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]

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]

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]

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

Bahahahahah, direct, however not very descriptive, lol

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.