# Woman Pastors: Biblical Defense



## blhowes

I know somebody who is the pastor of a church. *She* is part of the Methodist denomination.

As best as I can recall, I don't remember ever hearing a biblical defense (or an attempt) in support of woman pastors. Have you ever heard one? I'm really curious, other than saying that Paul was a male chauvinist and basically disregarding what he said on the issue, how somebody might attempt to argue that the Bible supports woman pastors?

What's the best attempt that you've heard?


----------



## JonathanHunt

'There is neither male nor female' tends to be the 'best' purely scriptural line on the subject.

But you still, in essence, have to put certain other pauline texts down to culture and the ramblings of a grumpy misogynist.

And ignore the order of creation, etc.

I don't get it.


----------



## OPC'n

The best one that I heard errr taught in college was to think of Paul as Pauline. The teacher had most of the students so confused they didn't know which way was up and which was down. Because every time she wanted to prove a woman was better than Paul she would resort back to saying Paul instead of Pauline. Anyway, when men are women and women are men then they all can preach or not preach depending on what you want to call Paul lol


----------



## JennyG

the local church I've just left now has a female minister. She thinks that the Biblical MSS are thoroughly unreliable anyway, and what with the increase of modern knowledge, Biblical interpretation is hopelessly up for grabs. Hence if anyone claims anything is unBiblical, it's more or less pure speculation on their part, and barely deserves a rebuttal.
It's more an anti-Biblical argument than a Biblical one, but I have a feeling it may be quite widespread in the sections of the churches that uphold female ministry (and same-sex "marriage" and all the rest)


----------



## Frosty

"That the commands for women to generally remain silent and not teach men were directed toward churches that were plagued by women speaking out and distracting the service. They are not to be taken in a universal, absolute sense. They are culturally-driven, and directed toward particular churches. Also, it would have been offensive to men in the early Church era to be taught and led by women, as that was not culturally accepted. Now women's rights are recognized by our culture, so men have no reason to be offended."

This way of thinking also lends itself to accepting homosexuality and other sin issues.


----------



## he beholds

Someone once told me that God uses women pastors as judgment against men who aren't doing their work.
Or something like that.


----------



## Poimen

As I have written elsewhere:

For those who advocate women in office and wish to use scripture to justify their position the following arguments are generally advanced in favor of their position: 

1) They reference Galatians 3:28 and then proceed to argue that men and women are equal so women should be allowed to hold office in the church. 

Answer: The problem with this reference is that Paul is not speaking to the issue(s) of offices or any specific function/calling within the church: the context shows he is referring to our unity in Christ with regards to our salvation (vs. 22ff.) If we want specific instructions on how we ought to conduct ourselves in the church and the relationship between men and women in the church, we should go to 1 Corinthians 12 & 14 or 1 Timothy 1-3 (see 1 Timothy 3:15 especially), both of which forbid women to have authority over men. 

2) Another argument used is to refer to Deborah and/or Anna as examples of female leadership. It is argued that since these women taught or led Israel during various times of her development, God can still use and does use women in teaching and authoritative roles in the church. 

Answer: Besides contradicting the clear(er) passage in 1 Timothy 2 that you cited above, the fact is that Deborah did not have a leadership role within the church beyond what God ordained: to shame the men of the time (Barak in particular) for not fulfilling their God given duty of protecting and defending Israel (Judges 4:9). Furthermore the text never commends her for her role in judging Israel which, in fact, was not the office of Judge (as we normally understand it) but that of one who judged various cases or situations in light of God's law. Barak, in fact, was the one whom God used to deliver Israel: Deborah never takes up a sword or leads Israel into battle. 

In the case of Anna, she was a prophetess which obviously meant she had a divine gift to be used in the service of God's people. But those who deny the offices of the church to women do not argue (or should not argue) that women do not have gifts to be used for the church. Rather, they require, as per scripture, that they do so under the authority of the local church elders and their husband. And though (to the best of my knowledge) very little is known how Anna would have spoken her prophecies, scripture is clear that in order to do so it could not be as a means to subjugate men, nor could it be done in a public fashion -or at least not during a public worship service (1 Timothy 2:11-12 cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35) 

3) Some will finally show their true colors when you present these arguments to them and say that the scriptures are simply unclear at this point, or that Paul spoke to the customs of his day and age. 

Answer: Scripture is not uniformally clear about every subject, but where one or two texts (1 Corinthians 14; 1 Timothy 2) are very clear we should not try to muddy the waters in order to seek our own interpretation. Furthermore there are no clear texts that override these passages about woman learning in submission. Finally, if Paul only meant to speak to the arguments of his culture/day, then why did he base his argument(s) on creation (1 Timothy 2:13-14), something which was ordained by God and not subject to any one particular people group or culture?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

My mother and my sister are both "pastors" in the Presbyterian Church (USA). My mother's reasoning's fall under the "Deborah" argument. She is an "evangelical", a "5-Point Calvinist", etc, and sees herself as filling a hole in the bulwark that men have failed to fill. She serves three small PC(USA) churches up in the mountains of West Virginia that before had been served by either no one or random "Baptist" preachers. 


My sister on the other hand is a run-of-the-mill liberal mainliner that thinks Paul is just wrong in 1 Timothy 2 and should then just be dismissed. She is a youth Pastor at a church in Kingsport, TN.


----------



## toddpedlar

he beholds said:


> Someone once told me that God uses women pastors as judgment against men who aren't doing their work.
> Or something like that.



Actually, I think that's probably an absolutely correct assessemnt, even if it isn't something anyone would offer as a positive argument from Scripture in support of women as pastors.


----------



## toddpedlar

The only argument other than the "anything we as modern Americans don't like in terms of ethics in the church must derive from Paul's social context and his personal misogyny and has to be dismissed out of hand" one that is so frequently used in myriad contexts, the only argument I've ever heard offered is the use of Galatians 3:28 to trump any role distinctions of any kind. This of course isn't only used by liberals to argue for women's ordination, but is more insidiously present in the more conservative branches of Presbyterianism to argue for women leading the worship of the congregation, and teaching men in adult Sunday schools, etc., and is usually paired with the well-worn words from James Hurley at RTS Jackson (I think they originate from him, but I might be wrong) that "a woman can do anything an unordained man can do".


----------



## Bill The Baptist

The people who like to dismiss Paul claim that Jesus was inclusive and would have allowed female pastors. The problem with this view is that it ignores the fact that all of Jesus' handpicked disciples were men. The actions of Jesus are completely consistent with the writings of Paul.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

In Christ there is neither male nor female....


Women are generally more spiritual than men and more sensible....



Christ appeared to women FIRST and then told them to go and proclaim.....


These are the three I have been confronted with the most often....


----------



## Rich Koster

Here's the Biblical defense for allowing female pastors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## arapahoepark

That complementarian marriage is like slavery...

Wayne Grudem's _Evangelical Feminsim: Answering 100 questions _has a bunch of these objections and he easily refutes them.


----------



## SRoper

I have heard it argued that since Paul references Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy he is talking about authority in the marriage relationship, not in the church.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

In 20 years in the PCUSA, I never heard any biblical defense, just "its a justice issue" whatever that means.


----------



## KMK

Interestingly, after reading this thread I opened Calvin and came across this: 



> The fountain and beginning of this evil (false teachers) is noted, because they will draw disciples after them. Therefore, *ambition is the mother of all heresies.* Calvin's Commentaries; Acts 20:30


----------



## SRoper

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> In 20 years in the PCUSA, I never heard any biblical defense, just "its a justice issue" whatever that means.



What about in the EPC?


----------



## he beholds

I think this article might give you an idea of some of the arguments, if you are really looking to understand them. _EQUAL IN BEING, UNEQUAL IN ROLE” Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination_.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt

I've heard a lot out of ignorance ("Being a Christian is enough", "We're called to evangelize, so we can be pastors"), but never anything that could hold water.


----------



## rookie

Rich Koster said:


> Here's the Biblical defense for allowing female pastors
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .



Bahahahahah, direct, however not very descriptive, lol


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

SRoper said:


> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 20 years in the PCUSA, I never heard any biblical defense, just "its a justice issue" whatever that means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about in the EPC?
Click to expand...


To the best of my knowledge, female TE's are not allowed in my Presbytery, and one other. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## crixus

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> In 20 years in the PCUSA, I never heard any biblical defense, just "its a justice issue" whatever that means.



Is that the same lame excuse they use for allowing homosexuals in the pulpit? The uber liberal PCUSA is playing right into the devil's hands.


----------



## CharlieJ

There are different ways of offering biblical arguments, depending on what one means by biblical. One biblical argument from a fairly conservative/traditional approach is made by N. T. Wright: Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis by N.T. Wright


----------



## J. Dean

Poimen said:


> As I have written elsewhere:
> 
> For those who advocate women in office and wish to use scripture to justify their position the following arguments are generally advanced in favor of their position:
> 
> 1) They reference Galatians 3:28 and then proceed to argue that men and women are equal so women should be allowed to hold office in the church.
> 
> Answer: The problem with this reference is that Paul is not speaking to the issue(s) of offices or any specific function/calling within the church: the context shows he is referring to our unity in Christ with regards to our salvation (vs. 22ff.) If we want specific instructions on how we ought to conduct ourselves in the church and the relationship between men and women in the church, we should go to 1 Corinthians 12 & 14 or 1 Timothy 1-3 (see 1 Timothy 3:15 especially), both of which forbid women to have authority over men.
> 
> 2) Another argument used is to refer to Deborah and/or Anna as examples of female leadership. It is argued that since these women taught or led Israel during various times of her development, God can still use and does use women in teaching and authoritative roles in the church.
> 
> Answer: Besides contradicting the clear(er) passage in 1 Timothy 2 that you cited above, the fact is that Deborah did not have a leadership role within the church beyond what God ordained: to shame the men of the time (Barak in particular) for not fulfilling their God given duty of protecting and defending Israel (Judges 4:9). Furthermore the text never commends her for her role in judging Israel which, in fact, was not the office of Judge (as we normally understand it) but that of one who judged various cases or situations in light of God's law. Barak, in fact, was the one whom God used to deliver Israel: Deborah never takes up a sword or leads Israel into battle.
> 
> In the case of Anna, she was a prophetess which obviously meant she had a divine gift to be used in the service of God's people. But those who deny the offices of the church to women do not argue (or should not argue) that women do not have gifts to be used for the church. Rather, they require, as per scripture, that they do so under the authority of the local church elders and their husband. And though (to the best of my knowledge) very little is known how Anna would have spoken her prophecies, scripture is clear that in order to do so it could not be as a means to subjugate men, nor could it be done in a public fashion -or at least not during a public worship service (1 Timothy 2:11-12 cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
> 
> 3) Some will finally show their true colors when you present these arguments to them and say that the scriptures are simply unclear at this point, or that Paul spoke to the customs of his day and age.
> 
> Answer: Scripture is not uniformally clear about every subject, but where one or two texts (1 Corinthians 14; 1 Timothy 2) are very clear we should not try to muddy the waters in order to seek our own interpretation. Furthermore there are no clear texts that override these passages about woman learning in submission. Finally, if Paul only meant to speak to the arguments of his culture/day, then why did he base his argument(s) on creation (1 Timothy 2:13-14), something which was ordained by God and not subject to any one particular people group or culture?


Well said. 

This is a frustrating point to bring up, especially when I was in the Wesleyan church, as female pastors are starting to become a bit more accepted in the Nazarene/Free Methodist denominations (note: Free Methodist is not to be confused with United Methodist-there are several key differences). Randy's post @5 is the one I hear most often. 

Also included are passages that happen to mention churches meeting at "X"s house. The assumption made is that, when a person's name is mentioned as owner of the house, that they are presiding over the service, and in at least one case there is a woman's house mentioned (the actual passage escapes me at the moment).


----------



## bug

blhowes said:


> I know somebody who is the pastor of a church. *She* is part of the Methodist denomination.
> 
> As best as I can recall, I don't remember ever hearing a biblical defense (or an attempt) in support of woman pastors. Have you ever heard one? I'm really curious, other than saying that Paul was a male chauvinist and basically disregarding what he said on the issue, how somebody might attempt to argue that the Bible supports woman pastors?
> 
> What's the best attempt that you've heard?



TNIV - James 3:1 "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers and sisters, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." 

Comes to mind


----------



## SRoper

Another argument I heard from a TV Pentecostal preacher is the church is described as the bride of Christ so it is appropriate for women to be ministers in the church.

Was also recently sent this by a friend from the Moravian tradition:

N.T. Wright: Why I Support Women in Ministry

I always find it interesting when someone makes an argument from scripture while holing it in low regard (the women were "airbrushed out"?).


----------



## toddpedlar

I guess since the church is described as the bride of Christ, it's ok for me to wear women's clothing.


----------



## John Carpenter

In my opinion (admitting I haven't read much of the recent stuff) the best case for women pastors ("evangelical feminism") is Paul K. Jewett's "Man As Male and Female". It's the best because it doesn't try to twist the passages that prohibit women pastors. It simply asserts that those passages are contrary to the principle of Galatians 3:28 ("in Christ there is no . . . male or female") and so temporary and not binding on us. Of course, this opens up all kinds of other problems, especially about the doctrine of scripture. It is essentially comes down to saying that Paul contradicted himself and was wrong (and thus not inspired.) So, ultimately it has to be rejected. But it is more sincere and shows more integrity than the disingenuous attempts of those who claim to believe in Biblical inerrancy but then distort the passages to fit their "egalitarian" agenda.


----------



## Supersillymanable

The best I saw was in John Stott's commentary on 1 Timothy (the rest of the commentary was ecellent from what I remember). He was somewhat guarded, and seemed to maintain male headship in the home, exclusively male eldership, but women allowed to be pastors and teach authoritatively? Was quite obscure. I disagreed with him.

This book: Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Reponse to Evangelical Feminism: Amazon.co.uk: John Piper & Wayne Grudem: Books

Is excellent. It takes egalitarian interpretations to task. Also, it has an incredibly good essay written by Grudem rebutting the many egalitarians responses to his 1986 article on the meaning of Kephale (the greek word for "head" in Ephesian 5: 23). 

The main problem with the "it was to a specific culture", "it was to that specific reigon/church" arguments, is that we can then discard pretty much evertything in the Bible as "cultural" by those arguments. It becomes pick and choose. All the books were written within cultural contexts with cultural references. You cant simply discard bits of the Bible as "cultural" without qualification.


----------



## Supersillymanable

he beholds said:


> I think this article might give you an idea of some of the arguments, if you are really looking to understand them. EQUAL IN BEING, UNEQUAL IN ROLE” Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination.



It makes me sad when IVP publish rubbish like that... They've published much I have really benefited from... I'm glad Crossway and other publishers are still refusing to give to culture.


----------



## crixus

toddpedlar said:


> I guess since the church is described as the bride of Christ, it's ok for me to wear women's clothing.



In San Francisco no one would even notice.


----------



## sevenzedek

I think the best defense for supporting the practice of putting women in the pulpit is to deceive one's self. Notice Paul's reason for not allowing a woman to have authority over men is not chauvinism, but bible.

1 Timothy 2:12-13
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.



he beholds said:


> Someone once told me that God uses women pastors as judgment against men who aren't doing their work.
> Or something like that.



Scripture supports such a conclusion.

Isaiah 3:12
As for my people, children are their oppressors,
and women rule over them.
O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err,
and destroy the way of thy paths.


----------



## ch0zen

> Biblically indefensible. A much worse problem in our age are the scores of unfit MEN which have climbed up some other way into church office.



/agree 100%

i think, as men, there are many things we can learn from respectable, well educated, godly women. that doesn't mean that the bible tells women to step and fill a man's role when he doesn't do his job properly. there isn't a woman-of-the-gaps-theory. i feel that women in society (not only in leadership but marriage also) tend to fill a man's role when he doesn't do it appropriately... by filling his role it doesn't allow the man room to grow. leaving women in male positions with incompetent men being onlookers.

we should be praying for strong, biblical men to lead our church into the next generation... and great god fearing women to support them.

[edit: in no way am i hinting that a man who fails to lead can blame a woman... just observing _one_ reason why i see a role reversal in my community]


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz

I just want to throw this out. I think people argue for female pastors based on practicality and getting the truth of God out to the people.

Example: What if... there is only only Reformed believer in the entire county and she is a female and she TOTALLY knows her stuff. She has the skill to teach.

But all the male pastors in the county teach works-salvation and works-sanctification? So do you stick with this "best" male pastor of the worst even though he's teaching falsely and is closed to ever changing his beliefs? Or will the men say "I think God would rather I learn the truth from a woman then learn lies from a man?"

Is she allowed to be a teacher but just not "a pastor with leadership over a flock?"


----------



## Andres

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> Example: What if... there is only only Reformed believer in the entire county and she is a female and she TOTALLY knows her stuff. She has the skill to teach.



But that's not at all the case, so then what?


----------



## malum in se

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> I just want to throw this out. I think people argue for female pastors based on practicality and getting the truth of God out to the people.
> 
> Example: What if... there is only only Reformed believer in the entire county and she is a female and she TOTALLY knows her stuff. She has the skill to teach.
> 
> But all the male pastors in the county teach works-salvation and works-sanctification? So do you stick with this "best" male pastor of the worst even though he's teaching falsely and is closed to ever changing his beliefs? Or will the men say "I think God would rather I learn the truth from a woman then learn lies from a man?"
> 
> Is she allowed to be a teacher but just not "a pastor with leadership over a flock?"



I have heard of this happening in a missionary situation, in that case I believe the woman trained a man to take over for her.


----------



## Loopie

I have heard a number of people use the argument that Priscilla taught Apollos, and so therefore there can be nothing wrong with women teaching men. Here is the passage they quote:

Acts 18:24-26 (NASB) 
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. 
25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; 
26 and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 

The problem with their interpretation is that they fail to recognizes that BOTH Priscilla AND Aquila took Apollos aside and explained things to him. Priscilla never teaches Apollos on her own, or in a private setting (which probably would have been rather scandalous). She and her husband TOGETHER taught Apollos (and even then the text just says that they 'explained' things to him, not that they 'taught' him in any official setting).

Many people I have spoken to like to also argue that the man's leadership in marriage says nothing about the role of women in the church. Yet Christ himself describes the church using marriage terminology (with the church being the Bride of Christ). I think this passage also reveals the connection:

Ephesians 5:22-24 (NASB) 
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 
24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 

There can be no doubt then that the marriage relationship is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and his church. It would seem odd then for women to assume the role of pastor/elder. It would also set up a strange scenario if the wife was a pastor/elder while the husband was not. Very likely, in such a scenario, the wife would be the spiritual head or leader in the family, much like the pastor/elder is a spiritual leader in the church. I don't think that God intended it to be this way.

Personally I find the accounts in Genesis to be very reflective of the differentiation of roles that God instituted. The man is made first, and exercises leadership by naming ALL the animals (and then he names the woman). When the serpent tempts Adam and Eve, he subverts the leadership of Adam by going straight for Eve first. When God responds to the situation, he doesn't approach Eve first (even though technically she sinned first). Instead, God approaches Adam about their sin, which certainly points to a sense of leadership and responsibility that Adam had. 

Those are just a few things that always come to my mind when talking about the relationship between husband and wife and about the role of men and women in the church.


----------



## KMK

What is interesting about the Genesis account is how quick Adam is to abdicate the leadership role he was given, and how quick Eve was to take that leadership role which she was not given. The fault was not all Eve's. I see this played out time and time again even today.


----------



## timmopussycat

I came to the Lord in churches that affirmed unrestricted female teaching ministries and I studied in a seminary that did likewise. Ironically it was in exegesis class (taught by one of the leading egalitarians of the day, Dr. Gordon Fee) that I came to reject egalitarianism, by applying Dr. Fee's own principles to one of the principle texts in the debate, i.e. 1 Tim 2:11-15. 

Many critiques of the egalitarian case do not address fully how the most biblical egalitarians use this text, nor consider how to respond if their exegesis of a key grammatical point within it, is, in fact, correct. 

That point arises in 2:12. Background: 1 Tim. is an occasional letter written as a reminder, to a man who already knew Paul's views on church order. In the previous sentence of v. 11 Paul is speaking in the imperative, when he commands women to receive instruction, but with verse 12 he switches to the indicative. What is at issue is the consequences of the change for Paul's intended meaning. The imperative must stand for all time as it is an apostolic command not specifically limited by the context, but are we to read it over into the next sentence (which, as the grammarians, tell us sometimes occurs and read the first clause as "But I do not allow. . .") or are we to read it as an indicative (which is also known to occur, – see the similar interplay of tenses John 7:8 where Jesus certainly intended the indicative in the second clause: "I am not going up to the feast." if Paul intended the indicative in 1 Tim 2 :12 it would read "But I am not permitting. . ."). If the latter is correct and we are to read Paul as writing "I am not permitting", then what we have is Paul telling Timothy that he is varying his customary practice, and, for reasons peculiar to Ephesus, not permitting women to teach in the Ephesian church. It is this grammatical ambiguity that ultimately creates the problem. 

While many egalitarians recognize that Paul's reasons for his prohibition are anchored first in the creation order and then in the fall, they say that Paul does not make it explicit that he is adducing those reasons for an eternal prohibition, and if he is, they ask why did he make the imperative/indicative switch, which implies the contrary possibility, in v. 11? Not to mention asking why Aquila allowed his wife to apparently help teach Apollos and how Luke (who certainly knew Paul's regular practice) notes the fact without comment, if Paul's normal practice totally prohibited women in unrestricted teaching roles? 

This argument forms the heart of the egalitarian's exegetical case for allowing women to minister in unrestricted teaching or authority roles. I believe that while we may freely concede that such arguments are a possibly valid reading of the biblical evidence, they are not strong enough to prove the egalitarian case. For us, today lacking firsthand knowledge of whether Paul intended his prohibition as temporary or permanent, the fact that Paul anchors his his prohibition in the creation order and the fall events is strong enough to require egalitarians to provide more than "possibly valid reasons" to justify their stand. Unless it can be proved by the Confessional standard of biblical proof (i.e., good and necessary consequence deduction from Scripture) that Paul's prohibition is local and or temporary, the grounds of the prohibition will require us to enforce it today. 

Absent such proof, I cannot see how anyone can accept the egalitarian explanation with any high degree of confidence, let alone the required certainty of faith.


----------

