Is ordination of women to be Pastors [Overseer/Bishop] orthodox?

[Cow Poke]

Well, there's a difference between airing your opinion, and saying there's a "biblical principle" against it,

That's my opinion.

especially when the "biblical principle" you previously claimed was "violated" by both Jesus and Paul.

How?

Why would you have to discount that principle?

Are we in agreement that a man is the head of the house in a Christian marriage? And I don't think this is "be the boss of", but includes being the spiritual leader. IF so, how can a woman effectively be the spiritual leader of a bunch of husbands, including, conceivably, her own?

[DesertBerean]

I find the headship argument weak when it comes to this issue. What if she's a widow? Or unmarried?

[Abigail]

That's my opinion.



How?



Are we in agreement that a man is the head of the house in a Christian marriage? And I don't think this is "be the boss of", but includes being the spiritual leader. IF so, how can a woman effectively be the spiritual leader of a bunch of husbands, including, conceivably, her own?

I know this was probably not as common as today, but what of the single woman? If the word for woman in verse 11 is translated as wife then perhaps verses 11-15 was specific advice for married women - this then makes more sense over the child-bearing comment too in that a wife is not seen as the loser but has herself an important role, especially if the child-bearing is seen in a figurative sense of them together as a team bringing people to Christ when they are operating in a calm orderly manner - so she has an evangelistic role. I know a few married couples where both husband and wife feel the need to be the final authority on anything and the bickering is very tiresome for those around them.

[Abigail]

I find the headship argument weak when it comes to this issue. What if she's a widow? Or unmarried?

yes, sorry I didn't see your comment. I just queried the same thing

[Cerebrum123]

That's my opinion.

I don't think it's good to have "opinion" as your support for "biblical principles".

How?

You didn't read[1] my posts or my link did you?

They both taught women. Jesus taught Martha, Mary explicitly, and I would even say the Samaritan at the well. All of this at a time when most rabbis wouldn't even be served a meal by a woman. Then you have Paul's teaching women where Lydia was converted, and she invited them to her home. You did say men teaching men, and women teaching women. That is definitely contradicted by their practices.

Are we in agreement that a man is the head of the house in a Christian marriage?

Yes. Although, what that means might be seen differently between the two of us.

And I don't think this is "be the boss of", but includes being the spiritual leader.

With you so far.

IF so, how can a woman effectively be the spiritual leader of a bunch of husbands, including, conceivably, her own?

You don't see how different aspects would be in play at those different times? Can a Christian not be both a servant and a leader depending on context? What about how Jesus said those who want to be leaders need to be servants of all?

Colossians 3:16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Does this not apply to women?

What about how Jesus is described as a "servant to the Jews", does that somehow make Him less our Spiritual leader?

7 Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews[b] on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed

I see where you are coming from. I just don't think it's the kind of binary problem that you make it out to be. Especially with the big difference in the Bible between private relationships, and public relationships. I mean, what about when there comes a time when a woman knows more than her husband on something that is directly related to their spiritual walk? Should she just go along with his lead, even though she would be better equipped to handle things/know better than the husband, or should she take charge temporarily because that's where her strength lies?

After doing the reading, it seems that mutual submission is in view here. Christ submitted Himself as a servant in ways to us, and even to His disciples when He washed their feet, and we are to submit faithfully to Him. In this same manner must a husband and wife submit to each other.

Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

This was to God, but it was also for us. Reading the English translations may work for some, but I find doing more work[2] into the background of the Biblical text leads to more satisfying and consistent answers.

1. Or just skimmed my post. Either works for me.
2. Yes, I'm teasing you, and no, I don't agree with the kind of grasping at straws/mental gymnastics I've seen out there. I don't feel this stuff qualifies though.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think it's good to have "opinion" as your support for "biblical principles".

It's "my opinion" that those are "biblical principles". It's, apparently, other people's opinion otherwise.

[Cow Poke]

I find the headship argument weak when it comes to this issue. What if she's a widow? Or unmarried?

Then she is not subject to her husband.

[Cow Poke]

I'm just "thinking this through", and I don't have a rock hard opinion on this.

I am INCLINED to believe that a Church should be pastored by a man.

The premise that women can be pastors seems to take on a couple of aspects:
A) discount anything that might suggest that women should not lead men
2) search for anything that might possibly indicate women were pastors

At face value, I don't see support in the Bible for women pastors.

[Cow Poke]

Brum - I'm not ignoring the rest of your post -- I'm taking more time to read it.

[Cerebrum123]

Brum - I'm not ignoring the rest of your post -- I'm taking more time to read it.

Maybe read one post more fully before moving on to the next?

[Cerebrum123]

I'm just "thinking this through", and I don't have a rock hard opinion on this.

I am INCLINED to believe that a Church should be pastored by a man.

The premise that women can be pastors seems to take on a couple of aspects:
A) discount anything that might suggest that women should not lead men

Deborah led all of Israel as a judge, and we have Junia and Priscilla as either an "apostle" or a "co-worker" of Paul.

2) search for anything that might possibly indicate women were pastors

At face value, I don't see support in the Bible for women pastors.

There's a lot of things in the Bible you just won't get at "face value", and lead to all kinds of unnecessary conflicts*, and general messiness. A lot of other things need to be taken into consideration, such as ancient Greek/Hebrew, and cultural considerations.

*Genesis 1 and 2 being "contradictory", Jephthah's daughter being a "human sacrifice", Elisha and the 42 "kids" etc. are just a few things that come to mind.

[DesertBerean]

yes, sorry I didn't see your comment. I just queried the same thing

...to be clear, I see this argument about headship as weak as it relates to what ministries a woman may engage in. When the Holy Spirit came down a Pentecost, both men and women received it, as indicated by the text and by Peter quoting from Joel.

I've been reading the OT more these days...and I've noticed that when they speak of the Spirit of God, it serves as a sign that God has chosen, or spoken, and that is the final say on the matter. But I'm still studying ...

Again, I just don't think the headship of the husband should be used as an argument here.

[KingsGambit]

I heavily lean toward allowing women to be pastors but I admit that the "plain reading" of the 1 Timothy text does seem to indicate otherwise. I don't fault people for defaulting with that view if they're not convinced to be on the safe side.

[Cow Poke]

They both taught women. Jesus taught Martha, Mary explicitly, and I would even say the Samaritan at the well. All of this at a time when most rabbis wouldn't even be served a meal by a woman. Then you have Paul's teaching women where Lydia was converted, and she invited them to her home. You did say men teaching men, and women teaching women. That is definitely contradicted by their practices.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I'm speaking specifically of women being pastors of Churches. AS A PRACTICE, it's good, evidently, for women to teach women, and men to teach men for a number of obvious (and not so obvious) reasons -- not saying there aren't exceptions.

Yes. Although, what that means might be seen differently between the two of us.

You might be surprised.

With you so far.

You don't see how different aspects would be in play at those different times? Can a Christian not be both a servant and a leader depending on context? What about how Jesus said those who want to be leaders need to be servants of all?

Servant leaders - great concept!

Colossians 3:16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Does this not apply to women?

Doesn't say that it doesn't, nor does it support a woman being the pastor.

What about how Jesus is described as a "servant to the Jews", does that somehow make Him less our Spiritual leader?

It was quite clear He was "in charge".

7 Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews[b] on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed

Not sure how that applies -- Christ was very CLEARLY "the Rabbi". That He CHOSE other aspects is His divine right - as we see in the Kenosis in Phil. 2.

I see where you are coming from. I just don't think it's the kind of binary problem that you make it out to be.

Hmmmm...... as for the position of pastor, I have seen no real support for women as pastors. Otherwise, there are plenty of roles for women in ministry.

Especially with the big difference in the Bible between private relationships, and public relationships. I mean, what about when there comes a time when a woman knows more than her husband on something that is directly related to their spiritual walk? Should she just go along with his lead, even though she would be better equipped to handle things/know better than the husband, or should she take charge temporarily because that's where her strength lies?

I have a long answer for that, but it would be sort of a derail here -- maybe another thread.

After doing the reading, it seems that mutual submission is in view here. Christ submitted Himself as a servant in ways to us, and even to His disciples when He washed their feet, and we are to submit faithfully to Him. In this same manner must a husband and wife submit to each other.

The reason the foot washing was notable is because it was CLEAR that Christ was the "leader" and the disciples were "followers" - he was teaching humility and service. It was remarkable because He WAS "the Rabbi". He never relinquished that role.

Philippians 2:6-8New International Version (NIV)

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

This was to God, but it was also for us. Reading the English translations may work for some, but I find doing more work[2] into the background of the Biblical text leads to more satisfying and consistent answers.

Yes, I brought this up even before I read that you included it --- what makes this a remarkable passage is that Christ CHOSE to "lower" or "empty" Himself, but He never stopped being God.

1. Or just skimmed my post. Either works for me.
2. Yes, I'm teasing you, and no, I don't agree with the kind of grasping at straws/mental gymnastics I've seen out there. I don't feel this stuff qualifies though.

It's a worthwhile discussion!

I don't know who it was who said "How can I know what I think until I hear myself say it", but I agree. Sometimes, in attempting to explain my position on something, as I hear myself say it (or see myself type it) I think "boy, that's dumb" or "yeah, that's weak".

We're having a good conversation -- I'm enjoying it.

(Although, I have to admit, I kinda miss Mick! )

[Cerebrum123]

I heavily lean toward allowing women to be pastors but I admit that the "plain reading" of the 1 Timothy text does seem to indicate otherwise. I don't fault people for defaulting with that view if they're not convinced to be on the safe side.

I agree with that. I still think it's the wrong reading though.