Female Pastors

Status
Not open for further replies.
If anyone would like me to present such a position solely for their information, to help those wrestling with the matter, and if the moderators will promise not to conclude that I am arguing for female pastors by so doing, I will post a detailed view of how egalitarians attempt to justify the practice.

I would be interested to hear it. I believe that the PCA is right on the matter, so I would love to see the best argument that can be given for that position so I can learn the keys to refuting it in detail to justify the position of the PCA.

:pilgrim:
 
I believe the story of Deborah gives us the proper perspective to examine the role of the female pastor.

Many years ago I had a conversation with a female pastor who took the position reluctantly. She did not believe that the office ought to be filled by a woman. When the office was left vacant NONE of the men, including her husband, wanted to be the pastor. They asked her to do it and she took the position until a man could be found.

It was wrong for her to do it but I believe this is how God shames the church for the passivity of the men. Passivity is the great genetic weakness we men inherit from Adam. When men will not act out their roles God will justly shame us.

So, though it's against scripture the woman pastor is a very significant and godly judgment against the men of the Church. God will raise up a woman to shame the men to action. Unfortunately, in our culture, the men have been so feminized already that they can no longer feel shame. Shame was once an effective motivator, now, it's how celebrities stay in the headlines.
 
timmopussycat
You will find that a variety of solid "bible believing" churches have female pastors. Denominationally they range from Pentacostals through Baptists and Evangelical Anglicans to perhaps some Presbyterians...

That's quite a claim. "solid Bible believing" linked with female pastors.

By definition, I don't think we could include pentecostal in that category (e.g. second work of grace at baptism of Holy Spirit, etc. before even getting to reformed doctrines of grace, covenant theology, etc.).

Can you give some examples of "solid Bible Believing" Baptists, Anglicans and Presbyterians you have in mind?
 
lynnie;


I hope you guys all focus on the need for this. Yeah women should not be ordained, but shepherds are supposed to provide for the needs of the flock, and that includes young women. I spent most of my early Christian life, and as a new mother, with almost no older woman to talk to or learn from except for one nice aunt. I had loads of peer friends, but we all came from the great revival of the Jesus movement and older women were few and far between. As an avid reader I had help from books, but many women just don't read much.

I have known so many women who are/were depressed, molested by relatives while teens or younger, girls with abortions in their past, gals with critical controlling husbands or silent neglecting husbands, ladies with so many problems. Today, God has raised up such wonderful helpful resources from places like CCEF, Peacemakers, etc, to help people deal with emotional and relational problems in a biblical way. And does the lady who is having flashbacks of being raped when she lies with hubby, and dealing with the searing feelings of shame and pain and rage, really need to go talk to male elders about what happens when she gets physically aroused? Huh? I am not making up some fringe hypothetical situation, they say 1/4- 1/3 of women in America have been molested, and many more were promiscuous before salvation. I know these people and their marriages are a MESS.

Is your church ready for a revival, when people from this gutter of a culture get saved, with all the baggage they will have? Are you doing something- major somethings- to help older women minister to the younger?

There are some churches that are yes..

I minister to these women you speak of personally and have for many years..

Our church offers a support group for such women, the problem is, many women who come from that background do not desire to go back and deal with those issues and the effects that type of sin has on their lives...most are ashamed to admit they lived it, and tend to believe that 'because they are no longer in that situation it doesn't effect them" (but how many can honestly say sin does not have long term effects and consequences)

There are a few books out there that I would highly recommend for people who come from that background (both men and women)..but there are far fewer men who admit to coming from that type of past as their are women..
 
timmopussycat
You will find that a variety of solid "bible believing" churches have female pastors. Denominationally they range from Pentacostals through Baptists and Evangelical Anglicans to perhaps some Presbyterians...

That's quite a claim. "solid Bible believing" linked with female pastors.

Yes it is. Churches can be solidly biblical on many other doctrines and have a high view of Scriptural authority yet they differ on this issue. We must ask why the difference in this case.


By definition, I don't think we could include pentecostal in that category (e.g. second work of grace at baptism of Holy Spirit, etc. before even getting to reformed doctrines of grace, covenant theology, etc.).

Not all Pentecostals can be excluded from the solid bible believing category. I know it's unusual but my first church was an independent Penetecostal where the pastor was 5 point Calvinist soteriologically.

Can you give some examples of "solid Bible Believing" Baptists, Anglicans and Presbyterians you have in mind?

Certainly JIPacker is still a solid five pointer and I studied under him at Regent long before his ECT stumble. There remains within English and Canadian Anglicanism a solid if small block of Evangelicals who follow in that tradition. Watch the fracas in Canadian Anglicanism over gay marriage and you'll soon identify some of the players. I don't have firsthand acquaintance with any Presbyterians, that's why I said perhaps...

Yet the primary point behind "solid bible believing" that is relevant here is that each of these churches I was in took Scriptural authority seriously and the pastors devoted a high degree of care, accuracy and thoroughness to their work. Take for example, Bruce Milne (the former pastor of my church FBC Vancouver) who is at least a 4.5 point Calvinist in soteriology depending on how you read the relevant passage in his book "Know the Truth." If we are going to help egalitarians out of the error, we need to understand that it arose within a context of a genuine commitment to the authority of Scripture and that there are genuine indicators in Scripture that, at first sight, point in an egalitarian direction.
 
Tim,

I was understanding you had in mind some denominations, "solid Bible believing" ones, "...Baptists and Evangelical Anglicans to perhaps some Presbyterians... " that have female Pastors...

(We'd have to differ up front on your including ones that describe themselves "Pentecostal" as "solid Bible believing")
 
Last edited:
timmopussycat
If we are going to help egalitarians out of the error, we need to understand that it arose within a context of a genuine commitment to the authority of Scripture and that there are genuine indicators in Scripture that, at first sight, point in an egalitarian direction.

Just curious, what "genuine indicators in Scripture" did you have in mind that, "at first sight, point in an egalitarian direction."? Honestly, I'm just wondering for the sake of curiosity.
 
Bishop NT Wright, of the church of England which of course supports women ministers and has done for a while has written on this topic and lays out scriptural reasons for supporting women ministers.

No matter what you may think of the man on the new perspective on Paul row, please listen and don't prejudge his motives. Just read what he's written.

Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis by N.T. Wright
 
You will find that a variety of solid "bible believing" churches have female pastors. Denominationally they range from Pentacostals through Baptists and Evangelical Anglicans to perhaps some Presbyterians...

In reading this thread to post 28, I saw only one presentation of the "female pastors" position that would be recognizable to anyone in leadership in the churches that I was in, or the broader movements of which those churches were representative. And that one was incomplete. What I saw in the rest of the thread was superficial dismissals that show no apparent knowledge of how the vast majority of egalitarians in Evangelicalism justify the practice.

Hmmm. "Superficial dismissals that show no apparent knowledge of how the vast majority of egalitarians in Evangelicalism justify the practice"???

Wow, Tim, I'm sorry to have been so ignurent and unedukated. I guess graduatin' from the home of egalitari-whatchamacallitism back in the '70s when Jewett published his seminal book and we decusssssed it for a whole buncha time and carefalllly reding thar 'bout 30 of the leadin egalitari-whatchamacallit books, and serving on an ordination kounsel in an egalitarius denumeration for 28 years (charin' it for the last 15 or so) whar we done approved or disapproved 450 or so of them ordinandos, ain't enuf background to komment on the good ole PB. Oh, and forget 'bout the little woman on full time church staff fer two decades too. She don't know nuttin from her 4 theological degrees either. Sorry. Mebbe I shud go bak to skool and get some mur learnin' . . . ya think? :rofl:

Should we try to understand another's position with integrity rather than caricaturing it? Duh! But, please do not be so hard on people for disagreeing or failing to show "all their work" in arriving at the solution.
 
The more radical among the evangelical/liberal feminists will argue that the whole of Man's position in relation to Woman developed as a result of the Fall. There was a change in relations between Man and Woman/Husband and Wife at the Fall, but it was at creation that Woman was made to be a helper for Man rather than the other way round.

Apart, from the fact that it is commanded, what is the Biblical/theological rationale or the rationale that is believed to be the correct one, why women are not permitted to lead in Church by God's Word?

Is it because the Church is "the Household of God", and therefore men, women and children should be equal yet subordinate, as in the family?

Is it because God is revealed as male and is incarnated as male in Jesus Christ?

Is it to remind us that sin came by a woman?

Or a mixture of these?

Or other?
 
Richard Tallach
The more radical among the evangelical/liberal feminists will argue that the whole of Man's position in relation to Woman developed as a result of the Fall. There was a change in relations between Man and Woman/Husband and Wife at the Fall, but it was at creation that Woman was made to be a helper for Man rather than the other way round.

There sure was a change.

Genesis 3

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Man longer wants to be the servant leader God created him to be.

Woman no longer wants to be the helpmate, respecter of her husband God created her to be.

Both are given over to natures with a bias toward sin, rebellion.

(All the more reason to know God did not create women to rule over men in ecclesiastical authority)
 
You will find that a variety of solid "bible believing" churches have female pastors. Denominationally they range from Pentacostals through Baptists and Evangelical Anglicans to perhaps some Presbyterians...

You are obviously far more broadminded than I am. And that probably shouldn't be considered a compliment.
 
Bible Please

Is there a bible believeing church that has female pastors just by sheer error? If there is, how do they scripturally justify it?

You will find that a variety of solid "bible believing" churches have female pastors. Denominationally they range from Pentacostals through Baptists and Evangelical Anglicans to perhaps some Presbyterians...

...

That's a concern, because if the knowlege of the egalitarian case is no deeper than what I have seen here, then those who encounter egalitarians whith those arguments will be far more likely to confirm egalitarians in their prejudices, then help them understand the shortcomings of the egalitarian case.

...

In my experience, it is only when the strong side of the egalitarian case is fully acknowledged that its weak side can be successfully addressed.

If anyone would like me to present a condensed version of the egalitarian position solely to help those who seek to help others wrestle with the matter, and if the moderators will promise not to conclude that I am arguing for female pastors by so doing, I will post a detailed view of how Evangelical egalitarians attempt to justify the practice.

Isn't this what this post was for?
 
Hey Everyone!

This is a hot topic here at Trinity. However, from what I have seen, the argument from the other side is much more geared towards how we are to contextualize Paul's statements in 1 Timothy 2 and elsewhere. For example, the Bible also tells us we are to have a railing around the roof of our house; however, I don't know of anyone who has a railing around the roof of their house today, since it is generally understood as requiring one to put barriers around certain heights or pits, such as cliffs at a park, or a deep swimming pool, in order to protect innocent life.

Most people who argue for women pastors will take Paul's statements in a very similar way, and argue that they are to be understood as an example of his own command to, "Become all things to all people." In other words, because Paul knew that the Jews would never tolerate women teachers, he forbade women to preach simply so that there were no problems within the community between Jews and gentiles with regards to how the church was ran, which would cause the Jews to leave.

Now, the most common argument from our side at this point is that these commands are rooted in the creation order. However, most people on the other side of this issue would say that the woman's head covering is as well, and most of our churches do not require a head covering for our women. In fact, I have heard many churches who require the women who attend to cover their head use this very same argument against those churches who do not require women to cover their head.

Hence, the issue really boils down to a problem I have been working on for a long time. How does one know whether any given application of a Biblical text is correct or not? There are a whole lot of people who will apply texts in all kinds of strange ways to forbid all kinds of odd things, and you will also find several liberals who will argue that the Bible cannot be applied for today, simply because it was an ancient document speaking to an ancient world. While I think both of these extremes are wrong, I think we do need to ask the question as to how we distinguish between correct and incorrect applications of scripture. It is an important question, but it is one that is, to a large extent, ignored in most circles today.

It is interesting that R.C. Sproul did some work on this topic a long time ago, and, while he didn't have an answer to the question I have posed, he did give several guidelines, among them is the reason why I would say that female pastors are not allowed. This guideline is simply that it is better to follow applications of scripture that you are uncertain about, then to get to end of your life, and have to explain to God why you didn't obey his commandments. Until someone can come up with a definitive linguistic rule as to how we know whether something is a proper or improper application of scripture, or definitively show that our application of these texts is incorrect, I would rather err on the side of caution.

God Bless,
Adam
 
One of my fellow Classics majors will be going to Princeton Theological Seminary next fall to pursue a M.Div. She's a member of a PC(USA) congregation and plans to be ordained in that denomination.

She argues that "Junia" in Romans 16:7 was a female apostle––this is in turn used to justify the ordination of women.

First off, the text does not clearly indicate that Junia was an apostle. Nor can we securely say that Junia was female.

Additionally, she is failing to interpret scripture with scripture. 1 Timothy and Titus clearly contradict this theory.
 
Hard to Understand? Hardly!

The egalitarians may be wrong, but this issue is one where Paul, in particular, has written some things that are truly "hard to be understood" and mistakes can happen without twisting Scripture or ignoring its full counsel.

No, what Paul has written concerning men and women is NOT hard to understand. In fact, Peter himself, whom you are quoting mind you, wrote the same things about how men and women relate in the same ways!

What is 'hard to understand' is things like 'Justification by Faith Alone' which the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants have had a hard time agreeing on for hundreds of years. No churches, no matter how much in disagreement on the 'hard things', have disagreed on this or even put the apostles teaching on men and women in the category of 'hard to understand' in the vast history of Christianity until the last 50 years.

It is only the 'educated' who choke on this. Why is it so hard for them to understand?
 
Last edited:
To address Lynnie's concerns, which I believe are completely valid, I think its important to point out that just because women are not called scripturally to lead churches and teach formally, we are biblically mandated to teach and encourage those women younger and less mature. I see no reason at all that women counseling women has anything to do with women being pastors. Women don't need a special title to encourage and admonish one another. We don't even need formal programs, just open attitudes and willingness to open our lives to other people. We don't have formal women's ministry mentoring at our church, but it gets done anyway over coffee tables with toddlers shrieking in the background! It takes women being alert to the Spirit and willing to get involved in other women's lives.

Men who speak out against female pastors are not saying that women are worthless and have no place of important service within the church.
 
Complementarian? Wright Is Right!

Bishop NT Wright, of the church of England which of course supports women ministers and has done for a while has written on this topic and lays out scriptural reasons for supporting women ministers.

No matter what you may think of the man on the new perspective on Paul row, please listen and don't prejudge his motives. Just read what he's written.

Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis by N.T. Wright

I really like what N.T. Wright says here:

Likewise, to use the word ‘complementary’ and its cognates to denote a position which says that not only are men and women different but that those differences mean that women cannot exercise ministry, or some kinds of ministry, within the church, is I think a shame; as I shall suggest, I think the word ‘complementary’ is too good and important a word to let that side of the argument have it all to themselves.

And this is why I don't use the word 'complementary', but rather the biblical term 'patriarchy.'

-----Added 12/10/2009 at 10:46:51 EST-----

From the Wright article:

2. Galatians 3.28

The first thing to say is fairly obvious but needs saying anyway. Galatians 3 is not about ministry. Nor is it the only word Paul says about being male and female, and instead of taking texts in a vacuum and then arranging them in a hierarchy, for instance by quoting this verse and then saying that it trumps every other verse in a kind of fight to be the senior bull in the herd (what a very masculine way of approaching exegesis, by the way!), we need to do justice to what Paul is actually saying at this point. I am surprised to see, in some of your literature, the insistence that women and men are equally saved and justified; that is, I’m surprised because I’ve never heard anyone denying it.

Again, so far, so good.

-----Added 12/10/2009 at 10:59:45 EST-----

From the Wright article:

But it’s then fascinating, by contrast, that when we turn to Acts, and the persecution that arose against the church not least at the time of Stephen, we find that women are being targetted equally alongside the men. Saul of Tarsus was going to Damascus to catch women and men alike and haul them off into prison. Bailey points out on the basis of his cultural parallels that this only makes sense if the women, too, are seen as leaders, influential figures within the community.

"Only makes sense?" I think I have a better solution; one that makes more sense. Luke is showing us how despicable Paul is in his raving hatred. Surely Paul was the greatest of sinners. In fact, he is justified in his statement:

(Titus*3:3) For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

Wright's exegesis is growing weak.

-----Added 12/10/2009 at 11:06:12 EST-----

From the Wright article:

Anyway, the result would be that during the sermon in particular, the women, not understanding what was going on, would begin to get bored and talk among themselves. As Bailey describes the scene in such a church, the level of talking from the women’s side would steadily rise in volume, until the minister would have to say loudly, ‘Will the women please be quiet!’, whereupon the talking would die down, but only for a few minutes.

So, Wright is really wrong. He gives us two choices. Either Paul didn't really write 1 Cor 14, or the women just couldn't keep quiet because they were silly, ignorant, babblers.

Really! Who has lower views of women?

-----Added 12/10/2009 at 11:21:26 EST-----

From the Wright article:

Another dimension to the problem may well be that in the Corinth of his day the only women who appeared in public without some kind of headcovering were prostitutes. This isn’t suggested directly here, but it may have been in the back of his mind.

I don't buy it. The reason Paul has to exhort this church to follow the 'tradition' that has been handed down is because it is so foreign to the Corinthians, not because it is so common and there is confusion over new found religious liberties.

-----Added 12/10/2009 at 11:31:59 EST-----

From the Wright article:

‘headship’ in the sense of ‘source’, like the ‘source’ or ‘head’ of a river

1) Very weak exegesis as shown by Grudem's work.
2) Either way, Paul's point stands and so arguing about this is fruitless: smoke and mirrors which, after passing through, one finds himself at the same end.

-----Added 12/10/2009 at 11:43:38 EST-----

From the Wright article:

Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man’ – the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years. It can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): ‘I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.’

For the life of me, I can't see how Wright gets here from the text and context.

-----Added 12/10/2009 at 11:46:43 EST-----

From the Wright article:

I believe we have seriously misread the relevant passages in the New Testament, no doubt not least through a long process of assumption, tradition, and all kinds of post-biblical and sub-biblical attitudes that have crept in to Christianity.

Uhmm, ... yes, I believe you have Dr. Wright.
 
very interesting indeed, TaylorWest! Thanks for that review.

Also, what Hebrewstudent (Adam) pointed out applies directly to NT Wright and other female pastor advocates.

Dr. Wright cannot prove anything, only argue away certain texts without actually giving substantial positive proof that female pastors are actually allowed. Having male pastors, however, has much substantial positive proof, and the negation of female pastors is at the very least hinted at (and i think explicit, but to N. T. Wright and others, it must at least be hinted at), so would not the side of caution, as well as taking a Biblical theology of male headship as normative, be reason enough to N. T. Wright and the others?

Apparently not. People like to argue that what they desire is permissible.
 
Is there a bible believeing church that has female pastors just by sheer error? If there is, how do they scripturally justify it?

You will find that a variety of solid "bible believing" churches have female pastors. Denominationally they range from Pentacostals through Baptists and Evangelical Anglicans to perhaps some Presbyterians...

...

That's a concern, because if the knowlege of the egalitarian case is no deeper than what I have seen here, then those who encounter egalitarians whith those arguments will be far more likely to confirm egalitarians in their prejudices, then help them understand the shortcomings of the egalitarian case.

...

In my experience, it is only when the strong side of the egalitarian case is fully acknowledged that its weak side can be successfully addressed.

If anyone would like me to present a condensed version of the egalitarian position solely to help those who seek to help others wrestle with the matter, and if the moderators will promise not to conclude that I am arguing for female pastors by so doing, I will post a detailed view of how Evangelical egalitarians attempt to justify the practice.

Isn't this what this post was for?

Because of certain incidents in the past, If I am going to post the egalitarian view, I want it clearly understood beforehand that by so doing I am NOT advocating for women in unrestricted teaching or authoritative ministry

-----Added 12/11/2009 at 09:19:21 EST-----

.

She argues that "Junia" in Romans 16:7 was a female apostle––this is in turn used to justify the ordination of women.

... Nor can we securely say that Junia was female.

ALL the evidence we have is that Junia was a feminine name in the NT era: there is no evidence whatsoever for a masculine form of the name.

-----Added 12/11/2009 at 09:32:05 EST-----

You will find that a variety of solid "bible believing" churches have female pastors. Denominationally they range from Pentacostals through Baptists and Evangelical Anglicans to perhaps some Presbyterians...

In reading this thread to post 28, I saw only one presentation of the "female pastors" position that would be recognizable to anyone in leadership in the churches that I was in, or the broader movements of which those churches were representative. And that one was incomplete. What I saw in the rest of the thread was superficial dismissals that show no apparent knowledge of how the vast majority of egalitarians in Evangelicalism justify the practice.

Hmmm. "Superficial dismissals that show no apparent knowledge of how the vast majority of egalitarians in Evangelicalism justify the practice"???

Wow, Tim, I'm sorry to have been so ignurent and unedukated. I guess graduatin' from the home of egalitari-whatchamacallitism back in the '70s when Jewett published his seminal book and we decusssssed it for a whole buncha time and carefalllly reding thar 'bout 30 of the leadin egalitari-whatchamacallit books, and serving on an ordination kounsel in an egalitarius denumeration for 28 years (charin' it for the last 15 or so) whar we done approved or disapproved 450 or so of them ordinandos, ain't enuf background to komment on the good ole PB. Oh, and forget 'bout the little woman on full time church staff fer two decades too. She don't know nuttin from her 4 theological degrees either. Sorry. Mebbe I shud go bak to skool and get some mur learnin' . . . ya think? :rofl:

Should we try to understand another's position with integrity rather than caricaturing it? Duh! But, please do not be so hard on people for disagreeing or failing to show "all their work" in arriving at the solution.

Thank you for your entertaining sarcasm. It was however uncalled for. I thought my comment "no apparent knowledge" was sufficient to show that I understood that some here had engaged the egalitarian case in more detail than they have shown in the thread.

But we can't afford to forget that many folk overlook crucial details in arguments to which they are not sympathetic. For me, the classic example was found in CS Lewis "Rejoinder to Dr. Pittinger" where Lewis points out that his critic had said that Lewis believed something that Lewis had explicitly denied in the writing under review.

So when only one person in 28 posts shows a partial understaning of the egalitarian case as I have usually heard it presented, I was left to wonder, what exactly was going on: particularly when many posts degenerated to the level of the sarcasm I had quoted.
 
Last edited:
Tim, it would be helpful to follow up on your assertions here so they are not misunderstood.

timmopussycat
You will find that a variety of solid "bible believing" churches have female pastors. Denominationally they range from Pentacostals through Baptists and Evangelical Anglicans to perhaps some Presbyterians...

That's quite a claim. "solid Bible believing" linked with female pastors.

Yes it is. Churches can be solidly biblical on many other doctrines and have a high view of Scriptural authority yet they differ on this issue. We must ask why the difference in this case.

Can you give us some specific examples of "solid Bible believing" churches that have female Pastors? (esp. the Baptist, Anglican, and Presbyterian ones you mention?)
By definition, I don't think we could include pentecostal in that category (e.g. second work of grace at baptism of Holy Spirit, etc. before even getting to reformed doctrines of grace, covenant theology, etc.).

Not all Pentecostals can be excluded from the solid bible believing category. I know it's unusual but my first church was an independent Penetecostal where the pastor was 5 point Calvinist soteriologically.

... we'll need to disagree on your classification of Pentecostal ones as such, because of their views on baptism of the Holy Spirit, for starters).

Can you give some examples of "solid Bible Believing" Baptists, Anglicans and Presbyterians you have in mind?

Certainly JIPacker is still a solid five pointer and I studied under him at Regent long before his ECT stumble.

Are you saying Mr Packer advocates female Pastors?

There remains within English and Canadian Anglicanism a solid if small block of Evangelicals who follow in that tradition. Watch the fracas in Canadian Anglicanism over gay marriage and you'll soon identify some of the players. I don't have firsthand acquaintance with any Presbyterians, that's why I said perhaps...

Can you name some of the "solid Bible believing" theologians who have a "high view of Scriptural authority yet they differ on this issue" that you have in mind?

Yet the primary point behind "solid bible believing" that is relevant here is that each of these churches I was in took Scriptural authority seriously and the pastors devoted a high degree of care, accuracy and thoroughness to their work. Take for example, Bruce Milne (the former pastor of my church FBC Vancouver) who is at least a 4.5 point Calvinist

Never heard of 4.5 point Calvinist- I would argue that all 5 points are necessarily biblically and logically related to and dependent on on another. "4.5 points" would almost be like saying God is 90% sovereign.

in soteriology depending on how you read the relevant passage in his book "Know the Truth." If we are going to help egalitarians out of the error, we need to understand that it arose within a context of a genuine commitment to the authority of Scripture

It seems the difficultly we might have is that a genuine commitment to the authority of Scripture leads us to conclude as the witness of the church virtually did unanimously until about 1960 AD is that men are qualified to lead that office.

and that there are genuine indicators in Scripture that, at first sight, point in an egalitarian direction.

Can you give an example? And also, it might be helpful to define what you mean by "egalitarian."
 
Tim, it would be helpful to follow up on your assertions here so they are not misunderstood.

That's quite a claim. "solid Bible believing" linked with female pastors.

Yes it is. Churches can be solidly biblical on many other doctrines and have a high view of Scriptural authority yet they differ on this issue. We must ask why the difference in this case.

Can you give us some specific examples of "solid Bible believing" churches that have female Pastors? (esp. the Baptist, Anglican, and Presbyterian ones you mention?)

Scott all I am saying is that you can find churches within Pentecostal Baptist and Anglican and (possibly) Presbyterian denominations where the leadership is committed to the inerrancy and infalliblity of Scripture and either holds to or accepts women in unrestricted teaching and pastoral ministries. I am not saying such churches are confessional by PB standards for they are not.


Not all Pentecostals can be excluded from the solid bible believing category. I know it's unusual but my first church was an independent Penetecostal where the pastor was 5 point Calvinist soteriologically.

)... we'll need to disagree on your classification of Pentecostal ones as such, because of their views on baptism of the Holy Spirit, for starters).

Can you give some examples of "solid Bible Believing" Baptists, Anglicans and Presbyterians you have in mind?

Certainly JIPacker is still a solid five pointer and I studied under him at Regent long before his ECT stumble.
Are you saying Mr Packer advocates female Pastors?

Dr. Packer's position is nuanced. He does not recommend the practice but he can in good conscience remain in a church that has women in such positions and he had done so for a number of years.

There remains within English and Canadian Anglicanism a solid if small block of Evangelicals who follow in that tradition. Watch the fracas in Canadian Anglicanism over gay marriage and you'll soon identify some of the players. I don't have firsthand acquaintance with any Presbyterians, that's why I said perhaps...

Can you name some of the "solid Bible believing" theologians who have a "high view of Scriptural authority yet they differ on this issue" that you have in mind?

Packer is the obvious example.

Yet the primary point behind "solid bible believing" that is relevant here is that each of these churches I was in took Scriptural authority seriously and the pastors devoted a high degree of care, accuracy and thoroughness to their work. Take for example, Bruce Milne (the former pastor of my church FBC Vancouver) who is at least a 4.5 point Calvinist
Never heard of 4.5 point Calvinist- I would argue that all 5 points are necessarily biblically and logically related to and dependent on on another. "4.5 points" would almost be like saying God is 90% sovereign.

I agree with you that a full Calvinist is biblical by definition. I shouldn't have made the sidebar about 4.5 Calvinists since the point I'm trying to make is that people can arrive at egalitarian conclusions from within a framework of inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

in soteriology depending on how you read the relevant passage in his book "Know the Truth." If we are going to help egalitarians out of the error, we need to understand that it arose within a context of a genuine commitment to the authority of Scripture
It seems the difficultly we might have is that a genuine commitment to the authority of Scripture leads us to conclude as the witness of the church virtually did unanimously until about 1960 AD is that men are qualified to lead that office.

Perhaps, or, as the egailitarians would put it, perhaps the Ante-Nicene church was subverted by the culture. And we must turn to Scripture to find out which possibility is correct.
 
So when only one person in 28 posts shows a partial understaning of the egalitarian case as I have usually heard it presented, I was left to wonder, what exactly was going on: particularly when many posts degenerated to the level of the sarcasm I had quoted.

Okay, you've said this a couple of times, but many of the arguments presented in those posts were ones that I myself used as an egalitarian, and that I have heard and read many other egalitarians making. The reason for the sarcasm in some of them is simply because this is the PB and the egalitarian arguments are not held in high esteem here! :)
 
timmopussycat
Perhaps, or, as the egailitarians would put it, perhaps the Ante-Nicene church was subverted by the culture. And we must turn to Scripture to find out which possibility is correct.

For their argument, must have been the post-Nicene church also, because they didn't have women pastors, and must have been the apostolic church, too, because all the apostles chose by our Lord, elders and bishops were men.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your entertaining sarcasm. It was however uncalled for. I thought my comment "no apparent knowledge" was sufficient to show that I understood that some here had engaged the egalitarian case in more detail than they have shown in the thread.

Glad you found my sarcasm entertaining. However, as far as "uncalled for" I'm not so sure. When someone, particularly a younger person, sets himself (or herself, given the topic of the thread) up as judge and jury of everyone else in a discussion, it practically invites ridicule or at least sarcasm in response. Again, please do not "talk down" to the rest of us who did not receive our "Dip. C.S." under Packer and Fee. Colleagiality works so much better when we treat one another with respect as equals.

BTW, has Packer changed his view since his influential piece in Christianity Today back on February 11, 1991??? Having watched a number of my theological heroes change, waffle, equivocate, and temporize over the last five decades, it would not surprise me. However, as a former student of Packer, what is your take, Tim?

In 1991 he wrote an article titled “Let’s Stop Making Women Presbyters.” In it Packer asserted that Protestants are abandoning the position traditionally held by Roman Catholics, Orthodox and evangelicals with respect to the ordination of women. Packer's own explanation for the emerging trend was attributed to five factors:

1. Feminism has infiltrated the church.
2. The socialization of women since World War I has permitted them to enter spheres previously open only to men.
3. The New Testament passages on women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) and teaching men (1 Tim 2:11-14) have proved “problematic” both in their interpretation and application.
4. God apparently has blessed ministries led by women.
5. Ordination with its incumbent status and privileges has provided a certain degree of “job-satisfaction” to females in professional ministry roles.

Nevertheless, he offered a theologically based and exegetically sound argument against the practice (cf. "Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters"). Has he shifted again since then?
 
Last edited:
I believe that women should not be pastors, preachers, theology teachers (and maybe a few other things). I'm not going to enter into the fray regarding proofs. Many of you are doing a fine job at that (no sarcasm).

I do, however, want to relate a story. An old friend of mine, a well-known quantity (at the time) of a denomination well-represented on the PB, went to preach at a church in a denomination which had allows female pastors. He was a candidate. He received much criticism for even preaching there. His response: "What's worse, a denomination that allows women to preach or one that treats its pastors (who are not stars) like ****?"

There are times when not all the stances of a church are equally defendable. There may be times when such choices present themselves. They may be opportunities.
 
Since Tim invited us to interact with the arguments advanced by egalitarians on a more substantive rather than anecdotal level, I would like to know how some of you who attended solidly Reformed schools handled Packer's five explanatory factors.

1. Feminism has infiltrated the church.
2. The socialization of women since World War I has permitted them to enter spheres previously open only to men.
3. The New Testament passages on women speaking in church (1 Cor 14:34-35) and teaching men (1 Tim 2:11-14) have proved “problematic” both in their interpretation and application.
4. God apparently has blessed ministries led by women.
5. Ordination with its incumbent status and privileges has provided a certain degree of “job-satisfaction” to females in professional ministry roles.

It seems to me that the first two are most easily dismissed by our standard, "don't follow the world," type arguments. However, the last two are the most existentially difficult to deal with since they are based upon experience rather than exegetical and theological reflection. Did your profs acknowledge the force of these factors or did they rule them irrelevant given the exegetical disagreements they had with broad evangelical egalitarian arguments regarding Pauline texts of the kind found among the CBE crowd?

Frankly, given the fact that Fee has been invoked in this thread already, I am absolutely insensate to how such a textually sensitive expert as Fee can make the case he does for ruling out the Corinthian variant as unoriginal. If we are permitted such lattitude in dismissing verses we disagree with, I can think of a bunch of 'em that would make my life a lot easier to live if they were not in the New Testament!
 
Just a note on Bishop Wright's Junia argument. Junia is here:

Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

The Bible doesn't give a list of the 70 apostles. There are different lists of names, from eastern orthodox sources (Eusebius said no such list existed in his day, and Protestant and Catholic scholars have traditionally not taken such lists seriously) and on the oldest of these lists (700 years after Christ) you find the name Junia.

Wright says that modern Greek experts in accent marks say that the name is feminine, and uses that reasoning to over turn 4000 years of tradition and specific Christian texts.

He uses similar arguments to show that Justification does not mean the righteousness of Christ attributed to believers, but rather Justification means that God is just.
 
Instead of a full presentation of the egalitarian view, I'm going to interact with TW and NTW in the following post.


NTW said:
But it’s then fascinating, by contrast, that when we turn to Acts, and the persecution that arose against the church not least at the time of Stephen, we find that women are being targetted equally alongside the men. Saul of Tarsus was going to Damascus to catch women and men alike and haul them off into prison. Bailey points out on the basis of his cultural parallels that this only makes sense if the women, too, are seen as leaders, influential figures within the community.

While I generally recommend Bailey's work, this is one instance where he has missed a key point. Saul of Tarsus was trying to stop the spread of the gospel. Women are not prohibited from gossiping the gospel in the trad view, and if some of the women in Damascus were diligent and effective gossipers thereof, that would have been sufficient ground for Paul to target them even though they would not have been teachers and leaders within the community.

NTW said:
Anyway, the result would be that during the sermon in particular, the women, not understanding what was going on, would begin to get bored and talk among themselves. As Bailey describes the scene in such a church, the level of talking from the women’s side would steadily rise in volume, until the minister would have to say loudly, ‘Will the women please be quiet!’, whereupon the talking would die down, but only for a few minutes.

So, Wright is really wrong. He gives us two choices. Either Paul didn't really write 1 Cor 14, or the women just couldn't keep quiet because they were silly, ignorant, babblers.

Really! Who has lower views of women?

Unlike Fee I assume the authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34, 35. Although Fee has a strong case that something odd happened with those verses in the textual transmission, I don't think the verses formally contradict anything else Paul says, particularly if we accept Bailey's explanation of the problem they were written to address. In Corinth, Paul would have been speaking in Greek which the women knew as well as the men, but if the women were a) seated on opposite sides of the assembly from the men, which is possible b) the generality of them were less educated than their husbands, which is likely and c) less theologically educated than their husbands, which in the case of the Christians from Jewish backgrounds, is more likely yet, the possibility of cross-church dialogs must be taken seriously. It certainly explains the apparent contradiction with chapter 11 better than any other view I know.

NTW said:
Another dimension to the problem may well be that in the Corinth of his day the only women who appeared in public without some kind of headcovering were prostitutes. This isn’t suggested directly here, but it may have been in the back of his mind.

I don't buy it. The reason Paul has to exhort this church to follow the 'tradition' that has been handed down is because it is so foreign to the Corinthians, not because it is so common and there is confusion over new found religious liberties.

You may not want to buy this argument yourself, but it fits the known facts: people did draw wrong conclusions about the extent of Christian freedom in the NT era (cf. Rom 6 and 7), as applied to dress codes: I Cor 11:1-16 states that dress codes were being affected, what is at issue is how far and why.

At this point I want to interject to make a note on Junia and Priscilla because this will be in the back of an egalitarians mind about now. Junia (and there is not the slightest evidence in contemporary texts to show that the masculine form exists) was "of note among the Apostles". If the name was masculine nobody would have queried the idea that the individual named was an "apostle" in some sense even if "the apostles" referred to were not the 12. Yet it remains an open question whether or not these other "apostles" carried the same teaching authority as did the 12. And in Acts we have Priscilla apparently joining with her husband in teaching Apollos. This would appear to be a real contradiction with what Paul says in 1 Tim 2: 13,14. If a woman is not to have teaching authority over a man in a church setting, it would appear to be a necessary consequence that she should not teach men Christian doctrine in any setting. So at this point, someone may legitimately wonder if Paul's prohibition is as absolute as it appears.

NTW said:
Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man’ – the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years.

This is a translation issue arising in 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 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 me sometimes occurs) or are we not to so read it (which is also known to occur). 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 on this point that Paul is "hard to be understood."

The usual traditional counter is that Paul gives reasons for the prohibition anchored first in the creation order and then in v. 14 the fall, which appears to imply that that his prohibition has an eternal and not local relevance. But Paul does not make it explicit that he is adducing those reasons for an eternal prohibition, and if he is, the question may be legitimately asked why did he make the imperative/indicative switch, which implies the contrary possibility, in v. 11? Not to mention why Aquila allowed his wife to apparently help teach Apollos and why Luke notes the fact without comment?

These and similar arguments on 1 Tim. 2:11-14 form the heart of the exegetical case for allowing women to minister in unrestricted teaching or authority roles in the churches. I believe that while we may freely concede that such arguments are a possibly valid reading of the biblical evidence, our best response to egalitarian arguments is to insist that Paul's anchoring 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. If we are to conclude that Paul's prohibition is local and or temporary, it can only be on the basis that the point is proved by the Confessional standard of biblical proof (i.e., good and necessary consequence deduction from Scripture.)

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

NTW said:
It can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): ‘I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.’

For the life of me, I can't see how Wright gets here from the text and context.

Remember Bob V.'s post? It really was a truly radical thing to teach women theology in the Jewish context. From the fact that such instruction was now being given, it would have been easily possible to jump to the erroneous conclusion that in Christ the authority structures have changed or reversed.
 
Last edited:
"God apparently has blessed ministries led by women." What exactly is this supposed to mean? Is this argument that churches pastored by women have grown in numbers or seen people come to Christ so it must be biblical?
If that is the case, then what of the majority of the mega-churches and their pastors we so vehemently denounce?
Osteen, Warren, and several of the prosperity preachers have HUGE churches that are growing weekly. Surely no one would advocate because of this these are biblical examples of the right way to do ministry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top