Your View On Women As Pastors

I don't view feelings as counting for anything when those feelings are un-Biblical. I also don't see where it matters that a church confirms a decision that is un-Biblical, churches all too often do things that are just plain wrong.

I'll stick with what the Bible teaches and not concern myself with what people feel or what churches confirm.

 

I think that this passage, along with the others quoted to refute the idea of women pastors, shows Paul's inconsistency which is also evident in other passages related to other topics.

I believe that we should not allow anything to be used to limit God's ability to act. This includes scripture. The OT shows a progression of God's punishment of sin from the Pentateuch through the Prophets that moves from corporate responsibility over several generations to individual responsibility. I believe that this example can be applied to the issue of women pastors. God may or may not be calling women to be pastors. But that is God's business. I agree with Tiny Tim about some men being such bad pastors that you have to wonder about their call. But, again, that is God's business. I will mention one other passage of scripture, "by their fruits shall you know them."

I have never had a female pastor. However, during our pastor search a couple of years ago, we had several women preach. Most were very good. One was pretty bad because I could not understand anything she said.

Tim Reynolds

 

This thread is 5 pages long, and no one has brought up Deborah. Usually, that comes up at least a few times by now.

Also, if one takes the "husband of one wife" verse to mean women can't be pastors, then one must also forbid single men from being pastors (discussed earlier). Further the verse cannot be construed as a ban on women leading in general, or from women preaching, or from women beign missionaries, even if women are banned from pastoring.

 

So God inspired Paul to be inconsistent? Just where else is Paul inconsistent so I will know what to disregard as I read Scripture? Are there other writers besides Paul that I should be careful of? Can I assume that you are inspired and that I should trust your perception?

 

Well there were woman apostles Romans 16:7

 

Who cares about "Baptist tradition and practice"???? This is a Biblical matter, not a Baptist one. And the Bible clearly restricts the office of pastor / elder to the man. It is both an authoritative office as well as a teaching one.

 

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

If it is shameful for them to speak in church, that would pretty much exclude them from pastoring wouldn't it?
Regardless of the context of this passage it does give Paul's view of the position of women in the church--subordinate to that of the man. "If they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home." This harmonizes with 1Cor. 11 which teaches that the head of the woman is the man.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

 

Paul's inconsistency?!?!?! So much for inspiration of Scripture. To infer the Holy Spirit (the Inspirer of Paul's writings) was inconsistent is a very dangerous statement indeed.

 

Jerome, I can only assume that because you quoted from 2 paragraphs, leaving out a huge amount of detail in between you have read the missing sentences of Calvin.

You have done a great disservice to Calvin by misrepresenting his views on this matter, and are guilty of bearing false witness by then putting that forth on this forum as his views. The last statement of Calvin HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN TEACHING AT ALL!!!

It had to do with generally with the subject of external ceremonies, and specifically with "bending the knee in public prayer".

You owe an apology to this forum for either ignorantly quoting another man or, what is much worse, deliberately misquoting him.

 

Here, John Fletcher refers to Selina Hastings as "our Christian Deborah". She was leader of a Calvinistic denomination in Britain in the 1700s (the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion).

From the Dictionary of National Biography: "She exerted total control over [Trevecca College], which became her home for at least six months each year, and where she was, according to one student, ‘a stern disciplinarian’, supervising all aspects of her students' education. More importantly to her, she assumed full control of the places and times they preached, and they referred to her as their ‘commanding officer’."

Her biography is a recommended book on the Capitol Hill Baptist Church website.

 

Calvin isn't wrong on this at all. Calvin never said that. It is the dishonest to even infer that he did. (See my post on this - #50).

 

"A LADY PREACHER.--A sister of Mr. Spurgeon is preaching with much success at Willingham, in Cambridgeshire, where her husband is a Baptist minister. The cases from Willingham tried before the local bench have decreased to such an extent, that the police authorities have expressed their thanks to the lady preacher as being the instrument of the improvement." ---The Christian, Thursday, Nov. 14, 1872, p. 13.

 

No one of your quotes have to do with the OP, which is a question about the scripturalness of women being pastors.

I note you are willing to carry on with quotes while not dealing with your misquote and misrepresentation of John Calvin's comments. Why should we accept any of your other quotes as accurate?

 

Sigh. :BangHead: Here and here are some real examples of "creatively elipsised" quotes on this board.

Calvin classifies Pauls' prohibition of women teaching in the church with other things that may vary among churches: service times and places, music, policies and procedures, etc.

Read it and weep.


Institutes, vol. 4, ch. 10
XXIX. We shall not call that decorum, therefore, which is merely a frivolous spectacle, yielding an unprofitable gratification ; such as we see exemplified in the theatrical apparatus employed by the Papists in their services, where nothing is to be seen but a useless appearance of elegance and splendour, without any advantage. But we shall esteem that as decorum, which shall be so adapted to inspire a reverence of holy mysteries as to be calculated for an exercise of piety; or which at least shall contribute an ornament corresponding to the act; and that not without some beneficial tendency, but that believers may be admonished with what modesty, fear, and reverence, they ought to engage in sacred services. Now, that ceremonies may be exercises of piety, it is necessary that they should lead us directly to Christ. In like manner, we do not place order in those nugatory pomps which have nothing but a vain appearance of splendour, but in that well regulated polity, which excludes all confusion, incivility, obstinacy, clamours, and dissensions.

Of the first kind, examples are furnished by Paul; as that profane banquets should not be connected with the sacred supper of the Lord ; that women should not appear in public without being veiled; and many others in common use among us; such as, that we pray with bended knees and with our heads uncovered; that we administer the sacraments of the Lord, not in a slovenly manner, but with due decorum; that we observe some decent order in the burial of the dead ; and other things of a similar nature.

Of the second sort are the hours appointed for public prayers, sermons, and sacraments; quietness and silence under sermons; the singing of hymns; the places appointed for these services, and the days fixed for the celebration of the Lord's supper; the prohibition of Paul, that women should not teach in the Church, and the like; but especially the regulations for the preservation of discipline, as catechizing, ecclesiastical censures, excommunication, fastings, and every thing else that can be referred to the same class.

Thus all the constitutions of the Church which we receive as holy and useful, may be classed under two heads; some refer to rites and ceremonies, others to discipline and peace.

XXX. But, because there is danger here, on the one hand, that the false bishops may seize a pretext to excuse their impious and tyrannical laws, and, on the other, that there may be some persons who, from an excessive fear of falling into the evils we have mentioned, will reject all ecclesiastical laws, however holy and useful they may be, — it is necessary to protest, that I approve of no human constitutions, except such as are founded on the authority of God, and deduced from the Scripture, so that they may be considered as altogether Divine. Let us take, as an example, the kneeling practised during solemn prayers. The question is, whether it be a human tradition, which every one is at liberty to reject or neglect. I answer that it is at once both human and Divine. It is of God, as it forms a branch of that decorum which is recommended to our attention and observance by the apostle ; it is of men, as it particularly designates that which had in general been rather hinted than clearly expressed. From this single example, it is easy to judge what opinion ought to be entertained of all the rest. Because the Lord, in his holy oracles, has faithfully comprehended and plainly declared to us the whole nature of true righteousness, and all the parts of Divine worship, with whatever is necessary to salvation,—in these things he is to be regarded as our only Master. Because, in external discipline and ceremonies, he has not been pleased to give us minute directions what we ought to do in every particular case, foreseeing that this would depend on the different circumstances of different periods, and knowing that one form would not be adapted to all ages,—here we must have recourse to the general rules which he has given, that to them may be conformed all the regulations which shall be necessary to the decorum and order of the Church. Lastly, as he has delivered no express injunctions on this subject, because these things are not necessary to salvation, and ought to be applied to the edification of the Church, with a variety suitable to the manners of each age and nation, therefore, as the benefit of the Church shall require, it will be right to change and abolish former regulations, and to institute new ones. I grant, indeed, that we ought not to resort to innovation rashly or frequently, or for trivial causes. But charity will best decide what will injure or edify, and if we submit to the dictates of charity, all will be well.

 

Deborah lived and Judged in a time when "Everyone did right in his own eyes."

God can -- and has, and will continue to use -- the most unexpected people and situations to achieve His ends.

• The first witnesses to the resurrection were women.
• Mary -- a woman -- was blessed by the Lord, while Zechariah - a man and a priest -- was cursed (albeit temporarily) for his unbelief.
• Paul commends several women as critical to his ministry.
• The church is the "Bride" of Christ.

Yet, I think most men require male leadership.

 

The most glaring instance is found in Acts 16.1-3 where Paul has Timothy circumcised "out of consideration for the Jews" and Galatians 5.2-4 where Paul says that "if you get yourself circumcised Christ will benefit you no more."

As for these other questions I choose to maintain the mystery.

Tim Reynolds

 

Female Pastors

I don't have any great insight on this debate but I believe that the Bible clearly indicates that the office of a pastor is meant for a man but I have seen instances where no male leadership was available and a woman had to fill the role of a pastor (small churches with no pastor). On a personal level, I would never attend a church with a female pastor.

 

Baptist faith and practice matters greatly. It's the reason we require immersion as a condition of church membership (we can make a scriptural case for immersion being the standard biblical mode for baptism, but we cannot make a case for baptism being a prerequisite for membership). There's a reason we have the Baptist Dictinctives. As Baptists, we're required to adhere to them. They're not optional.

 

This verse is not a biblical ban on women preaching.

During the time of this writing, men and women sat separately. Men sat in what we would refer to as congregation seating, and women sat separated from their husbands in an outer section. The officiant addressed the husbands in the congregation, but not the women outside. (btw, children did not attend either; it was strictly a man-only seating culture). It was typical for the women to call out to their husbands in the congregation to find out what was being said from the pulpit. This back-and-forth chatter was extremely disruptive to the service. Paul called for the women in the sidelines to remain silent, and called for men to give women the instruction given to them once they got home.

Today, women are no longer segregated from the congregation. They sit next to their husbands. Also, today, single women are allowed to attend church (also forbidden back then). Children, too, attend with their parents, which was then forbidden. We no longer have the conditions that existed in the context of this verse. Coed congregations and electronic sound systems, plus the fact that most people today are educated enough to take notes, have made the original context of this verse a non-issue. If we are to apply anything from this verse to today's application, it would be that the congregation should remain silent, and not interrupt the preacher, while he is speaking. This applies to anyone in the congregation, be they men, women, or children.

This verse is NOT a call for women to be banned from the pulpit. Anyone of any church that uses the aforementioned verses to ban women preachers is guilty of seriously perverting scripture. I don't say that lightly. There is no room for doctrinal interpretation there. Unfortunately, many churches and denominations have done exactly that. One could possibly make a scriptural case for the role of bishop being only to married men (husband of one wife), but one cannot make a biblical case for women being banned from preaching.