# Woman Pastors: Supported by scriptures, or...



## blhowes (Aug 15, 2010)

I don't know if its just the area I live in, but its amazing how many churches have woman pastors, many of whom are seminary trained (most seem to come out of Andover Newton Theological Seminary). It makes me wonder how they interpret this passage.

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression

I think most here would agree that the verses aren't be taken to mean that a woman cannot speak at all in church. They are not, when they first walk through the church doors on Sunday, to stop talking, only to resume talking when they exit through the doors (correct me if I'm wrong). Other verses that speak about a woman's role(s) override (or clarify) that idea.

I was wondering if that's generally the case with women pastors. Do woman pastors, and the seminaries where they are trained, use "other verses" to expand the role of women beyond what we might find acceptable? We might find verses, for example, that allow women to teach Sunday School, a gathering of young women, etc. Can they justify their "position" by finding verses that expand a woman's role further?

Or, as I've always assumed, do they just say that Paul was a male chauvinist or that those scriptures were cultural and just for that time, and don't apply today?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 15, 2010)

The, at least the more evangelical ones, try and support their position by an appeal to the historical background of the passage. For example, the women in that particular setting were instructed not to teach because the were not adequately instructed the Scriptures. Formerly in the synagogues women had been repressed and kept ignorant of the law and the prophets, therefore they were not up to the task of teaching in the young church. They will also appeal to narrative passages about female leaders and prophetesses. These arguments are based on faulty hermeneutics, but the can sound convincing to some who are uninstructed or who want to believe it.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 15, 2010)

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) 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?


----------



## MRC (Aug 15, 2010)

Poimen said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
Fabulous answer to the question, thanks Daniel!

This issue is pervasive in evangelicalism today, men really need to understand this answer and seek to fulfill their God-given responsibilities rather than shirking it off on the ladies. My 2 cents anyways.


----------



## LeeJUk (Aug 15, 2010)

Well the verses in 1Ti 2 many churchmen put down to a bad translation of the greek or they say that the verse is being yanked out of its context. That the real issue is the fact that women are usurping authority and should instead be more respectful to their husbands in following their lead and teaching. It's obvious Paul is not saying that women cannot speak in church or should be silent in church because of parts in i believe 1 corinthians where its assumed that women are to prophecy and speak in church. 

Also they would say that at the end of romans 16 the list of women given suggests that some of the women were apostles/pastors and therefore in light of that we need to re-interpret pauls verses about women in authority to mean something else.

The argument I don't believe is as easy as quoting 1 tim 2 and saying there it is women cannot be pastors and that everyone else is totally just out to destroy the authority of scripture or to compromise because its really not that easy of an issue. Not that your doing that but just keep in mind not everything is as easy as quoting a few verses.

I think especially in reformed circles like the free churches the roles of women are horribly reduced and the verses about women in ministry in the NT are practically ignored in favor of these verses(im not saying that all reformed circles are like this but from what I've seen and experienced). There is a sound balance that must be struck.


----------



## Austin (Aug 15, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> I think especially in reformed circles like the free churches the roles of women are horribly reduced and the verses about women in ministry in the NT are practically ignored in favor of these verses(im not saying that all reformed circles are like this but from what I've seen and experienced). There is a sound balance that must be struck.


 
Lee, I agree with the sentiment you expressed in the quote I highlighted. I would commend to all the excellent work of Mrs. Susan Hunt of Georgia (PCA) who has written several books describing a very positive role for women in the Church from a complementarian standpoint. 

Shalom shabbat, y'all,


----------



## Bookmeister (Aug 15, 2010)

I think generally, or for the most part, those groups who do ordain women do it because they have a low view of scripture. They don't hold scripture as having ultimate authority. This is why so often we see the ordination of homosexuals coming on the heels of women's ordination, once scripture no longer has authority anything goes.


----------



## lynnie (Aug 15, 2010)

"Headcoverings were just for back then"

"The gifts of the holy spirit were just for back then"

"the example of the early church in extreme sharing of material goods was for back then" 

"Paul's teaching on women (and homosexuality) was appropriate for the culture back then" .

" six day creation and the sun standing still was written that way for thier unscientific culture". 

I use the above as true illustrations of what I've dealt with. You phrased in it this way: _Or, as I've always assumed, do they just say that Paul was a male chauvinist or that those scriptures were cultural and just for that time, and don't apply today?_

I happen to believe in headcoverings, voluntary extreme sharing, the gifts, and all the rest. But a lot of folks do pick and choose. So one thing you need to deal with before you can enter the debate yourself is what you think is binding today and what is not, and why. And you better really think it through long and hard before you get into heavy talks. Teenagers especially will pick apart every percieved double standard/inconsistency in how you interpret scripture.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 15, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> Well the verses in 1Ti 2 many churchmen put down to a bad translation of the greek or they say that the verse is being yanked out of its context. That the real issue is the fact that women are usurping authority and should instead be more respectful to their husbands in following their lead and teaching. It's obvious Paul is not saying that women cannot speak in church or should be silent in church because of parts in i believe 1 corinthians where its assumed that women are to prophecy and speak in church.
> 
> Also they would say that at the end of romans 16 the list of women given suggests that some of the women were apostles/pastors and therefore in light of that we need to re-interpret pauls verses about women in authority to mean something else.
> 
> ...



Lee:

Simply stating that there is another context to consider in 1 Timothy is not helpful and in fact harmful when you don't demonstrate from the text where it can be derived. Paul is addressing what exactly in 1 Timothy 2? The letter is written to help young Timothy know how to govern the church according to the command of Christ. The 2nd chapter is not controversial. There is no indication in the text that Paul is addressing a difficulty in the church. His words are plain: women are not to have authority over men. So your general swipe at the conservative position lends no credibility to your arguments. If you agree with what other people say against the arguments listed here then state that plainly instead of defending it so 'thinly veiled'. 

You are right about simply quoting 1 Timothy 2 and letting the matter stand; that doesn't establish the argument against women in office. But that wasn't all that was written now was there brother? I would then sincerely ask you to stay out of the discussion unless you wish to actually engage the arguments that were presented. I probably say that out of pride (because of my previous post) but I hope you understand why I get really frustrated when people just come out of the woodwork and try to make everything vague and muddy (see my post, point #3) and just tell us: its not as clear as you think.

And yes you are correct in saying that not everyone is out to destroy the authority of scripture when they seek to ordain women in office, but the vast majority do and if we have our eyes open we see what the hermeneutic of some who seek to do that undermines the authority of scripture and its proper interpretation. Yes, I speak personally and passionately about this issue having come out of a denomination that tried the same bait and switch and has now fallen from the heights it once held. I don't think it is a coincidence that every denomination that has come out in favor of women in office has sled down the slippery slope of liberalism into all kinds of abhorrent and ungodly positions. It takes time, to be sure, and there are godly men and women in those churches to be sure, but that doesn't stop the Lord calling us out of them to take the high(er) road of biblical authority and teaching.


----------



## LeeJUk (Aug 15, 2010)

Poimen said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> > Well the verses in 1Ti 2 many churchmen put down to a bad translation of the greek or they say that the verse is being yanked out of its context. That the real issue is the fact that women are usurping authority and should instead be more respectful to their husbands in following their lead and teaching. It's obvious Paul is not saying that women cannot speak in church or should be silent in church because of parts in i believe 1 corinthians where its assumed that women are to prophecy and speak in church.
> ...


 
I think you ought to re - read my post and see that I'm by no means advocating the view I expressed but instead I was answering the point of the OP who wanted more information about the arguments used in favour of women ordaination from scripture. So I gave a small outline of what they might say. Relax.


----------



## EricP (Aug 15, 2010)

Not to get off point, but I have wondered a bit about the "ordaining women" issue that has arisen in the US and elsewhere in the past 20 years. The Scripture hasn't changed for 2000 years or so--no additions, no post-it notes from Paul. There have been many studiers of Scripture over those 2000 years who are FAR more learned than we, some perhaps not. So why can't those pushing for "something new" (ie "the church has been wrong for those 2000 years about ordaining women, and we've really got it right") admit that their push has less to do with proper interpretation of Scripture than a bowing to the wind of secular social change? The church at large seems to lag a couple of decades behind popular culture (look at "praise music" for example--soft 80's rock at the most complementary), and so the feminist wave is now breaching the battlements of churches throughout the world. Merely finger pointing and using words like "misogynist" gets no where; we see what we want and expect to see, and so those who want to find a role for women in teaching & preaching find it, and are willing and able to decide that the Scriptures that have been clear enough for 2 millennia are no longer so; and then, as Alan so rightly points out, the slow incremental march to things worse begins in yet another denomination. We ALL are people of our times--and as CS Lewis pointed out, that is ample reason to spend most of our time reading books that are more than 200 years old--as a necessary corrective to our contemporary myopia.


----------



## jayce475 (Aug 15, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > LeeJUk said:
> ...


 
Lee, to be fair, the last two paragraphs of that post don't sound like what you perceive the arguments of those who are in favour of female ordination to be, but rather an advancement of your own view that "things are not so simple" and that many in the Reformed circles have it wrong. If you would like to suggest that it's not being done right in many places, could I get a better idea of what really is "a sound balance" and how it is different from what you think is happening in such churches?


----------



## LeeJUk (Aug 16, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> > Poimen said:
> ...


 
Yes the last 2 paragraphs are my views, but the post made by poimen was addressing the first 2 paragraphs which were not my view. To be honest this is the reason I rarely post on here everyone gets way too angry and aggressive. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 16, 2010)

Not holding to the authority of scripture, as already noted, and an evolutionary viewpoint have both fueled this change. The differences between men and women -- both in appearance and in roles -- were instituted at creation. If we're just another animal that crawled out of the primordial muck, then ability will govern what you should and shouldn't do.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 18, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > LeeJUk said:
> ...



Lee:

I have had some time to reflect upon what you wrote and I see that I have misrepresented you and misunderstood your post. Please forgive me for my hasty and careless reply.


----------



## Rich Koster (Aug 18, 2010)

From OP 

"It makes me wonder how they interpret this passage.

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"

I suspect that they use a razor blade.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Aug 18, 2010)

I've been in this argument quite a bit. The argument I haven't seen yet posted is that Paul is mentioning his preference and not speaking for the lord. How this argument goes is that in 1Cor. 7.12 Paul states that _"To the rest I say (*I, not the Lord*)..." _ From there they then take the verses in Timothy and point out:


1Tim. 2.8 *I* desire 
1Tim. 2.11 * Let*_ a woman
[*]1Tim. 2.12 *I* do not
_
_
So it is Paul's personal preference coming through and not the Lord's. It is Paul chauvinism that has snuck into the holy writ and we have for centuries restricted women based on one mans perspective. The focus will be on how important women were during Jesus' ministry and how all that changed under Paul. So those who believe in women not being ordained are following a Pauline version of Christianity.

That is the last argument I heard a few months ago._


----------



## SRoper (Aug 18, 2010)

I have also heard the argument that the reference to Adam and Eve means that Paul is talking about husbands and wives and not the church.


----------



## jawyman (Aug 19, 2010)

Here are a couple of links from the United Methodist Church's website detailing their justification for women clergy.

Why Do United Methodists Ordain Women When the Bible Specifically Prohibits it?

Women Clergy


----------



## LeeJUk (Aug 19, 2010)

Poimen said:


> LeeJUk said:
> 
> 
> > Poimen said:
> ...


 
Thank you for your apology. It is fully accepted brother. God bless.


----------

