# How bad is too bad?



## JennyG (Aug 23, 2011)

I'm taking the liberty of starting a new thread based on things said in another one.
When does a church cease to deserve the name, ie what's the tipping point?
Tripel said:



> No, I don't think [a female minister] disqualifies the church from the title ["best of a bad bunch"]. It's less than ideal, but there are worse things that could happen to a church.
> 
> It's a good topic, and may deserve its own thread.


Then Anna said,


> My point is, at what point do the current teachings and beliefs of the leadership outweigh a doctrinal statement?



So, what do you think is the answer?


----------



## TimV (Aug 23, 2011)

By Tripel's definition two men having sex on the alter doesn't qualify for a bad church, since a man murdering a baby on the alter is worse.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 23, 2011)

JennyG said:


> I'm taking the liberty of starting a new thread based on things said in another one.
> When does a church cease to deserve the name, ie what's the tipping point?
> Tripel said:
> 
> ...



At the outset? A church may have a sound doctrinal statement but if the leadership teaches and believes to the contrary, what worth is the doctrinal statement?


----------



## Andres (Aug 23, 2011)

I would say that a female pastor would be cause for dis-association from a church. The reason being is not so much the issue of the female pastor in and of itself, but rather that a female pastor shows that a church has abandoned the authority of scripture. Same thing as ordaining homosexuals. The issue becomes is the Word of God our final authority in matters of faith or not? If the answer is no, then in my opinion, there is nothing productive coming from that church.


----------



## FCC (Aug 23, 2011)

I agree with Andrew. When a church openly abandons the authority of Scripture it is time to leave. Without the Scriptures what do we have, but our own foolish imaginations to guide us!


----------



## MW (Aug 23, 2011)

A constitution is like a machine. It has no life of its own. It is the men who manage and operate it who give it life.


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Aug 23, 2011)

Andres said:


> a female pastor shows that a church has abandoned the authority of scripture.





On a funny note, I once was told I should become a pastor. After getting over my shock at such a terrible idea, I set the poor fellow straight as to why that was not only unbiblical, but something I would never even consider!


----------



## Andres (Aug 23, 2011)

"William The Baptist" said:


> On a funny note, I once was told I should become a pastor. After getting over my shock at such a terrible idea, I set the poor fellow straight as to why that was not only unbiblical, but something I would never even consider!



There you go hurting guy's feelings again!


----------



## Rufus (Aug 23, 2011)

Andres said:


> I would say that a female pastor would be cause for dis-association from a church. The reason being is not so much the issue of the female pastor in and of itself, but rather that a female pastor shows that a church has abandoned the authority of scripture. Same thing as ordaining homosexuals. The issue becomes is the Word of God our final authority in matters of faith or not? If the answer is no, then in my opinion, there is nothing productive coming from that church.



And here's some proof: Denominations, women ordination, and other errors | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


----------



## py3ak (Aug 23, 2011)

JennyG said:


> I'm taking the liberty of starting a new thread based on things said in another one.
> When does a church cease to deserve the name, ie what's the tipping point?



It would be so helpful if the WCF would have told us at what point a church has degenerated so as to become a synagogue of Satan. But since there is more than one way to reach that point, it seems unlikely that there is one rule of thumb that will cover all scenarios. However, the point Andres identified, of respect for God's word, is probably the best candidate for broadest rule. When a church abandons respect for God's word, either theoretically or practically, whatever individual aberrations may occur are symptoms of a truly deadly disease.



> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree profoundly. This depends either on assuming that women ministers are not such a big deal (an impossible assumption, since God has spoken clearly about gender roles), or on assuming that nothing except the very worst is all that big of a deal. But while "interfaith" services might be the very worst thing, heresies in doctrine, abominations in worship, and consistent, ongoing abuse in discipline are all very big deals as well. I doubt Tripel would remain in a church where the pastor was known to be an unrepentant embezzler - and yet there are still worse things.



> Then Anna said,
> 
> 
> > My point is, at what point do the current teachings and beliefs of the leadership outweigh a doctrinal statement?
> ...



Perhaps sooner than this, but certainly when a doctrinal statement has no more restraining power than the paper it's written on.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 24, 2011)

TimV said:


> By Tripel's definition two men having sex on the alter doesn't qualify for a bad church, since a man murdering a baby on the alter is worse.


That's the _reductio_, but actually it was more a question of deciding between churches which all had at least something going for them.
Someone recently put it to me like this: "wouldn't it be better to have a woman minister, if she was seriously preaching the Evangelical gospel, than a man who wasn't?"
I always thought that hypothetical lady would be a walking oxymoron, but maybe there are two views?

---------- Post added at 01:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

...or then again, maybe not. In fact definitely not, you're all right I'm sure.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 24, 2011)

JennyG said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > By Tripel's definition two men having sex on the alter doesn't qualify for a bad church, since a man murdering a baby on the alter is worse.
> ...



How credible is the proclamation of the Evangelical gospel from one who is willing to hold in disdain other parts of the Word? Would she really have any leg to stand on if some parts of Scripture are, in her mind, things to ignore? 

The questioner you write about is giving you a false dichotomy. You don't choose between two evils, but reject them both.


----------



## Tripel (Aug 24, 2011)

TimV said:


> By Tripel's definition two men having sex on the alter doesn't qualify for a bad church, since a man murdering a baby on the alter is worse.



I don't believe I stated a definition, so you are incorrect. My comment was made within a certain context and in response to a Jenny's question.
If a church has a female pastor, it is in error, but it may also be the best option one has. I'm not justifying a female pastor, nor am I justifying men having sex on an alter.

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 AM ----------




toddpedlar said:


> How credible is the proclamation of the Evangelical gospel from one who is willing to hold in disdain other parts of the Word? Would she really have any leg to stand on if some parts of Scripture are, in her mind, things to ignore?
> 
> The questioner you write about is giving you a false dichotomy. *You don't choose between two evils, but reject them both.*



I guess we'd have to disagree about what constitutes evil. A healthy church led by a woman is not "evil" in my opinion. Nor is a healthy arminian church. 
Flawed? Yes. 
Poor interpretation of parts of Scripture? Certainly. 
Evil? No.


----------



## TimV (Aug 24, 2011)

Sorry, I don't buy it. A female pastor can't be the best option one has if you're Reformed.


----------



## Tripel (Aug 24, 2011)

TimV said:


> Sorry, I don't buy it. A female pastor can't be the best option one has if you're Reformed.



I don't see how you can say that. There are places all over the world where the church has little to no presence. I can absolutely see how a church with a female pastor would be the best option.


----------



## TimV (Aug 24, 2011)

It's a question of hypothetical scenarios vs. faith.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 24, 2011)

When God specifically excludes an 'option', i.e., a women elder/pastor, then it is not an option and outside the bounds of acceptability. I really don't see any other position as one that honours God and his word.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 24, 2011)

I think the only reason you can say that, though, Daniel, is that for you a female pastor doesn't seem all that bad. For instance, to which of these defects would you compare a female pastor?

-> Unitarianism
-> Explicit adherence to the normative principle of worship
-> Advocacy of violent revolution against the State
-> Ultra dispensationalism
-> Consistent Armininiasm
-> Serial polygamist pastor
-> Theistic evolution espoused in church constitution
-> Collaborative endeavors for evangelism with area RCC churches


----------



## Tripel (Aug 24, 2011)

TimV said:


> It's a question of hypothetical scenarios vs. faith.



It's not all that hypothetical. I'm moving to a spiritually dark place where a church led by a female pastor is one of the few options.

---------- Post added at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------




py3ak said:


> I think the only reason you can say that, though, Daniel, is that for you a female pastor doesn't seem all that bad. For instance, to which of these defects would you compare a female pastor?
> 
> -> Unitarianism
> -> Explicit adherence to the normative principle of worship
> ...



I do think it's bad. I consider it a major flaw and would have a really hard time being in such a church. As to your list, I'd put it somewhere between normative principle of worship and collaborative evangelism with RCC.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 24, 2011)

toddpedlar said:


> How credible is the proclamation of the Evangelical gospel from one who is willing to hold in disdain other parts of the Word? Would she really have any leg to stand on if some parts of Scripture are, in her mind, things to ignore?
> 
> The questioner you write about is giving you a false dichotomy. You don't choose between two evils, but reject them both.


Thank you Todd, - that's exactly what I told her 

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

Daniel, thanks for your thoughts too.
It's not too hypothetical where I live either. Options are limited. 
Tnat's mainly why I was interested in the question, but I have to say I think the others are right


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Aug 24, 2011)

I personally view an arminian church (poor interpretation) and a church with a female "pastor" (no interpretation) as two very different things. In fact I hate the term "female pastor" since there is no such thing. There is just someone pretending to be a pastor. How could I in good faith attend such a church, introduce myself to the person who just delivered the sermon, and address her as "Mrs. Smith." I can just imagine how things would go awkwardly down-hill from there.


----------



## Andres (Aug 24, 2011)

ericfromcowtown said:


> In fact I hate the term "female pastor" since there is no such thing. There is just someone pretending to be a pastor.



Hmmm...good point.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 24, 2011)

If a congregation with a female Pastor was my only option, I think I wouldn't have any option. I would continue to try to build a congregation by starting a local Bible study and go from there till a Pastor could be called.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Aug 24, 2011)

I hate to point out Deborah, but I do think that I could see a time where a woman would be forced to lead as shepherd, due to a complete absence of men, or due to the men being cowardly/disobedient. For instance, if a huge women's group of 30 women got stranded on an island, without a man, would they be committing sin by having a woman pastor? If so, would they not sin in the opposite, by refusing the normal operations of God's church? 

Of course, in such a strange scenario (which would never occur in the U.S. I am sure), it would not be "normative", and would only be until a man was available. Please note: I am just throwing out ideas...I would NEVER endorse a woman pastor, I am just showing a scenario when it might be permissible for a time.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 24, 2011)

Deborah went but I am not sure she lead the Army. I believe Barak used her as a rabbit foot of assurance. Barak still lead the Army into battle. I have listened to the wisdom God shed through women before. I see no problem with that. But I am not so sure that that places them in a position such as Pastor. Sure she was one that people sought out for wisdom and judgment. But did she hold an office in the Church? I am not so sure you can make that distinction. Maybe you can.



> For instance, if a huge women's group of 30 women got stranded on an island, without a man, would they be committing sin by having a woman pastor? If so, would they not sin in the opposite, by refusing the normal operations of God's church?



This is a strawman. The scriptures plainly state that the older women are to lead the younger women.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Aug 24, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Deborah went but I am not sure she lead the Army. I believe Barak used her as a rabbit foot of assurance. Barak still lead the Army into battle. I have listened to the wisdom God shed through women before. I see no problem with that. But I am not so sure that that places them in a position such as Pastor. Sure she was one that people sought out for wisdom and judgment. But did she hold an office in the Church? I am not so sure you can make that distinction. Maybe you can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its not a strawman; I am not trying to make an argument. As I said, throwing out ideas. But in the above scenario, would not someone have to fulfill the obligations of pastor/elder? I think we would agree that a person simply teaching the younger, is not fulfilling the full breadth of Elder/pastor duties. But someone would have to fill that full leadership role.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 24, 2011)

Andres said:


> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> > In fact I hate the term "female pastor" since there is no such thing. There is just someone pretending to be a pastor.
> ...



EXACTLY.

A church with a "female pastor" is one that simply cannot be in any sense (no matter how good "body life" or whatever barometers one would choose to use to measure "health") deemed "healthy". It is sick, and rotten from the core, because, quite simply, it is a church without a pastor, but instead with a usurper in the role, disregarding the clear teaching of Scripture. Again, as I mentioned in a previous post - if such a person can disregard Scripture's teaching on the elder's office, how can ANY teaching come from her mouth with any credibility at all? 

No, sorry. A church led by a woman pretending to be a pastor is no different in principle than one led by the four-year-old "preacher" that we talked about in another thread. It is a church with a non-pastor at the helm.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 24, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> I hate to point out Deborah, but I do think that I could see a time where a woman would be forced to lead as shepherd, due to a complete absence of men, or due to the men being cowardly/disobedient. For instance, if a huge women's group of 30 women got stranded on an island, without a man, would they be committing sin by having a woman pastor? If so, would they not sin in the opposite, by refusing the normal operations of God's church?
> 
> Of course, in such a strange scenario (which would never occur in the U.S. I am sure), it would not be "normative", and would only be until a man was available. Please note: I am just throwing out ideas...I would NEVER endorse a woman pastor, I am just showing a scenario when it might be permissible for a time.



It wouldn't be "normative" but it also wouldn't be a church, and the woman doing the teaching could never be construed as a "pastor". This is why your statement was denoted a strawman.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 24, 2011)

Sorry about the straw man comment then. 

But I find your question kind of out there and not likely since Christ is building His Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail. If He is building His Church and He is doing a work then I find it most unlikely that He wouldn't build it according to His plan. We can make hypothetical situations up all the time. But I am not sure that they are beneficial. Maybe they are. But I find it unlikely. BTW, I am fully amazed at the work of Lottie Moon. God does give discernment to women when men don't get it sometimes. But if it is discernment from God it will be discernment according to His working and order. But that is just my opinion. And we know my old adage on opinions. They are like armpits. Everyone does have a couple. Some people keep them clean but there is always a point where they start to stink. LOL


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Aug 24, 2011)

Damon Rambo said:


> I hate to point out Deborah



Wasn't it considered shameful to have a woman leading them?


----------



## TimV (Aug 24, 2011)

> I hate to point out Deborah, but I do think that I could see a time where a woman would be forced to lead as shepherd, due to a complete absence of men, or due to the men being cowardly/disobedient. For instance, if a huge women's group of 30 women got stranded on an island, without a man, would they be committing sin by having a woman pastor? If so, would they not sin in the opposite, by refusing the normal operations of God's church?



It's the same old argument. Can God make a stone too heavy for Himself to move? The whole argument is sinful, since it puts forth a hypothetical situation where one is forced to chose sin that good may abound.

And that particular hypothetical situation is sloppy. It assumes that since there would be no communion or baptism then those women would be forced to sin by not partaking in communion or baptism, and it's simply not the case. That's fairly basic Reformed theology.


----------



## NB3K (Aug 24, 2011)

"William The Baptist" said:


> Wasn't it considered shameful to have a woman leading them?



Yes it is shameful for men to negate their responsibilties and allowing a woman, (no offense to the submissive wives here) to take what has been ordained for man by God. I always wanted to write the elder's at First Presbyterian Church here in my city and tell them of what I thought of their leadership but I just kept my opinion to myself. I have a habit of shooting myself in the foot while I still have the foot in my mouth.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 25, 2011)

ericfromcowtown said:


> I personally view an arminian church (poor interpretation) and a church with a female "pastor" (no interpretation) as two very different things. In fact I hate the term "female pastor" since there is no such thing. There is just someone pretending to be a pastor. How could I in good faith attend such a church, introduce myself to the person who just delivered the sermon, and address her as "Mrs. Smith." I can just imagine how things would go awkwardly down-hill from there.


Or, as my wife experienced, to have a man introduce himself as the "pastor's husband". At my parents' PCUSA church where my father was a ruling elder. She was polite - I would likely not have been as kind.


----------



## calgal (Aug 25, 2011)

Too bad is a church that claims to adhere to a standard or a confession that in reality is trampled on, mocked and ignored. That is a deal breaker for me.


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Aug 27, 2011)

NB3K said:


> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't it considered shameful to have a woman leading them?
> ...



 No offense taken (as a lady, not wife... yet!). I find joy in the Lord's designs! I am more offended by feminists who suppress the truth of God and deny His wondrous gift of all the encompasses being a woman... who are professing believers.


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 27, 2011)

"William The Baptist" said:


> I am more offended by feminists who suppress the truth of God and deny His wondrous gift of all the encompasses being a woman... who are professing believers.



"The people who hate women more than anybody else on this planet are feminists." -Paul Washer in Recovering Biblical Womanhood



Edit: weird.... my bode is croken.


----------



## Grimmson (Aug 27, 2011)

toddpedlar said:


> No, sorry. A church led by a woman pretending to be a pastor is no different in principle than one led by the four-year-old "preacher" that we talked about in another thread.


I have to strongly disagree with that. There a big difference between a four year old and a woman who has studied the scriptures for decades. The difference is that the woman in question would have is more knowledge and wisdom then the four year old. I am not supporting a woman preacher, and it was this major area of disagreement that I got in trouble with from Intervarsity Christian Fellowship because I saw in scripture the role and position of a pastor being that to a man. 

In my opinion, whatever its worth, female pastors are actually God’s judgment against the church because of the lack of men trained in scriptures by the church and by childrens' parents. For men, like during the time of the Judges, desire and do what is right by their own eyes. They are not being the leaders that they are called to be, and in the vacuum that created is created by the lack of leadership women have emerged to try to do the work of a man. I find it hard to condemn such women because of the great need that out there, instead the blame must and should go to us men for not doing our job. If a woman is preaching then the question must be asked, “where is the men?” Why was this woman raised up and no man able to expound the word of God? The reason, the judgment of God. I would suggest, instead of bloging and complaining about such women, talk to the woman in question and try to find out if she doing it for power or waiting for a man to take over. If its power then she must be opposed, but if she is waiting for a man to take over that is a different story all together. 

We cannot expect as individuals for a church to be perfect in all that they do because sinful people are in the church. The issue of women becoming a pastor has some underlining issues that are going on. One is the break down of the family structure that was established by God at creation; this is one of the reasons why I think there is a lack of women being married and more women in the work place that may not necessarily need to be; which is being reinforced by society, families, and the church. The second issue is the fact that there are more women in the church then men, and at the same time taking up the majority of the leadership positions there of. If the only local protestant church is one with a woman pastor then perhaps instead of not going to the church or going to the next town over then perhaps one should interact with that local church with scripture as long as such a woman is willing; especially if the church is a small chapel church in a isolated community like an Indian Reservation or village somewhere. And you may say that such a church is not a legitimate church if it has a female leader as a pastor, well if that a case then you better stop complaining and in your own denomination or association send a man in that area to take over or set up a church plant. Instead of focusing on how wrong it is, engage the problem and be part of the solution, which requires a man to go forth and be a man; sitting around and complaining about it on a blog or thread is actually being for like the complaining old woman that just wants to complain and not be part of the solution. There is a line one must consider in relation to the regulative principle of worship, in which in the name of worshipping God we try to have our own theology completely perfect but in the process worship God in vain because we as a church and individual ignore the calling of the church in expanding the worship of God to the ends of the Earth through the making of disciples through the preached word. Therefore patience, compassion, respect, understanding, listening, and a wisdom must be practiced in these churches because there a reason why these problems emerged and someone, somewhere, was asleep at the wheel. For we can be part of the problem or be part of the solution, and through prayer and service to the church, have the church be that better church that reflects the testimony of Holy Scripture. 


TimV said:


> Sorry, I don't buy it. A female pastor can't be the best option one has if you're Reformed.


I have meet plenty of women that has had a better understanding of the scripture then some men in a church, which includes in the biblical languages. If you are in the area and a woman a pastor, if your reformed then see if you can receive a temporary calling (or get someone there). Not attending a church is not option if your reformed, neither in my opinion is driving 50 miles to a church that has male pastor. If there is a need in your area then something needs to be done and complaining behind a key board is not doing much for the local body of Christ in your area. Much that has been given by Christ, much is expected of that man, and if you have a deeper understanding of theology and the gospel then that one must be engaged in the service of the church and his own family (not one or the other) for Christ. 




Damon Rambo said:


> I hate to point out Deborah, but I do think that I could see a time where a woman would be forced to lead as shepherd


Israel wasn’t exactly in a good state then as the writer of Judges made quite clear several times. For remember the context of Deborah:
When Ehud was dead, the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD. (Jdg 4:1 NKJ)
The fact the God spoke through Deborah shows the wickedness of the state of Israel. I think that same case can be made today as well with the wickedness of the church in the western world that the Reformed community participates in today, which is reflected by the absence and respect towards God’s word in the children of whom we would classify as Christian believers today. And thus from their generation, begetting children who would be classified on the mission field as unchurched. It is also reflected by the lack of participation in the life of the church, which results in a strong form of individualism that places the one over the church and thus over the Christ that bought them with his precious blood. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> But did she hold an office in the Church?


You can if you assume continuity between the church (Israel) of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament. What her office? Judge and prophetess. See below:
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time. (Jdg 4:4 NKJ)


----------



## ZackF (Aug 28, 2011)

Andres said:


> I would say that a female pastor would be cause for dis-association from a church. The reason being is not so much the issue of the female pastor in and of itself, but rather that a female pastor shows that a church has abandoned the authority of scripture. Same thing as ordaining homosexuals. The issue becomes is the Word of God our final authority in matters of faith or not? If the answer is no, then in my opinion, there is nothing productive coming from that church.



I would take my family and bolt. I would also tell them why. When my wife and I are traveling and looking ahead for places to worship we of course have a ranking system. We look for a NAPARC church first, a reformed baptist church and then a Missouri/Wisconsin Lutheran Church. I've given up on PCUSA because not only are they rankly liberal on doctrinal matters, it is getting hard and harder to find one with a male pastor.


----------



## TimV (Aug 28, 2011)

> I have meet plenty of women that has a better understanding of the scripture then some men in a church, which includes in the biblical languages.



Then you make hierarchy a question of IQ rather than Biblical structure. So, if a cop pulls me over for speeding, I don't have to listen to him if I'm better educated. Or if a wife is smarter than her husband she should rule the household. Or elders should be chosen by the congregations playing Jeopardy.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 28, 2011)

TimV said:


> > I have meet plenty of women that has a better understanding of the scripture then some men in a church, which includes in the biblical languages.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you make hierarchy a question of IQ rather than Biblical structure. So, if a cop pulls me over for speeding, I don't have to listen to him if I'm better educated. Or if a wife is smarter than her husband she should rule the household. Or elders should be chosen by the congregations playing Jeopardy.



Exactly. Gay "marriage" is another example that is like women's "ordination." In these instances "marriage" and "ordination" describe non-events.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 28, 2011)

Regulative principle of worship I understand, but what does "normative principle" mean, please?


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 28, 2011)

Grimmson said:


> I have *meet* plenty of women that *has* a better understanding of the scripture then some men in a church, which includes in the biblical languages. If you are in the area and* a woman a* pastor, if *your* reformed then see if you can receive a temporary calling (or get someone there). Not attending a church is not option if *your *reformed, neither in my *option* is driving 50 miles to a church that has male pastor.


So, since I have a better understanding of spelling and grammar than you, it is an indication that I am qualified to do your job as a teacher? I can assure you that is not true.

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------




JennyG said:


> Regulative principle of worship I understand, but what does "normative principle" mean, please?


As I understand it, regulative allows only that which is commanded, normative allows anything that is not prohibited. I could be wrong.


----------



## Andres (Aug 28, 2011)

Brad said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> > Regulative principle of worship I understand, but what does "normative principle" mean, please?
> ...



That's my understanding as well.


----------



## Edward (Aug 28, 2011)

KS_Presby said:


> We look for a NAPARC church first,



Unfortunately, discernment is needed even with NAPARC churches.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 28, 2011)

Edward said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> > We look for a NAPARC church first,
> ...



That is correct!!! Gotta start somewhere though when you are traveling. I try to plan ahead before our trip or at the least check websites when we get to the hotel. Our situations usually involve just the occasional one off visit anyway.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Aug 28, 2011)

Just my ... The whole Deborah was a judge means that woman pastors are permissible when necessity dictates falls flat for me. If you follow that logic it would be OK to have a womanizer as a pastor because Samson was a judge. God is pretty clear in who he wants in the position of a pastor.


----------



## Andres (Aug 28, 2011)

TimV said:


> Or elders should be chosen by the congregations playing Jeopardy.



 I love the show Jeopardy so that one got me good!


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Aug 29, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> > I am more offended by feminists who suppress the truth of God and deny His wondrous gift of all the encompasses being a woman... who are professing believers.
> ...



Andrew, thanks for that! I've seen that one before. (but a good refresher... I'm planning to get lunch with female friend of mine who was intrigued when I said something along the lines of professing believing women of the church who submit to feminism fail to submit to God and in essence are saying scripture is not sufficient. ... I may mention this resource to her hehe.) 

If you liked Washer, you'll like what Kevin Swanson said at his church. Gender Specific Piety. In the notes I LOL'd when it said, "Gloria Steinem would not like this sermon."


----------



## Rufus (Aug 29, 2011)

"William The Baptist" said:


> professing believing women of the church who submit to feminism fail to submit to God and in essence are saying scripture is not sufficient.



Which kind of feminism? My grandfather opened a door for a lady once and she refused to walk in because he was a man, he than proceeded to refuse to open the door for a woman ever again .


----------



## Grimmson (Aug 29, 2011)

TimV said:


> So, since I have a better understanding of spelling and grammar than you, it is an indication that I am qualified to do your job as a teacher? I can assure you that is not true.


I am not an English teacher and never was one. I was primarily, in my years of teaching, a math teacher. Would you be more qualified to teach English? Yes, I wouldn’t deny that. Math? Maybe, but not because of the rules of English grammar. 



TimV said:


> > I have meet plenty of women that has a better understanding of the scripture then some men in a church, which includes in the biblical languages.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you make hierarchy a question of IQ rather than Biblical structure. .


You obviously did not get my point. It was never based on IQ, but the fact that there are women by the judgment of God that are more qualified knowledgably about scripture and the fact that there are a lack of men who are willing to take on that leadership role as a pastor. The vacuum of male leadership is our fault as men of the church for being lazy in the training up of men, including our kids and ourselves. Instead of complaining about women being up there, we must take on that leadership role and help our sister churches that maybe in such a terrible bind; and this must be done for the sake of love for one another. By the way most reformed churches, like the OPC, require that one get an MDIV degree in order to pastor, so there is an aspect that the one who is preaching should have a certain amount of knowledge before hand, otherwise that person wouldn’t be ordained. Nowhere was I supporting women being pastors, and the reason why I don’t is based from creation as seen from1 Timothy 2:12-13:


> 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
> 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; (ESV)


If you think I support women being pastors then reread my post. If anything, I am saying that these poor women out of Christian charity needs to be saved from the situation that men have placed them in; so that they maybe free to perform the roles that they are called to do. The refusal to do such is part of the problem. I think compassion must be given to such women and freedom given by men taking up their role as men, instead of being dumb weak crybaby-like children.


TimV said:


> So, if a cop pulls me over for speeding, I don't have to listen to him if I'm better educated.


No, because the person being male or female is a representative of the state and has the responsibility to carry out the law of the state. In the case of women leadership, the requirement of the pastor is already being violated if men are not being trained or brought in to be a pastor of the church and eventually something has to be done. Someone must take responsibility, otherwise one will have greater chaos in a church. If it is a woman that steps up then men of that church are shamed because of their refusal to do what Christ commands of his church.



TimV said:


> Or if a wife is smarter than her husband she should rule the household.


Depends on what you mean by rule. I prefer to think of it as the man leading his wife in love as the head and not as a tyranting king. If a man refuses to listen to his wife as a general rule, especially in areas that she maybe more knowledgeable, then such a man is a fool for not listening to the wisdom of his wife and has pridefully disrespected her mind; showing no love to her as a wife or a sister in Christ. 



TimV said:


> Or elders should be chosen by the congregations playing Jeopardy.


I don’t seen how this pertains to the conversation; for I am sure you will agree that you would want elders chosen by educated men of the church, who are knowledgeable of the scripture and love the Lord. Not by those that are not; unless your point is to attack congregationalism.


----------



## TimV (Aug 29, 2011)

> You obviously did not get my point. It was never based on IQ, but the fact that there are women by the judgment of God that are more qualified knowledgably about scripture and the fact that there are a lack of men who are willing to take on that leadership role as a pastor.



I did get your point. Whether you realise it or not your point is just another hypothetical case of God making a rock too heavy for Himself to lift. Anyone can make up scenarios where one is forced to chose evil.


----------



## Andres (Aug 29, 2011)

Rufus said:


> My grandfather opened a door for a lady once and she refused to walk in because he was a man, he than proceeded to refuse to open the door for a woman ever again



I bet if someone tried to steal that lady's purse, she'd appreciate your grandfather or another man to come to her aid. I bet if she needed a tight jar lid unscrewed, she'd appreciate having a man around. I could go on.


----------



## Brandon1 (Aug 29, 2011)

I think one point of nuance lost in this discussion is what churches ought to do when their denominations begin ordaining women and then begin ordaining homosexuals. And this is not simply a hypothetical discussion, Tim. There are some cases in churches such as the CRC where male and female elders are fighting against homosexual ordination. In some ways, these female elders are more healthy for the church than their male counterparts. This gets to part of what David is saying. This sign does not point to health in the Church, but I would rather have a woman in that office standing up for the Gospel than a man lobbying for homosexual ordination.

Of course you can come back and talk about an idealized world but this is precisely the point. The fact we have "ordained" women shows the sad state of affairs that the church is in, but I would rather have an orthodox woman in leadership than an unorthodox man.

Just for emphasis, I understand the coming objection, "But neither position is right!" David and I both grant that but in some of the Confessional Reformed churches, these issues and dilemmas are real. Perhaps you can say that those in CRC congregations should leave the churches, but I'm not so sure that this is the way forward. These issues point to even more pressing eccleisological question of schism, dissension, etc. Things may be well in our conservative Reformed enclave's (they're actually probably not as healthy was we often think), but in the broader Christian world there are serious problems.

Neither David and I are advocating female ordination, but the fact of the matter is that the issues involved are such that we can identify a church where women are ministers as unhealthy but does not mean that the said church is a synagogue of Satan. Unhealthy? Yes. In need of Reformation? Yes. In apostasy? I want to withhold judgment there.

This doesn't mean that I'm encouraging people to go and join those churches because of what is going on, but I think that we should encourage those who find themselves in these situations to work for the health and well-being of the church. If conservatives are removed for their biblical convictions that is one thing. But I think our Reformed forefathers would want us to seek Reformation & Restoration and endure the persecution and unhealthiness of the Church for Christ's sake in prayer and reliance on the Spirit for Reformation. If we can't agree on how this plays itself out, I think we can together pray that God does bring such a revitalization to his Church.


----------



## TimV (Aug 29, 2011)

> In some ways, these female elders are more healthy for the church than their male counterparts. This gets to part of what David is saying. This sign does not point to health in the Church, but I would rather have a woman in that office standing up for the Gospel than a man lobbying for homosexual ordination.



Nonsense. You're saying thyroid cancer is healthier for the body than liver cancer just because liver cancer is worse. 



> But I think our Reformed forefathers would want us to seek Reformation & Restoration and endure the persecution and unhealthiness of the Church for Christ's sake in prayer and reliance on the Spirit for Reformation.



Then you should read our Reformed forefather's some time!!! Knox and Luther tolerating a woman Bishop? Even the Catholics hadn't gone that far.


----------



## Andres (Aug 29, 2011)

Brandon1 said:


> The fact we have "ordained" women shows the sad state of affairs that the church is in, but I would rather have an orthodox woman in leadership than an unorthodox man.



I'm with Tim here. You're choosing between two evils. Neither is correct, and neither is "better" than the other. Is it better to be stabbed to death or shot to death? Even the term "orthodox women in leadership" when refering to the church, is a contradiction! Ask any of our beloved, sound sisters here on the board if they'd ever take a pastorate. I'm confident they'd answer with a resounding no.


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Aug 29, 2011)

Andres said:


> Brandon1 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact we have "ordained" women shows the sad state of affairs that the church is in, but I would rather have an orthodox woman in leadership than an unorthodox man.
> ...



   

Edit: I even knew that much BEFORE reforming.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 30, 2011)

Andres said:


> I'm with Tim here. You're choosing between two evils. Neither is correct, and neither is "better" than the other. Is it better to be stabbed to death or shot to death?


but maybe that precise argument should be used with caution, however sound the conclusion - evils do in fact vary in degree


----------



## Andres (Aug 30, 2011)

JennyG said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > I'm with Tim here. You're choosing between two evils. Neither is correct, and neither is "better" than the other. Is it better to be stabbed to death or shot to death?
> ...



Yes, evils can vary in degree, but they are all still evils nonetheless. None would ever be acceptable for a child of God.


----------



## Zach (Aug 30, 2011)

Andres said:


> Brandon1 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact we have "ordained" women shows the sad state of affairs that the church is in, but I would rather have an orthodox woman in leadership than an unorthodox man.
> ...



A hearty Amen from me too, sir. There's no wiggle room for choosing the lesser of two evils in our theology. If you do, at the end of the day you're just left with evil.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 30, 2011)

Even a M'Cheyne was in the Church of Scotland when it contained both Evangelicals and Moderates. I haven't done a study on Moderatism, so couldn't tell you how bad it was, but I don't think it involved any change in the constitution or subscription to the standards.

At some point a declaratory act was introduced whereby office-bearers only had to agree to the Confession with the rider that they accepted "the substance of the Reformed faith". When did that happen?

At some point in her history the CofS ceased to be the true national Church of Scotland, because Christ was rejected as King over His Church.

In the 1960s the CofS accepted women's ordination.

Now ordination of openly homosexual ministers is being accepted.

There comes a point when the rot in a church is so advanced that you have to get out as a testimony to others and for the good of your soul.

Are the prospects for a real reformation in the CoS by an ascendent reformed and evangelical wing more likely now that it is apparent just how far the rot has gone? Hardly. The reformed and evangelicals never reached a renewed ascendency that they hoped for, and now this has happened.

If Babylon in Revelation represents the apostate Church, then these words are relevant to those in Protestant denominations where homosexuality is being accepted as a good thing:



> And he called out with a mighty voice, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast...............Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues;(Rev 18:2.....18:4, ESV)



There is evidence that the reformed and evangelicals in mixed denominations are as likely - or more likely - to be infected by the antichrist of liberalism as the other way around.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 30, 2011)

Brad said:


> Originally Posted by JennyG
> Regulative principle of worship I understand, but what does "normative principle" mean, please?
> As I understand it, regulative allows only that which is commanded, normative allows anything that is not prohibited. I could be wrong.



I just had a thought about that (which was probably obvious to everyone else already).
Is anything whatsoever prohibited?


----------



## Andres (Aug 30, 2011)

JennyG said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by JennyG
> ...



Yes, everything not commanded is prohibited. For example, since God doesn't command that drama be a part of worship, then it's it prohibited.


----------



## Tripel (Aug 30, 2011)

As I said before, I don't consider it "evil" when a gospel-centered church has a female pastor. If it were the only option where the gospel is preached and lived out, I'd certainly attend. 

And I don't buy the argument that "if they are unbiblical in this one area, how can you trust them on anything?" There are people on this very board that I think are unbiblical in regards to baptism, but I would gladly attend their churches if they were the only good options.


----------



## JennyG (Aug 30, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> In the 1960s the CofS accepted women's ordination.
> 
> Now ordination of openly homosexual ministers is being accepted.



can anyone tell me anything about how that happened? I mean, about the circumstances surrounding it. I may be wrong but I think it might have been in the 70s - at any rate, before I was a member. I've asked C of S people about whether thwre was a lot of opposition, how the discussions went, whether many people left the Kirk as a result, etc - no-one seems to know. Pathological suppressed memory syndrome??

---------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------




Andres said:


> Yes, everything not commanded is prohibited. For example, since God doesn't command that drama be a part of worship, then it's it prohibited.


yes, I take your point. That's the Regulative principle. But I mean that if any church upheld the normative principle, they could use it to justify _absolutely anything at all_. That explains a lot, actually


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 30, 2011)

Tripel said:


> As I said before, I don't consider it "evil" when a gospel-centered church has a female pastor. If it were the only option where the gospel is preached and lived out, I'd certainly attend.
> 
> And I don't buy the argument that "if they are unbiblical in this one area, how can you trust them on anything?" There are people on this very board that I think are unbiblical in regards to baptism, but I would gladly attend their churches if they were the only good options.



If you think it's ok to be involved with a church with no shepherd, then that's certainly your prerogative. I would be VERY shocked to hear of a woman-led church that actually has sound preaching - but even if it did, you still have the issue of having no legitimate leadership and oversight. I cannot understand how anyone who has a reformed understanding of the church and Scripture could ever countenance attending a church whose leadership is, in effect, a middle finger upward and extended toward God's Holy Word.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 30, 2011)

Here's Dabney on the public preaching of woman.
Discussions - Google Books


----------



## Andres (Aug 30, 2011)

Tripel said:


> And I don't buy the argument that "if they are unbiblical in this one area, how can you trust them on anything?" There are people on this very board that I think are unbiblical in regards to baptism, but I would gladly attend their churches if they were the only good options.



The scriptures are perfectly clear that women are not given the role of pastor in the church. If a church has a woman pastor, then either one of two things has occured: 1) they are completely ignorant of what the Word of God teaches 2) they are in rebellion to what the Word of God teaches

Both cases are unacceptable as the woman and the church acting contrary to God's Word. If #1 is the case, then the solution could be simple: point out the woman's error and she should be willing to repent and step down. #2 is a different story and it is the case with the majority of churches with women pastors. The PCUSA, UMC, Episcopal church all at one point only ordained men, so they can't plead ignorance. Instead they chose to rebel against the authority of scripture and do things the way they want. Evil and unacceptable. And if a church does not respect the authority of God's Word, how can they possibly be sound?


----------



## Tripel (Aug 30, 2011)

Andres said:


> If a church has a woman pastor, then either one of two things has occured: 1) they are completely ignorant of what the Word of God teaches 2) they are in rebellion to what the Word of God teaches



or 3) for one reason or another, they believe that restriction on pastors is culturally-based. 

It's not ignorance and it's not rebellion. 

We have had many debates on the PB about certain laws or teachings in the Bible and whether or not they should carry over into our culture. Take head coverings for example -- Many here disagree about the necessity of head coverings for women in church. I, for one, don't think they are necessary. I'm not taking that stance out of ignorance or rebellion. I have read what is plainly stated in Scripture about the matter, but I believe it is a cultural thing and not necessary to be applied today. And I admit that I could be wrong. But even if I am wrong, I don't think I am being _evil_ in that instance.

I'm NOT making the case that head coverings and male elders are equal issues. I think the latter is much more important. But what I am trying to say is that it's not necessarily _evil_ to look at a passage and come to a faulty conclusion on its application.


----------



## TimV (Aug 30, 2011)

> it's not necessarily evil to look at a passage and come to a faulty conclusion on its application.





> 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation



If I interpreted that, as some do, that Christ is a created being would that be evil?


----------



## Tripel (Aug 30, 2011)

TimV said:


> 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation
> If I interpreted that, as some do, that Christ is a created being would that be evil?



I haven't met anyone who made such an interpretation without also denying the gospel, so "evil" would likely be appropriate.


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Aug 30, 2011)

Tripel said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > If a church has a woman pastor, then either one of two things has occured: 1) they are completely ignorant of what the Word of God teaches 2) they are in rebellion to what the Word of God teaches
> ...



What about a church with an openly-homosexual "pastor," who otherwise preached the gospel and was otherwise orthodox in his doctrine. Hard to imagine, but for sake of argument... How does that differ from a church with a female "pastor?" Could not that church similarly claim that the prohibition on homosexuals was culturally-based and fit into your category 3? Would they also be not ignorant and not in rebellion?


----------



## Brandon1 (Aug 30, 2011)

Eric,

You do point out that there are problems with Category 3 but the issue becomes who can decide which issues violate the Gospel or fit into category 3.

The question becomes, "who is the arbiter?" The Confession doesn't address the issue, though if pressed I would argue that the argument for female ministers is more convincing than for allowing openly homosexual men. I believe one is symptomatic of an unhealthy church and the other is the symptom of a dead church. Neither position is preferable, but one is more severe than the other.

The reality is that in some Reformed churches the ecclesiastical climate requires that these judgment be made (or else that these people leave said denomination). Some may disagree with my judgments and perceptions, but I believe that Reformation requires patience. Not passively enduring suffering, but instead actively. If someone finds themselves in a consistory with a female pastor who stands against open homosexual practice in the church and who is Gospel centered (ToddK, you are affirming that you find it hard for a church that has a woman pastor to be Gospel centered because of its ordination of a woman, and not because of her make-up as a woman I'm assuming) then for the health of the church I would rather work with this person than with a man who is supporting a homosexual lifestyle. A woman minister is not inherently in danger of hell-fire. An unrepentant homosexual is.

Please let me reiterate, I'm not advocating either position. I am however; convinced that having a female minister is an indication of an unhealthy church whereas a church where a practicing homosexual is ordained shows blatant disdain for the Law of God.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Aug 30, 2011)

toddpedlar said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> > As I said before, I don't consider it "evil" when a gospel-centered church has a female pastor. If it were the only option where the gospel is preached and lived out, I'd certainly attend.
> ...



But what do you do with people like myself, who think that infant Baptism is just as clearly prohibited? Is there not some issues on which we can disagree? I was always under the impression, and most pastors I have spoken to in the reformed camp have agreed with me, that the basis for cooperation is a proper understanding of the gospel, the deity of Christ, etc. (the fundamentals of the faith), and that other things, such as leadership structures, views on baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc., were secondary issues on which we could "agree to disagree." I certainly agree that male leadership is clearly taught, but it is no more clearly taught, in my opinion, than Credobaptism, Historic Premillennialism, local church autonomy, etc. I just believe some of you are being highly inconsistent.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 30, 2011)

*Jenny G*


> Quote Originally Posted by Peairtach View Post
> In the 1960s the CofS accepted women's ordination.
> 
> Now ordination of openly homosexual ministers is being accepted.
> can anyone tell me anything about how that happened? I mean, about the circumstances surrounding it. I may be wrong but I think it might have been in the 70s - at any rate, before I was a member. I've asked C of S people about whether thwre was a lot of opposition, how the discussions went, whether many people left the Kirk as a result, etc - no-one seems to know. Pathological suppressed memory syndrome??



It's when a declaratory act was passed saying that in subscribing to the WCF, CofS office bearers were only subscribing to "the substance of the Reformed faith" that the doctrine, ethics and discipline of the CofS descended into subjectivity and carte-blanche was given to liberal theology/neo-orthodoxy. When did this happen?

It seems by at the latest 1921:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_Declaratory_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Church_of_Scotland

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Articles_Declaratory_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Church_of_Scotland

Certain people like Andrew McGowan spoke up about female ordination in the 1980s (& 1970s?). No doubt others did at the time it was accepted. I don't know how many, if any, left. Many evangelicals or neo-evangelicals accepted female ordination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_the_Church_of_Scotland



> Women were commissioned as deacons (or "deaconesses") from 1935, and allowed to preach from 1949.





> The General Assembly changed its legislation to allow the ordination of women as elders in 1966 and as ministers in 1968.





> The first woman to be ordained as a minister in the Church of Scotland was the Revd Catherine McConnachie by the Presbytery of Aberdeen in 1969


----------



## timmopussycat (Aug 30, 2011)

toddpedlar said:


> How credible is the proclamation of the Evangelical gospel from one who is willing to hold in disdain other parts of the Word? Would she really have any leg to stand on if some parts of Scripture are, in her mind, things to ignore?



Be careful to think matters through before using this argument in discussions with supporters of women "pastors" or the ladies themselves. 
Why? 
Because it starts at the wrong place by presuming that the other party is ignoring Scripture which may not be true particular cases. Some advocates of women in unrestricted teaching ministries have built exegetical cases purporting to demonstrate (on the basis of comparing Scripture with Scripture) that the prohibitions of women in unrestricted teaching ministries are temporary and localized rather than God's eternal standard for all churches. (For those ignorant of such cases, probably the most widely known one is found in Gordon Fee's commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles on 1 Tim 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians on 14:34,35.) If you presume that your hearers are simply ignoring Scripture rather than holding a different understanding of its intended teaching, you risk coming across as a blind traditionalist and receiving an instant rejection. I notice that when I start by referencing and showing the holes in the advocates case for the practice, my hearers go away thinking rather than automatically rejecting my concerns.


----------

