mentioned about men being leaders b/c Adam was punished even though Eve sinned first (based on Driscoll). Perhaps I misunderstood an off-the-cuff remark, but I fail to see the logic. Adam was punished for SINNING and giving into peer pressure. Period. God hates all sin, whether we are the first or last to do it and wants us to listen and be obedient to Him alone, although there certainly was some Jewish scapegoating of women for sinning first over the centuries (that made its way into 1 Tim 13-14, which are thought to be off-repeated slogans but which make little sense in light of women speaking obviously in other passages and must be interpreted along with those passages). Although there was certainly some scapegoating, the text of Genesis itself makes it clear that Adam was punished for sin. Period. AND that God held all sinful parties responsible…
This brings me back to Christ. Although God certainly holds each of us (both corporately and individually) guilty for our sins, God also desires a love relationship with each of us. We don’t live simply in a post-fallen world. We live in a world pointed to the new creation and a world in which Christ paid the cost for that sin. Christ gave us the seeds of the kingdom (but not the whole mustard bush as Glen Stassen might say) in the life and work of Christ. Christ treated women with respect and used them in unprecedented ways. He has used women greatly as church leaders and as pastors. If a woman is preaching Christ (giving that as a fragrant offering of worship–which is how we should all use our talents and gifts)… Anyway, if a woman is preaching and loving Christ, then WHY stop her? If it is not from God, then he will show her. Why spend so much time beating the issue?? Do men in the church have nothing better to do??? You may say we’re sinning, but I say, “Isn’t it a greater sin to stop the Gospel from being proclaimed?” Is this really such a sin? I can think of far more worthy causes for you to take up like doing something about pornography, child trafficking, child soldiers, human torture, abortion, racial discrimination, terrorism, and world hunger. It seems ridiculous and non-productive to go after women pastors who are proclaiming the gospel, while ignoring human traffickers who are selling children body and soul. Use your time better–even if you think we’re sinners.
One final note, for those that might wish to just let the issue lie or who feel that the issue doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect them personally (i.e. “I believe it’s OK for women to be pastors, but why does it matter if my church agrees? I’m a woman, but don’t plan to be a pastor or I’m a man, so it doesn’t affect me” type arguments). I’m not sure I’m content to simply be moderate and “let disagreements lie.” That works for some arguments, but not this one, because it fails to create God’s justice for women. I can certainly LOVE and RESPECT those with whom I disagree as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can respect their piety, their desire to see Biblical truths (as they interpret them) lived out, and the MANY other things that they are right about. I can respect them simply for being created in the image of God. I also certainly believe that Christ has given us all freedom to make choices, although he has also called us to come to agreement at times. I certainly believe that our Sovereign Father can work things out in his time. I also believe he wants us to work out justice here on earth though and that if we attempt to be moderate, we do women a real disservice. If we ignore the hungry simply because we have food in our stomachs and “can’t change things,” then we contribute to the injustice. If we ignore child victims of trafficking and do nothing to rescue them, then we contribute to the injustice. If we ignore women in ministry and do nothing to support their callings, then we contribute to their persecution. Please do not be part of what MLK called “the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”
I realize the tension over women pastors disturbs many and we’d rather not think about conflicts. We must keep doing so. To quote Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail,”We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.”
We must keep talking about women in the church and keep supporting them, even as we turn to other important issues of justice. Thank you, Chris, for being anything but moderate–for writing such a beautiful blog and supporting female pastors, encouraging them to use their gifts for love of their Creator, and moving us toward progress. Thank you, Ekklesia, for listening to him and learning alongside many women and men on this tension-filled topic. Thank you also for loving those with whom we disagree!
Love you much!! Laura
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
PS If you wish more biblical/exegetical discussion of these things, try the website: http://www.cbeinternational.org. There are a lot of free articles to read if you register. I encourage Ekklesia to become a member.
If you wish to read of a more personal journey of one woman called by Holy Spirit, then check out my own recent blog that I keep for family and friends (not a professional blog as this one is): http://www.laurarector.com. I am just an ordinary of ordinary girls trying to love Jesus and obey him. Let me!
Wednesday, 12. August 2009
@ Laura. Wow Laura! That MLK comparison was saaweet!!! Thank you!
Thursday, 13. August 2009
@laura. Good stuff. You didn’t have to list your accomplishments in the beginning there, I could tell you know what your talking about just by your comments alone. But I know you were just trying to establish credibility :).
It’s obvious that you are very passionate on this subject so thanks for commenting. You put some things into perspective for me. One thing that really stood out for me was your statement saying the church structure back then was very different from the church structure today. I do believe that and it’s very apparent, but we cannot dismiss things from the bible just because the culture was different back then. The bible is the truth and the literal word if god.
I do want to be clear though I do believe women being pastors or leaders in the church is a beautiful thing, but it’s easy to see how people can come up with arguments for both sides. I think what I still don’t find clear is the difference between pastor and leader in the church and as it’s presents in the bible.
You are right that if someone is preaching the gospel we should not stand in there way whether male or female. If you were to ask me who was the greatest pastor I have ever met, I would say my mom.
I do think I disagree with you on one case however about standing up and fighting for women being pastors, I do agree that god puts people on this earth to help revert certain social injustices but many times those issues become more important to individuals than gods glory. It’s much like politics which I will admit I still build divisions with people because of certain issues because I care more about being right than i do about being righteous.
Great comments though I do hope you come back here often
Thursday, 13. August 2009
I just wanted to clarify something from my last comment. Laura you have provided me with a great perspective on churches in the bible. And your right when we talk about pastor today it’s not exactly what pastor means in the bible. Your correlation of priscilla teaching men being the closest thing we could equate pastorship to today since church structure was a bit different. That being said I believe the reason the pastors at ekklesia chose the name ekklesia was because they’re interested in getting back to the original meaning of the word church
Also ekklesia does have a senior pastor. His name is Jesus
Forgive spelling and grammar I’m writing these from my iphone
Thursday, 13. August 2009
@ Jon. Thanks for your humility in discussing the political thing…
You’ve helped me see how much more we need to teach on Biblical church leadership.
About your mom being the greatest pastor you’ve ever met… Is this a serious remark? Half serious? Without tone of voice, I can’t tell? Being that I know your mom personally, I’ll say this: “She’s beautiful!”
However, since “elder” is the most frequent term we seem to be quoting from the Scripture passages we’ve discussed, let me try just sticking with that one for a minute, for sake of clarity…
The word “elder” wasn’t invented in the first century. It is a borrowed term, given a new connotation in church government. Did you read the passages I listed above that reveal that New Testament churches were led by “multiple elders”?
1 Peter 2:9 speaks of the priesthood of all believers, but there is a very significant distinction between the leadership of “appointed elders” of a specific church, and a person who attends that specific church.
After reading these passages, what do you make of this?
Wednesday, 19. August 2009
Hey Chris. Thanks for asking this question. It’s good for me to have to rethink these important and controversial issues. I thought I was finished studying this one. Wrong.
I’m afraid I have to respectfully disagree with you though. I think I understand the two sides, and I use this loosely, because there are a variety of perspectives on both. As I’ve read, I see that the people who are speaking on this all desire to be scripturally sound. But the differing views are not compatible. There is only one Truth and there is no confussion within that Truth. The key here is for us to continue to listen and be open to what God is telling us. We need to be very careful as we use scriptures to support what we think. One example would be Galatians 3 : 28, which I think is in the context of salvation being available for all, no distinctions, rather than in the context of church structure. There are many others that we, the church, use wrongly. My point continues to be that we are in the process of sanctification and the Holy Spirit continues to teach us as we are open to His voice.
Our society is so confused about maleness and femaleness. This is coming from one who minored in Women’s Studies in the early 80s and bought into that worldview for awhile. God opened my eyes to His Truth and His best for us. My prayer is that The Church will not be drawn into the world’s confusion and weaken our effectiveness for the cause of Christ.
Wednesday, 19. August 2009
Hi Chris. It’s been a long time since I’ve talked to you and Andrea, but I thank you for sending me your e-mails so I can know how you guys are doing and pray for you and your church.
I thought your comments on women being a pastor was quite interesting. You make a lot of good points, that God used women in many leadership positions even as high as apostles and judges. I agree with you that in every generation, God meets us where we are at and uses anyone who is most qualified to teach, be it women or men.
However, I do believe that in every issue we must consider God’s original purpose. 1 Cor. 11:3 says, “I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” If man are the head of every family, it stands to reason that man should also be the head of government. This intent is clearly seen in the life of Deborah the Judge whom you mentioned in your article. Because Deborah understood God’s original purpose, although she was the judge of Israel, she tried to raise up a man, Barak, to fight the enemies of Israel so he would be recognized as the next leader. Unfortunately, Barak refused the position and Deborah continued to reign. Henrietta Mears, one of the greatest Sunday school teachers of all times, also focused on raising male leaders in the college ministry for the same reason.
My prayer is that one day, there will be no need for women to teach men. Women can certainly teach children, but starting in junior high, having been in youth ministry, young men need men to teach them and young women is best taught by women.
But as you pointed out in your article, Chris, until man learns to put relationship first, specifically their relationship with God, rather than status or position in the world, this will not happen, and until then, God will use women to teach men who spiritually are children or youths.
But we as men and women can do something to restore God’s original purpose. Spiritual men can multiply themselves and spiritual women, like Deborah and Henrietta Mears, can also raise up and encourage men to take back their position in the kingdom of God as leaders in their families, in government and in the lives of the young men.
Thursday, 20. August 2009
@ Leana and Patrice.
Dear women of faith, I want to thank you both for your contributions to this blog, all the way from Los Angeles and St Louis! Some readers may find it interesting to hear Jesus-following women such as yourselves, who believe the Bible speaks against women acting in the role of pastor. The tone of both of your responses comes across very lovingly. I’m happy to read your comments on here anytime! Thank you for your desire to enlighten us with the Word of God, in love.
Thursday, 20. August 2009
Just when I thought I might have a good understanding of this subject there’s a monkey wrench thrown into the gears.
Leana your argument is very compelling. But I have to think to myself, does leadership in the government translate to leadership in the church. And does leadership in the family translate to leadership in the church.
We need to also define leadership in the church. I see a leader in the church as being the ones making the decisions of how the bible is to be interpreted to the congregation of that church. Being the influencing factor over the mission of that church.
I’m leaning to agree with leana on this one. There are just so many clear examples of this in the bible. I mean God made men and women different for a reason and gave them different tendencies and abilities. All for a purpose, for his purpose, but none the less different. Different doesn’t mean bad. God chose the Jews to change the world. Does that mean the rest of us don’t have a purpose? Of course not, we are different but not without purpose.
Did god choose women to be leaders? Without a doubt he did. Did god choose women to to be leaders in a church? I believe yes he did, in many ways, teaching men and everything. But did he choose them to lead an entire church and it’s congregation in how the bible should be interpreted? That I’m not so sure about.
Great conversation though. It’s great to be able to discuss and debate this topic without people getting offended
Friday, 21. August 2009
Just a note on the argument that “All the books of the Bible were written by men” (@Mike O’Dea, quoting Mark Driscoll): Driscoll most certainly knows better, which just shows how much our presuppositions affect our logic.
Many, if not most, of the books of the Bible are formally anonymous; we only have tradition to suggest to us who might have written them. Of course, in a male-dominated society, in which most literate people were men, it is likely that most of them were written by men. But we do not know for sure. If a woman wrote one of the books, it’s most likely that she would have left her name off, so as to secure a greater readership.
Maybe that’s why Hebrews is anonymous. (Priscilla, anyone?)
Tuesday, 25. August 2009
Chris writes, “Paul affirmed women leadership in other situations, when the time was right.”
He did? Where’s the scripture?
The Role of Women
Although women have traditionally fulfilled supportive roles in serving the church and gained their greatest joy and sense of accomplishment from being wives and mothers, the feminist movement has successfully influenced many women to abandon these divinely ordained roles.
Unfortunately, this movement has made headway even in the church, creating chaos and confusion regarding the role of women both in ministry and in the home. Only in Scripture can God’s intended design for women be found.
The Old Testament and Women
In the creation account of Genesis 1, God’s first word on the subject of men and women is that they were equally created in the image of God (v. 27). Neither received more of the image of God than the other. So the Bible begins with the equality of the sexes. As persons, as spiritual beings standing before God, men and women are absolutely equal.
Despite this equality, there is in Genesis 2 a more detailed account of the creation of the two human beings that reveals differences in their God-given functions and responsibilities. God did not create the man and the woman at the same time, but rather He created Adam first and Eve later for the specific purpose of being Adam’s helper. Eve was equal to Adam, but she was given the role and duty of submitting to him. Although the word “helper” carries very positive connotations—even being used of God Himself as the helper of Israel (Deut. 33:7; Ps. 33:20)—it still describes someone in a relationship of service to another. The responsibility of wives to submit to their husbands, then, was part of the plan from creation, even before the curse. The first books of the Bible establish both the equality of men and women and also the support role of the wife (see Exod. 21:15, 17, 28–31; Num. 5:19–20, 29; 6:2; 30:1–16).
Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God’s command resulted in certain consequences (Gen. 3:16–19). For the woman, God pronounced a curse that included multiplied pain in childbirth and tension in the authority-submission relationship of husband and wife. Genesis 3:16 says the woman’s “desire” will be for her husband but he shall “rule” over her. In Genesis 4:7 the
author uses the same word “desire” to mean “excessive control over.” Thus, the curse in
Genesis 3:16 refers to a new desire on the part of the woman to exercise control over her husband—but he will in fact oppressively rule and exert authority over her. The result of the Fall
on marriage through history has been an ongoing struggle between the sexes, with women
seeking control and men seeking dominance.
Throughout the Old Testament, women were active in the religious life of Israel, but generally
they were not leaders. Women like Deborah (Judges 4) were clearly the exception and not
the rule. There was no woman with an ongoing prophetic ministry. No woman was a priest. No queen ever ruled Israel. No woman wrote an Old Testament (or New Testament) book. Isaiah 3:12 indicates that God allowed women to rule as part of His judgment on the sinning nation.
Jesus and Women
In the midst of the Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures, which viewed women almost on the level of possessions, Jesus showed love and respect for women. Though Jewish rabbis did not teach women and the Jewish Talmud said it was better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman, Jesus never took the position that women, by their very nature, could not understand spiritual or theological truth. He not only included them in His audiences but also used illustrations and images that would be familiar to them (Matt. 13:33; 22:1–2; 24:41; Luke
15:8–10) and specifically applied His teaching to them (Matt. 10:34ff.). To the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), He revealed that He was the Messiah and discussed with her topics such as eternal life and the nature of true worship. He also taught Mary and, when admonished by Martha, pointed out the priority of learning spiritual truth even over “womanly” responsibilities like serving guests in one’s home (Luke 10:38). Although men in Jesus’ day normally would not allow women to count change into their hands for fear of physical contact, Jesus touched women to heal them and allowed women to touch Him (Luke 13:10ff.; Mark 5:25ff.). Jesus even allowed a small group of women to travel with Him and His disciples (Luke 8:1–3), an unprecedented happening at that time. After His resurrection, Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene and sent her to announce (N0T “PREACH,”) His resurrection to the disciples (John 20:1–18), despite the fact that women were not allowed
to be witnesses in Jewish courts because they were considered liars.
In Jesus’ treatment of women, He raised their station of life and He showed them compassion
and respect in a way they had never known. This demonstrated their equality. At the same
time, however, Jesus still did not exalt women to a place of leadership over men.
The Epistles and Women
In the Epistles, the two principles of equality and submission for women exist side by side. Galatians 3:28 points to the equality, indicating that the way of salvation is the same for both men and women and that they are members of equal standing in the body of Christ. It does not, however, eradicate all differences in responsibilities for men and women, for this passage does not cover every aspect of God’s design for male and female. In addition, there are many other passages that make distinctions between what God desires of men and what He desires of women, especially within family and within the church.
The Family
While Christian marriage is to involve mutual love and submission between two believers (Eph. 5:21), four passages in the New Testament expressly give to wives the responsibility to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22;) in the church and that women were not to teach or exercise authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12). Therefore, although women are spiritual equals with men and the ministry of women is essential to the body of Christ, women are excluded from leadership over men in the church.
Men and women stand as equals before God, both bearing the image of God Himself. However, without making one inferior to the other, God calls upon both men and women to fulfill the roles and responsibilities specifically designed for them, a pattern that can be seen even in the Godhead (1 Cor. 11:3). In fulfilling the divinely given roles taught in the New Testament, women are able to realize their full potential because they are following the plan of their own Creator and Designer. Only in obedience to Him and His design will women truly be able, in the fullest sense, to give glory to God.
The Church
From the very beginning, women fulfilled a vital role in the Christian church (Acts 1:12–14; 9:36–42; 16:13–15; 17:1–4, 10–12; 18:1–2, 18, 24–28; Rom. 16; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 1:5; 4:19), but NOT ONE OF LEADERSHIP. The apostles were all men; the chief missionary activity was done by men; the writing of the New Testament was the work of men; and leadership in the churches was entrusted to men.
Although the Apostle Paul respected women and worked side by side with them for the furtherance of the gospel (Rom. 16; Phil. 4:3), HE APPOINTED NO FEMALE ELDERS OR PASTORS. In his letters, he urged that men were to be the leaders in the church and that women were not to teach or exercise authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12). Therefore, although women are spiritual equals with men and the ministry of women is essential to the body of Christ, women are excluded from leadership over men in the church.
Men and women stand as equals before God, both bearing the image of God Himself. However, without making one inferior to the other, God calls upon both men and women to fulfill the roles and responsibilities specifically designed for them, a pattern that can be seen even in the Godhead (1 Cor. 11:3). In fulfilling the divinely given roles taught in the New Testament, women are able to realize their full potential because they are following the plan of their own Creator and Designer. Only in obedience to Him and His design will women truly be able, in the fullest sense, to give glory to God.
A Grace Community Church Distinctive
Tuesday, 25. August 2009
Chris states, “I love Mark Driscoll, and I’ve read a few of his books, including the one you mentioned. I like your closed-hand analogy, and a peaceful disagreement on this one sounds wonderful. Mark has a lot of great things to say, and I’m very encouraged by the work God is doing through him in Seattle. Two thumbs up for Mars Hill!”
Scathing commentaries on the perverse Mark Driscoll (often referred to as the leader of the Emergent Church Movement):
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?s=mark+driscoll
Here’s just one - I believe it’s about the 16th one down from the top:
**Updated**Defenders of X-Rated Driscoll, Meet the Remnant!
Jan 15
I have just sent out this press release on the Driscoll issue.
**Warning–Links within this post are posted for documentation purposes only. Those who are planning to contact Christian leaders like Dr. Lutzer who are supporting Mark Driscoll can use these to confront them.**
I have heard from Slice readers from as far away as South America and Australia over the conduct of America’s Evangelical Sexpert pastor, Mark Driscoll. Men like Driscoll gain a platform through the endorsement and defense of older leaders, men who are well old enough to know better. It’s time these men heard from the Christian remnant who find things like the public discussion of homosexual-style sex for married couples repugnant.
My 20-year-old son put it this way. “You go out to the mall or the stores or anywhere today and sex is shoved in your face. You can’t escape it because advertisers make sure it’s always in your face. Then you go to church which should be a safe place from this, and what do you find? Mark Driscoll strutting back and forth on the platform, shoving sex in your face once again, and in graphic terms that conjure up images directly at odds with biblical commands for purity.”
There is a link on Mark’s website called Christiannymphos.org. I’d like to hear Dr. Lutzer, or John Piper or any of the other brave defenders of the faith justify kinky sex for married couples or how about the Christian wife learning how to be a Christian dominatrix? Mark Driscoll is actively promoting this website. God help you, Mr. Driscoll, and God help the so called Christian leaders who support him in it. You’re no longer going to do it in a corner, because the remnant is blowing the whistle.
Tuesday, 25. August 2009
Re: Passiflora
Wow, this post is excellent! I thoroughly enjoyed it, because this is the kind of discussion that helps us to dig deep into Scripture. Thank you! This was a great read!!!
However, Pat, I’ve read some of your other posts, which are largely poorly written and often carry a spiteful tone, and I was amazed that you came up with something so coherent. Then I realized, you didn’t. This article is not your work. Did you state this in your post? If so, I missed it. Plagiarism is disrespectful to the authors of this work, and yourself.
Here are a few of my responses to this article, which was written by John MacArthur and other elders of Grace Community Church.
The writers begin by stating that the original role of the woman was to submit to her husband. Note that Ephesians 5:21 states that husbands and wives should submit to each other.
It’s wonderful that the authors acknowledge that the Hebrew word for “helper” is used of both Eve, and God. God is our “helper”. Woman is a “helper.” Good stuff. Men often look upon this word in a demeaning way. Knowing that God uses this word to describe Himself is quite revelatory…
The authors state that the word “desire” in Genesis 3 strictly carries the connotation that the woman will seek only a manipulative, domineering role over her husband, in contrast to what I have written in my post.
In Genesis 4:7, the context of the word “desire” is different than than of Genesis 3. Sin has no form of pure desire whatsoever. The desire of sin is to dominate, period. The writers of this document limit the definition of “desire” in a fashion that is not Biblically appropriate. The connotation of the Hebrew word for desire depends on the context in which it is used. God says that the woman’s desire will be for her husband, not that she will desire to “rule over” him. This is very important to understand. Do a word study on desire, and you’ll see there are dozens and dozens of positive and negative connotations to the word. I believe the Genesis 3 context paints the reality that Eve will have a legitimate desire for her husband, but it will be crushed by her husband’s desire for authority. This increases the tragedy of the fallenness of humanity. Love is dominated by lust for power.
Here are just a few Scriptures that paint a positive picture of the word “desire.”
1 Chronicles 29:18
O LORD, God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Israel, keep this desire in the hearts of your people forever, and keep their hearts loyal to you.
Psalm 10:17
You hear, O LORD, the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry…
Psalm 20:4
May he give you the desire of your heart and make all your plans succeed.
Proverbs 11:23
The desire of the righteous ends only in good, but the hope of the wicked only in wrath.
Proverbs 19:22 What a man desires is unfailing love; better to be poor than a liar.
The writers of this document point out the prophetic curse mentioned in Isaiah 3:12.
Yes, it is a curse for women to “rule over” men. Note the context: “rule over.” Man was not made to “rule over” woman. That is why 1 Timothy 2:12 says that women must not have “authority over” men. “Ruling over” is meant only for God. Do a word study of the phrase “rule over”, and you will see that this was designed for God. Notice that kings “ruled over” people, but this was not God’s desire. He allowed Israel to have a king, because they lusted after the strategy of other nations, but although God hated this request, He allowed it. It didn’t turn out too well either, did it?
Here are a few Scriptures that talk about ruling over.
We were meant to “rule over” creation, but not people.
Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Leviticus 26:17
I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.
Gideon was a judge, and he knew that he should not “rule over” the people, although he eventually changed his mind and messed things up big time.
Judges 8:23
But Gideon told them, “I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The LORD will rule over you.”
Here Samuel laments over the fact that Israel asked for a human king to “rule over” them.
1 Samuel 2:12
“But when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites was moving against you, you said to me, ‘No, we want a king to rule over us’-even though the LORD your God was your king.
In line with Genesis 4, we must pray that sin does not “rule over” us.
Psalm 119:133
Direct my footsteps according to your word; let no sin rule over me.
Because of sin, economic disparity has risen and caused people to be ruled over.
Proverbs 22:7
The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.
Paul wrote of Isaiah’s prophecy that one day God would resume His proper status of ruling over the nations.
Romans 15:12
And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him.”
No longer will people “rule over”, but Christ will be the one in charge, and He will use men and women to carry out His authority.
I’d like to thank the writers of this document for pointing how some of the powerful examples of how Jesus empowered women!
Thats all for now.
Tuesday, 25. August 2009
Chris has stated, “Creation is on it’s way to one day living perfectly under the leadership of God, back to the way things were supposed to be in Genesis 1 and 2. That being said, there are many specific commands in the Bible that directly teach us how to live, right here, right now. However, the Bible does not explicitly and directly tell us what to do in every single situation.”
So apparently you do not believe in the authority of scripture - the inerrancy and sufficiency of it? Do you say this because your wife is a pastor and is furthering her studies in man-centered psychology?
Psalm 19:7-11: “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; In keeping them there is great reward.”
2 Timothy 3:15-17: “…and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
2 Peter 1:2-7: “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us EVERYTHING pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.”
For an understanding of the differences between Biblical Counseling and extrabiblical psychology, I submit the following:
The Sufficiency of Scripture in Biblical Counseling
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj9d.pdf
Tuesday, 25. August 2009
Chris writes, “However, Pat, I’ve read some of your other posts, which are largely poorly written and often carry a spiteful tone, and I was amazed that you came up with something so coherent. Then I realized, you didn’t. This article is not your work. Did you state this in your post? If so, I missed it. Plagiarism is disrespectful to the authors of this work, and yourself.”
Apparently you did not read the last line of my post - “A Grace Community Church Distinctive.”
I am of the belief that most of what you write VERY is poorly written - even heretical.
According to my “dictionary lookup,” to be “spiteful” is to be vindictive or vengeful in a petty way; and to hurt you. What is at issue is hardly petty, since my point has always been to guard the flock, and I have don’t reason to be vindictive or vengeful toward you, since you have done nothing to me personally - and further, vengeance belongs to the Lord. Have you not heard?
Here’s another word from my sponsor regarding this matter…(my caps for emphasis.)
Generally speaking, avoiding conflicts is a good idea. Warmth and congeniality are normally preferable to cold harshness. Civility, compassion, and good manners are in short supply these days, and we ought to have more of them. Gentleness, a soft answer, and a kind word usually go further than an argument or a rebuke. That which edifies is more helpful and more fruitful in the long run than criticism. Cultivating friends is more pleasant and more profitable than crusading against enemies. And it’s ordinarily better to be tender and mild rather than curt or combative—especially to the victims of false teaching.
But those qualifying words are vital: usually, ordinarily, generally. Avoiding conflict is not ALWAYS the right thing. Sometimes it is downright sinful. Particularly in times like these, when almost no error is deemed too serious to be excluded from the evangelical conversation, and while the Lord’s flock is being infiltrated by wolves dressed like prophets, declaring visions of peace when there is no peace (cf. Ezekiel 13:16).
EVEN THE KINDEST, GENTLEST SHEPHERD SOMETIMES NEEDS TO THROW ROCKS AT THE WOLVES WHO COME IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING.
Was Jesus Always “Nice?”
The Great Shepherd Himself was never far from open controversy with the most conspicuously religious inhabitants in all of Israel. Almost every chapter of the gospels makes some reference to His running battle with the chief hypocrites of His day, and He made no effort whatsoever to be winsome in His encounters with them. He did not invite them to dialogue or engage in a friendly exchange of ideas.
Jesus’ public ministry was barely underway when He invaded what they thought was their turf—the temple grounds in Jerusalem—and went on a righteous rampage against their mercenary control of Israel’s worship. He did the same thing again during the final week before His crucifixion, immediately after His triumphal entry into the city. One of His last major public discourses was the solemn pronunciation of seven woes against the scribes and Pharisees. These were formal curses He pronounced against them. That sermon was the furthest thing from a friendly dialogue. Matthew’s record of it fills an entire chapter (Matthew 23), and as noted earlier, it is entirely devoid of any positive or encouraging word for the Pharisees and their followers. Luke distills and summarizes the entire message in three short verses—Luke 20:45-47: “Then, in the hearing of all the people, He said to His disciples, ‘Beware of the scribes, who desire to go around in long robes, love greetings in the marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts, who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.’”
That is a perfect summary of Jesus’ dealings with the Pharisees. It is a blistering denunciation—a candid diatribe about the seriousness of their error. There is no conversation, no collegiality, no dialogue, and no cooperation. Only confrontation, condemnation, and (as Matthew records) curses against them.
Jesus’ compassion is certainly evident in two facts that bracket this declamation. First, Luke says that as He drew near the city and observed its full panorama for this final time, He paused and wept over it (Luke 19:41-44). And second, Matthew records a similar lament at the end of the seven woes (Matthew 23:37). So we can be absolutely certain that as Jesus delivered this diatribe, His heart was full compassion.
Yet that compassion is directed at the victims of the false teaching, not the false teachers themselves. There is no hint of sympathy, no proposal of clemency, no trace of kindness, no effort on Jesus’ part to be “nice” toward the Pharisees. Indeed, with these words Jesus formally and resoundingly pronounced their doom and then held them up publicly as a warning to others.
This is the polar opposite of any invitation to dialogue. He doesn’t say, “They’re basically good guys. They have pious intentions. They have some valid spiritual insights. Let’s have a conversation with them.” Instead, He says, “Keep your distance. Be on guard against their lifestyle and their influence. Follow them, and you are headed for the same condemnation as them.”
This approach would surely have earned Jesus an resounding outpouring of loud disapproval from today’s guardians of evangelical protocol. (LIKE YOU.) In fact, His approach to the Pharisees utterly debunks the cardinal points of conventional wisdom among modern and postmodern evangelicals—the neo-evangelical fondness for eternal collegiality, and the Emerging infatuation with engaging all points of view in endless conversation. By today’s standards, Jesus words about the Pharisees and His treatment of them are breathtakingly severe.
Excerpt from the book, “THE JESUS YOU CAN’T IGNORE - What You Must Learn From the Bold Confrontations of Christ”…by John MacArthur, (as posted at Pyromanics - thanks, Phil.)
Tuesday, 25. August 2009
Chris writes, “I’d like to thank the writers of this document for pointing how some of the powerful examples of how Jesus empowered women!”
Yes, he elevated their status. But he didn’t say they should be the leaders.
You really take liberal license on scripture, don’t you?
Tuesday, 25. August 2009
Chris writes, “Mother Teresa did not experience this type of commissioning, nor did she express the desire.”
Why are you using an example of someone from a false teaching such as the works-based, heretical Roman Catholic Church? Exchanging the truth for a lie? More ecumenism on your part?
Ecumenism in and of itself is not ENTIRELY bad. It all depends on who you are aligning yourself with. Of most importance is that one must ask if what they teach is Biblical.
Here’s another distinctive from my church which reflects some, but not all of the heretical teachings of Roman Catholicism, and why we should not identify with them - a MUST READ for every true Protestant.
http://www.gty.org/media/pdf/Roman_Catholicism.pdf
For further insight into this matter, please feel free to visit http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Biblical.html
Some more insight on ecumenism:
http://www.gotquestions.org/ecumenism-ecumenical.html
I certainly wouldn’t be lining myself up with the likes of the Catholic church, Mark Driscoll or the “Did Jesus Fart?” crowd.
Tuesday, 25. August 2009
You know what seems blatantly apparent here is that Chris attacks orthodox Christianity, likening it to the Jewish beliefs of Jesus’ day, and considers US to be the “culture.”
What an odd twist.
Tuesday, 25. August 2009
Re: Passiflora
Pat, I’d like you to write on this blog, however, even the line “A Grace Community Church Distinctive” is copied directly from one of Grace’s documents. You left it until the very end, and it is not cited. If you copy another author’s words, put all his/her words in quotes and cite them. Otherwise, I’m not going to post anything else you write.
I sincerely would like to hear your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Below is the TNIV translation, which you probably disagree with. Either way, how does this passage relate to you, being that you are a woman attempting to correct the doctrine of Ekklesia via a written, online blog?
“For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
I’m not going to post your responses if you go on writing an overabundance of comments, especially since much of what you write is plagiarism anyway. For now, stick to this question, or I won’t post what you write.
Thursday, 27. August 2009
1 Cor 14:33-35.
“…for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints
Verse 33 references back to the previous verses (26-32,) about speaking in tongues and order in the church, but also serves as an introduction to the next couple of verses. The word “confusion” is key to the whole chapter. The church at worship before God should reflect His character and nature because He is a God of peace and harmony, order and clarity, not strife and confusion. (See Romans 15:33, 2nd Thessalonians 3:16, and Hebrews 13:20.) Though the phrase, “as in all churches,” applies to the previous verses, it also serves as a logical introduction to verse 34 to a universal principle for churches.
Verse 34 - “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.”
Verse 35 - “If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”
The principle of women not speaking in churches is universal; this applies to all churches, not just locally, geographically, or culturally. The context of this verse concerns prophesy, but includes the general theme of the chapter, i.e., tongues. Rather than leading, they are to be submissive as God’s Word makes clear in earlier verses 1st Corinthians 11:3-15 and Genesis 3:16, as well as the later 1st Timothy 2:11-15.
It is not coincidental that many modern churches that have tongue-speaking and have claims of healing and miracles also permit women to lead worship, preach, and teach. Women may be gifted teachers, but they are not permitted by God to “speak” in churches. In fact, for them to do so is “improper,” meaning “disgraceful.” Apparently, certain women were out of order in disruptively asking questions publicly in the chaotic services.
But we can’t stop there, for to do so would be to take scripture out of context. We must understand why.
Corinth, as you probably know, had became so morally corrupt that its very name is synonymous with gross immorality and drunken debauchery and this had spilled over into the church - even some of the worst sins, like incest were found among the church members. There were divisions or “cliques” in the church, too.
Paul knew that the Corinthians would react to all these firm regulations that would end the free-for-all in their services. The prophets, the tongue-speakers, and women may all have been resistant to words, so he anticipated that resistance by sarcastically challenging those who put themselves above his word, and thus, above Scripture by either ignoring it or interpreting it to fit their presupposed ideas. If anyone was genuinely a prophet, or had the true spiritual gift of tongues, he our she would submit to the principles God had revealed through the apostle.
What had God already revealed to Paul regarding women? 1st Corinthians11:3-15 - “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
And what had God already revealed earlier than that? Genesis 3:16 - “To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Simply put, for there to be “order” IN THE CHURCH, as well as in the home, we must follow that natural order that God designed.
How does that apply to me addressing Chris? LOL. You are not my husband. I am not in church. We are ALL commanded, both men and women, to go out into the world and speak the Truth of the Gospel. Welcome to the blogosphere.
Thought you had me, didn’t you.
Goodness! I know you don’t think for a minute that women don’t have a right to blog on church websites. But do you think that if a pastor is considered to be a heretic, that we women don’t have the OBLIGATION to point that out on their website?
Now if the suspected heretic happened to be in MY own church, and I were married, I would talk to my husband about it. If my husband agreed, he would take it up with the pastor. If the pastor really was teaching falsely, and he did not repent of that, then my husband would turn to the elders - as in bring in witnesses. Since I have no husband, I have to go directly to the pastor, which I would do in private as instructed in Matthew 18 and go from there.
I suppose I could have written to you in private first, but since this is more than an “inside church matter,” as you have put all your falsity out to the entire world, my first obligation is to the flock when it comes to heresy. And obviously, I have not been the only poster who finds your brand of Christianity not only heretical but distasteful - even considered blasphemous by some as well.
I need to do a little deeper digging on the Priscilla teaching “to men,” I think that’s a stretch. She worked along side her husband to instruct Apollos. (one man) Apollos was one of the leaders of one of the factions or “cliques” in the church. Priscilla and her husband were good friends of Paul, even risking their lives for him, which is why he held her in high esteem.
Thursday, 27. August 2009
Re Passiflora:
I enjoyed reading this. Thank you Pat!
I did notice that you still copied some lines without citing them. Several of these sentences are verbatim, from an article written on “gotquestions.org.” Unless you wrote that article, please make it clear that these are not your words.
So what you’re saying is that this passage is telling women to refrain from commenting on tongue-speaking and prophecy? So you believe it’s OK for women to sing in church services today, and to greet other people, and to ask questions?
What about when prophecy is read from the Bible, during a Bible study? I think your church has what you call “Sunday School” right? If the teacher is reading from the book of Isaiah, or any prophetic text, can a woman ask questions, or does she need to wait until she gets home?
By the way, we do consider what we do on this blog to be church. We don’t limit it to Sunday morning in a building.
Monday, 5. October 2009
“Paul is writing to Timothy, who is in Ephesus, a church not ready for women elders/pastors. Of course he wouldn’t say, “or a woman with one husband.” That would be ridiculous, because he previously made it clear that women shouldn’t be elders/pastors in the setting Timothy is in.
It’s like when God regulates divorce in the Old Testament. It’s not cause God likes divorce. It’s cause He’s dealing with culture on it’s level.
The whole slavery thing is not about developing some kind of slick argument that can be pulled out whenever it is beneficial to the interpreter. It’s about pointing out exactly what happened.”
Are you seriously making the point that this does not apply to how the church is to be governed and only “in the setting Timothy is in.”
Context?
I would like you, Chris, to please show me where in 1 Timothy, Paul applies this ONLY to Timothy’s church. I can give many examples where Paul is applying this command to ALL local pastors/elders/overseers at ALL local churches.
Just read through the book and look for the word “All” it occurs quite often and it is obvious that this epistle (like all of his other God-breathed one’s) would be spread to many other churches immediately.
You are literally trying to make the case (by your claim to culture being the reason that Paul told Timothy no women being in authority) that you know more about Paul’s thinking than what is actually revealed in the Scripture.
Speculation and Extrapolation.
You have several passages from Paul; explicit commands that women are not have authority over men in church settings. Do you not believe those parts of the Bible in favor of implications you draw from various passages which are not in the context of church government?
Which, if read in context, could actually bear out the true meaning of the text instead of being used.
And you pull a Galatians 3 verse as your conclusion point.
Which (of course if anyone looked at it for more than three seconds could see that it’s in the context of faith and justification) simply points out that Christ loves all His elect equally. It’s not in the context of church governance so I’m confused as to how this verse has any relevance.
I am not interested in attacking you and have far too much homework to sustain an extended dialogue; but I thought I’d give you some food for thought.
I’d recommend reading Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by Wayne Grudem. http://www.cbmw.org/Biblical-Foundations-for-Manhood-and-Womanhood/
Each of the arguments you’ve brought up are very well-addressed in this book, I post all of this in prayer for you and your church that Christ would be glorified. And I will be praying for the Spirit to convict you on this matter; I am encouraged that you would actually respond to critiques rather than most other church blogs. Blessings.
soli deo gloria,
Logan Paschke
Tuesday, 6. October 2009
I finished my rebuttal. Sorry for the long wait. But I’ll float it over to you once I finish proof reading it. I hope you’re doing well. Peace in Christ all. n_n;;
Thursday, 8. October 2009
I wrote this as a rebuttal to Chris’s article. I hope you all enjoy it. Please read, Peace in Christ ALL !
http://ugosspot.blogspot.com/2009/10/can-women-be-pastors-no.html
Friday, 9. October 2009
Dear Logan,
Thanks for your desire to help me grow in the Word.
I did a search on the word “all” in 1 & 2 Timothy and found nothing in support of your position, in opposition to the Biblical worldview I laid out.
What I showed you in my post is how God has clearly communicated about this subject in the fullness of Scripture. I’ve showed you how God speaks about issues differently in different situations. It’s really quite clear, but I can see how you’d disagree. I used to agree with Wayne Grudem and John Piper. I own the book you mentioned, and am familiar with many of its concepts.
I love Wayne and John, but believe they’ve missed it on this one.
Here’s an example of a passage from 2 Timothy that illustrates the contextual realities of Paul’s letters:
“When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments” (2 Timothy 4:13).
If you’re ever able to pick up that cloak, give me a call.
I’m happy to be your brother Logan, and I thank you for writing on our blog.
Are you in seminary? Is that the homework you’re mentioning?
Many blessings upon you,
Chris
Monday, 12. October 2009
I think it’s important to draw the distinction between the “created order” of husband heading wife and the “church governance” of who leads whom. Ekklesia, both its male pastors and woman pastor, all teach that the husband is head of the wife, that it was ordained by God in that fashion. Jess and I, who were just married this weekend, went through pre-marital counseling with Andrea Lambert, and it was excellent — a gift from God.
I also am really glad to see that everybody here who is taking a side is referencing the Bible. At least we can agree on the source, if not always the interpretation! God is good.