How do you feel about pastors who are women

Ben W,

You seem to think Esther is a good example of a woman 'pastor' in the Bible, but I fail to see why. Pointing out that the LORD put her in a place to bring about the deliverance of his people through her influence upon the king and through her own role as the queen has nothing at all to do with the N.T. description of the role of a pastor in the Church. When do we read that Esther was given spiritual oversight and a teaching role in the synogoue, e.g.? And even if we did have evidence such as this, how would that have direct relevance for the N.T. Church's practice? And why should we take an O.T historical narrative account as prescriptive anyway? What in the text would indicate that this was to be taken as normative for Israel, let alone the Church? For example, the simple fact that Esther is reported to have "commanded" Mordecai to do something (if you are correct in taking it that way) does not mean that she was right to do so. Since when does O.T. historical narrative take primary precedence for the Church over a N.T. Apostle's direct instructions to the Church (such as in 1Tim.2:11-12)? The account you cite in the Book of Esther describes what happened then in a certain situation, not what we ought do now in the governance of the Church?

Pastork

 

Ben, what PastorK has said is more than enough; I'll simply add that I addressed Esther a page or two back, and you didn't respond to what I posted (I'm assuming that, with all the posts, you probably didn't see it).

Helen, a nitnoid: Colossians 4:15 depends on which version you use. For instance, some versions claim that the name is Nymphas, and the statement is "in his house."

But that's neither here nor there, and really has nothing to do with this discussion. I think both you and PastorK have actually addressed the initial question. The Bible doesn't show any women "pastors," but it does show women who were used by God.

I have no qualms with women preaching. I just have problems with women pastoring. Hope everyone knows the difference.

 

THere is one reference to the word "Pastors" in the New Testament. Not once is it used in the Singular term Pastor. I have serious doubts as to weather the "Pastor" of today accuratley represents the Pastors of Eph 4:11 For one thing they were not paid a weekly wage.

Im interested in your reference to what the Old Testament has to do with the New Testament. I certainley agree. So why then do a number of Baptist Fundamentalists jump straight into Malachi when giving the "pep talk" prior to the offering?

Pastor = Shepherd Can a woman Shepherd the flock? Yes. Esther is an example of a female shepherd.

DON, you stated before that you didnt accept ifs. I put Unclears in the same basket.

 

Well I can tell you all what I think! God will do as needed, and call out who He wants. At times I can be chauvinistic, I prefer men as Pastors, but I can see a need for women Pastors.
Who was the first to declare about the Risen Savior? Mary & Mary Magdelene! They are the 1st to talk about our risen Savior. All the men were moping around worrying what to do since Jesus was dead!
After all, when you want to spread a message, where do you go? Television, Telephone, and Tell- a- women! You got to love a bit of humor!
But honestly Paul, as I read and understand, didn't send women out to preach because women were considered less than animals at that time in history just like Muslims believe still! This isn't saying that Paul believed like that, but he knew women wouldn't be accepted as a speaker!
Don't forget how it was in history. Women now have been elevated to being equal to men just as they should be! Hey a man can't carry a child for a day, let alone for 9 months! Let God deal with this in His very own wisdom, He will call and use whom He seeks!
God Bless You All!

[ October 25, 2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Jim Ellis ]

 

"Unclear" is the response to whether Esther was a "shepherd" of the flock or not. And there's several verses--which I provided--that showed that Mordecai was the shepherd, and Esther was simply the one in the position to influence the king.

"Unclear" is in relation to your comment that Esther was a pastor, not a comment on my support that she wasn't.

Again, I go back to: What needs to be addressed is what the Bible says a pastor is, and what the qualifications are, before we debate/discuss/argue who can actually be a pastor.

Enough nit-noiding on my part. I'm outta here.

 

Ben W,

In the N.T. a 'pastor' ( poimen ) is equivalent to an 'elder' ( prebyteros ) or an 'overseer' ( episkopos ). The terminology is used interchangeably. For example, in Acts 20 Paul speaks to the "elders" ( prebyterous ) in verse 17. He tells them in verse 28 to "take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [ episcopoi ], to shepherd [ poimainein ] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood". Paul clearly sees the terms 'elder', 'pastor', and 'overseer' all as differing ways of refering to the same office. Peter uses the terminology in precisely the same way when he exhorts the "elders" ( presbyterous ) to "shepherd" ( poimanate ) the flock of God, "serving as overseers" ( episkopountes ) (1Pet.5:1-2). This interchangeable use of the terms refering to the same office is so commonly understood by theologians and N.T. scholars, and is so blatantly obvious, that I don't see how you or anyone could reasonably question it. There is no doubt at all in the N.T. as to what Paul is talking about when he mentions "pastors" in Eph.4:11. There is also no doubt that Esther is never presented as having had a role anything like what the role of a pastor is in the N.T. She is never presented as having a role of spiritual oversight or a teaching office in the synagogue, etc.

Pastork

[ October 25, 2002, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

I've got 2000 years of Church tradition to back up my interpretation. So, my "preconceptions" seem to be a pretty safe bet. What about YOUR preconceptions? Do you want to admit that you have any?

No one has yet listed a female in the NT who is a pastor / elder. Phoebe is never listed as such. She is called a "deaconess" in Romans. Deacons are not elders, nor are they ever given "authority" in the Church (elders are).

 

I've got 2000 years of Church tradition to back up my interpretation. So, my "preconceptions" seem to be a pretty safe bet. What about YOUR preconceptions? Do you want to admit that you have any?[QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I certainly have no problem admitting my preconceptions.

I was very closed to the idea of women as pastors for many years. I did not have any experience with it, the Bible certainly didn’t seem to indicate that women were qualified for vocational ministry and the only Baptist woman I met who was a vocation minister had a very bad attitude toward men and a number of theological problems.

Then I met women who were struggling with what they perceived to be God’s call to vocational ministry. They were against it for theological reasons, but they also recognized the Spirit of God calling them.

On the advice of a friend who was taking a class with E. Earle Ellis on the writings of Paul, I bought a copy of Ellis’ book, “Pauline Theology”, and that (along with my own study and thought) changed my mind.

Suddenly I was on the unpopular side and facing the wrath of the “conservative resurgence”. It would have been much easier to just say, “the Apostle Paul was against it”, and go on my way than to take the risk of trying to discern what Paul meant.

Don’t you think the issue is important enough to check out an argument you may disagree with when someone the stature of E. Earle Ellis takes a stand not popularly considered “conservative” when you know good and well that he holds a very conservative view of scripture?

As a doctoral student, are you willing to take the risk of being convinced of an unpopular stand that may get you in trouble with the Southern Baptist Convention leadership?

 

Ben W,

I usually like to keep my remarks focused upon the biblical issues under discussion, but I was rather struck by some statements you made on page 3. For example, you said that "One reason that a diminishing number of churches do not have women as Pastors is that the Male Pastors like to be 'Control Freaks' and can't accept that a woman can preach a better sermon than they". First, these sort of overgeneralizing statements are appalling and slanderous. It may be true that there are some male pastors who are as you describe here, but to make such a broad statement as you do is as slanderous as it is baseless. Second, if you want to get anywhere with male pastors like me who differ with your position, these kinds of outrageous comments won't help you. Third, I am one male pastor who readily admits that there are women who can preach far better than I can. For example, I once heard Kay Arthur preach at a large assembly, and I can tell you that I will probably never be the speaker that she is. But whether or not there are women who can preach better than I can (which is not all that hard to do) is beside the point. The issue is whether or not the Bible says they should use such a gift in a way which places them in authority over men. To use my earlier example, it is my belief that, even though Kay Arthur is a great preacher, she disobeyed the Word of God when she accepted an invitation to preach to a hall full of men, and the men who asked her to preach there are even more guilty for failing to lead as they should have. To say this does not make me a "Control Freak", but is simply my attempt to be as faithful as I can be to Scriptural teaching as I understand it.

Pastork

 

I'm actually planning on checking out his argument by checking out his book, but when I have the time. Right now I simply don't (I'm spending too much of it on the BB ). I know Ellis to be very conservative, but he is going to have to have a heckuva argument to change my mind. He also holds to "annihilation." None of his arguments on that topic have swayed me.

I'm a "Calvinist" working on a Ph.D. in evangelism at an SBC seminary. Is this a serious question?

Rev. G

 

I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I knew all sorts of pro-evangelism Calvinists while at Southwestern. It is even more popular now I'm sure.

Calvinists have an advocate in the "conservative resurgence" in Al Mohler, so being a Calvinist doesn't really buck the trend that much. On the other hand, I don't think that many (if any) professors in the Evangelism department at Southwestern hold to a five-point system, so you may encounter some friction there.

I think you will admit that holding a view of women in all areas of vocational ministry will be a much more dangerous view to hold and express among people of the "conservative resurgence".

By the way, did you know that Ellis is a Calvinist?

 

The question,"Should women be allowed to Pastor?" is much like saying,"Should women be head of the house?" I've seen many a house run well by a woman, but usually because no man was around. I wonder, what about the husband of a woman who pastors a church? How does he feel about it, always being lead spiritually by his wife. What does the Bible have to say about that? I believe if my wife were to want to pastor a church I could not give my blessing, because her spiritual welfare is my responsiblity. The Bible clearly says these things should'nt be, although I believe it does happen often where men are very content to let the women do the sheperding. Now if a lion were to endanger the flock, how many so called men would allow a woman out front to fight it? Blessings, WP

 

The Bible is clear that a woman CANNOT be a “pastor” and neither can MOST men. This particular office is plainly designed for a man that MUST have a very particular TYPE of personality (1 Tim. 3). There is no possible read that it may be otherwise.

It is true (as Helen has touched upon) that many modern day male pastors have turned the “pastor office” into a sham. There are quite a few nasty, short-tempered, confrontational "men of the pulpit" who are a disgrace to the church and an affront to GOD. As pathetic as this reality is, it does NOT allow anyone to violate the plain teaching of the Bible concerning woman and men who do not meet the specific 1 Tim. 3 pre-requisites for holding this office.

And what is so terrible about this? WHY must this office be so focused upon? Is it REALLY a “calling” that many feel they have? Or, is it really nothing more than the LUST for power – (i.e. “I’m the boss around here”) - that intoxicates the many to lustfully claw there way toward this office. Why can’t you serve in some other capacity? Why must it be THIS office? Could it be that GOD uses this office as a TESTING to expose the unqualified ones who seek it?

The ONLY legitimate candidate for the office of a Pastor is someone who meets the 1 Tim. 3 standard in its ENTIRETY. That standard suggests a meek, humble, patient, non-combative, informed, caring, sharing, giving, married MAN with children, who is dispassionate about money and does NOT drink alcohol as being fit and qualified for the office of Pastor. Frankly, I’ve only met a handful of Pastors in my years that met the 1 Tim. 3 standard. Show me a man/woman who lusts for pastor power, who does not meet the 1 Tim. 3 standard ENTIRELY, and I’ll show you a DEVIL (2 Cor. 11: 13-15).

latterrain77

 

I'm at SWBTS, not Southern. You may have known some "pro-evangelism Calvinists" who were students while you were at SWBTS, but none of them were evangelism profs. You wanna talk about friction? By the way, I love Dr. McDow and Dr. Fish! They're great guys!

We may have an "advocate" in Dr. Mohler, but he isn't at SWBTS. Not only that, but he has backed away from the Founders due to political pressures placed upon him by SBC leadership. So, it isn't as strong as you may think.

Of course I did!

Okay, I'll agree with you - it is easier to be a "Calvinist" in the SBC resurgence than it is to support women pastors. Although, according to what you have said, Ellis is the lone Calvinist taking that position.

 

There is no such thing as a woman pastor. A woman may call herself one, but she can never be qualify for that position according to the Bible.

HCL

 

(I know I said I was done here; I apologize!)

John, there's a difference between preachin' and pastorin'....

Do you know what it is?

 

Because there is a difference between just doing the work of evangelism and doing the work of a pastor / elder. Because the Scriptures make it an issue.

 

Sigh, the never ending argument because the politically correct Left will not adhere to Scripture if it thwarts their causes.

Paul said, "I suffer not a woman to teach" and then a few verses later says that a pastor must be "apt to teach." That disqualifies a woman right there even if we did not have the rest of 1 Tim 3 or the injunction to commit what was learned to faithful men.

 

May a Woman Pastor?

The question really is may a woman pastor rather than can a woman pastor. The following quote from U.S. News and World Report shows that they can and do pastor.
More Women Preachers - "Women are admitted to the ministry in about 80 Christian denominations and to the rabbinate in Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Judaism. They account for a third of all students in seminary programs." (Aug 10, USN & WR) Leadership by women is becoming more and more prevalent, even in Southern Baptist churches. The largest church in the world is in Korea, pastored by David Yonggi Cho, a charismatic, and women make up two-thirds of the 700 pastors who help guide this megachurch (1994 Charisma). What the Bible says seems to no longer matter. -Calvary Contender, Huntsville, AL
I have always wondered about folks that call themselves Christians and then proceed to deny or redefine everything the Word has to say. I don't mean plain folks that sin. We may acknowledge the Word is true, but our flesh may deceive us and our lusts draw us away, but when asked the true believers will acknowledge that what they did was sin. We will not deny it. We will not say the Bible doesn't say it was sin. We may try to justify our sin and pass the buck like Adam and Eve, but we will not deny what the Word says about sin or our particular act or attitude.
I am talking about theologians that claim to be Christians yet deny Inspiration, Incarnation, Salvation, the Virgin Birth, etc. etc. I am puzzled as to why these people did not become social workers or analysts or whatever instead of preachers and theologians. A Buddhist monk ought to believe in Buddha and his teachings as should a Moslem believe in Mohammed and his teachings. If a person wants to be a Christian then they ought to believe in Christ and His teachings. They ought to be disciples and not masters. They should not think that they could teach Christ a thing or two or second-guess Him. Yet, these enlightened ones feel they can just rip out Scripture and deny the very One they claim to follow. I find it at best hypocritical and at the worse blasphemous. They need to find another line of work. At least leave the ministry and be honest unbelievers rather than wolves in sheep's clothing. Although, I should not be astonished for these kind were prophesied about in 2 Cor. 11:14, 2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 4. These I expect and can dismiss as liars for so also is their father (John 8:44).
I do get worried though when true believers start hem-hawing around and feel like after 2000 years of Church history and teaching that they have somehow gotten special revelation and will set us on the right path. Not that the Church has never erred or had need of prophets to restore her. Revival is constantly needed. However, when we start leaving the traditional or orthodox teaching in pursuit of what smacks of bowing to cultural pressure then I question the new revelation these folks have received.
I once stopped and challenged two Mormon missionaries to prove to me they were correct and I would convert. As you can see, I am not a Mormon. We discussed many subjects, but one was their revelations. The Mormons once taught that if a black man were saved he would turn white. They also did not allow black men to become Elders. It has been awhile back, but as I recall, about the time the IRS was fixing to pull their tax-exempt status over this issue their prophets received revelation that the black man could now be an Elder. That is just a bit suspect for an old boy like me and I informed the Elder that I was speaking to that if the IRS ever decided that tax-exempt status would withdrawn if the Mormon Church did not ordain women their prophets would get another amazing revelation. He said it would never happen. I hope he remembers the Baptist bible college student that told him that when it happens. Maybe he will wake up and convert.
That is an example of "faith" bowing to social or cultural pressures. I believe that we Bible-believing Christians are doing the same thing in regards to women in the pastorate. We live in an age of women's liberation and political correctness and we kow-tow to that nonsense.
I just find it hard to believe that for all these years every godly theologian that could parse Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic upside down and backwards just did not see the sexism in the Bible and seek to rectify God's error. How could they have missed everything that today's enlightened scholar now sees so clearly? Were they slaves to their culture? The fiery Luther who could not recant because the Word of God held his mind captive could not see the nuances that make it fine for a woman to pastor? I have great doubts that he would have missed that in his search for the truth as he found the liberty of grace and salvation by faith. He dismissed the celibacy of monks and nuns as man's fabrications. I believe he would have torn down the wall of sexism if he had seen it in the doctrine of men only in the pastorate. Tyndale, Wycliffe, Moody, Torrey, Spurgeon, and many other great saints of God whose oratory, interpretational skills and knowledge of the Scripture make our modern day scribes look like they failed kindergarten did not see what these new kids on the block see. God moved in those men of old in ways that our current batch of theologians can only write about in awe and wonder. May we all soon experience His glory where we can stand in awe and wonder and not just have the hearing of the ear! Then we will be set aright in our theology and write from a fresh fullness of His Spirit and Presence!
One thing that we must remember when we study the Scriptures is that the chapter and verse divisions are not inspired. They were added for ease of reading and as a method to aid memorization. With that in mind, let us start I Tim 3 back in 2:11. I hope that this will hope clear up some confusion about a few issues.
Paul will be discussing the qualifications of a pastor and a deacon and starts out with some instruction to women. I believe Paul is going to answer some questions before they are asked which I a great way to end controversy although in our day it is a great way to start it.

1 Tim 2:11-15

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

I know of no other way to approach this than directly. It is pretty straightforward.
For the NIV folks it does not come across any different.

1 Tim 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. (NIV)

Some thought subjection was a dirty word. Full submission seems stronger to me.

In the layout of the first century church worship, men sat in the front and women in the back. Before you get all sideways about that let's look at this through a modern educational perspective. When I was in college, back in the old days, they often told us what our grade would be by the roll we sat in. The A roll was up front which meant all the back roll Baptists among us were going to be the D and F people. All rules have an exception. Some of us did well in the back, but we had to work a little harder at it because of distractions and the greater temptation to doze, chatter, write love notes etc.
With that in mind, let us look at this setup. Men were to be the leaders. If you want your leaders trained the to be all that they can be then you want them as close to the speaker as possible. Remember there were no microphones and amplifiers in those days. Since women would have access to the leaders via their fathers or husbands they had opportunities to pick up on anything they missed by asking questions when they got home.

1 Cor 14:34-35
34 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.
35 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. (KJV)

This actually accomplished several things. The men got to practice what they learned by teaching their wives and family and it also gave the wives some quality time with their husbands. It kept the man aware of his responsibility to love his wife like the Lord did the church and as he taught her she would respect him and grow closer to him. Independence of either sex is a modern thing. They were to be one flesh and mutually dependent (not co-dependent) upon each other and the Lord. The system does not seem that bad. Maybe we need to have a revival and return to that first century practice.
Now some women were maybe more zealous, aggressive, impatient or whatever and they would shout out questions during the service. Some would chatter to one another about their understanding or opinions about what was being taught. And if their husband happened to be near them they might have even elbowed him and asked a question. This would be disruptive to the service and hinder their learning as well as anyone else present. With that understanding, women being silent in church and asking their husbands at home makes sense and in keeping with the injunction to let everything be done in decency and in order which happens to show up five verses after the instruction to ask the husbands at home. (I Cor 14:40) Is it hard to see the correlation?
Now, if all that were really meant to be sexist, it would have been easier to just dump the women out on the street and keep them out of the service. It is just an injunction to behave well in the church. If you are honest, you will admit that you have seen some of the same things going on in the church today.
I once was a candidate at a church where the women sat on one side and the men on the other. How this Brethren church got my resume I will never know, but I went and ministered to them. My wife was not real fond of the seating arrangement. One reason is that she is kind of shy and did not like being dropped into a group of strangers. Another reason is that she is an elbower. Whenever the preacher says something that she deems I ought to take note of I get an elbow in the ribs. I must be getting better because she doesn't do that near as often as when we were younger. From the pulpit, I have seen many women whispering to one another or to their husband during my preaching. It only proves what one of my professors always said was true, "Human nature hasn't changed since Adam and it won't until after the Rapture."
I don't believe that it is teaching that a woman must be mute whenever she enters a church building or that she cannot sing or teach women or children. She is not to teach men and especially as a pastor-teacher (Eph 4:11) because that means she would have authority over men and that is an usurping authority as the next verse says should not be done. She is to learn in silence. The silence is tied to learning, which normally takes place during a service of some kind.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

There are those who like to write off a lot of things in the New Testament because they think that a lot of teaching is merely a culture thing and can be changed with culture as culture changes. They have a bit of a problem here. Paul ties his previous teaching and the following to the creation and the fall. In essence, they are eternal teachings since they cannot be changed and certainly from a culture far removed from Paul's. The roles of men and women were set at creation and means they are not cultural things that can be changed.
When I taught on the fall, I suggested that the man being made the leader and the woman placed in subjection was actually a part of the curse placed on man and not the woman. Since Adam was created first he was accountable for Eve. Why was she able to be deceived? If she had a question, why weren't they communicating? Where was he when all this was going on? If absent, why was he? If present, why did he not step in? Why did he eat if he was not deceived? Why did he not run like a wild man to God and intercede for Eve? I am sure you have other questions.
What we do know is that the race did not fall until Adam ate. Death entered through Adam and is destroyed by Christ, the second Adam. Eve may have been the first sinner, but Adam was indeed the first failure. He lost it all. Any conjectures we have are truly that. It may have been a romantic thing. He knew she was going to die and he did not want to live without her so he ate. It may have been a selfish thing. He wanted to eat, but used her as a guinea pig. He also misunderstood the concept of death and when she did not immediately drop over or seem to suffer any harm, then he felt it safe to eat. We have not been told all those things and we may never know. The bottom line is that God held Adam responsible and accountable and the same is true for all the male descendents of Adam. Adam blew his leadership role. Men, how are we doing? Conversely, Eve blew her helpmeet role. Ladies, how are you doing?

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

It means that if she stays close to God she will not die during childbirth. This was a very big issue at that time and still is in some countries to this day. Please note that while Paradise was lost through the actions of both sexes, it is also regained through the use of both. Christ came as a man to regain what Adam lost, but since He chose to be born of a woman and give her a part in redemption it is a picture example of what happens to the forgiven sinner. We are now given a part in God's redemption of the world as we live in faith, charity, holiness and sobriety. It is sad that we dwell on the fall and point fingers at each other when we should be raising holy hands together rejoicing that He used both and is using both in redemption. Our roles may be different, but our goals are to be the same.

CHAPTER 3

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Now, we get down to the topic issue. Since it is the role of the man to lead and have authority. A woman would have difficulty being a bishop/overseer. The office requires one to have authority. A woman is not to have authority over a man so how could a woman pastor a church? This is outside of the biblical roles of women.
Again, the question is not of ability. Can a woman deliver a sermon? Sure, many do as the quote from USN & WR states. Can a woman perform the myriad duties of a pastor? Sure, those same ladies would have to do those duties. Would it even be possible that she could perform those duties better than some men? Yep. I have no doubts about it because there are men in the ministry that God did not call nor equip and they are doing a poor job. Therefore, another man or woman neither called nor equipped could do a better job than some of those men. The question is not ability, but permission and authority to pastor.
I do believe that God has called and equipped women to minister. Paul mentions women who ministered to him and the saints. Women are called to teach other women. (Titus 2:3-5) Women teach children. (2 Tim 1:5; 3:14-15) Some of those children grow up to be men and leaders. Being a godly mother and grandmother may bring you more rewards in Heaven than some pastors get. Your influence may reach father than theirs. One can only guess the rewards a Susanna Wesley might get since she raised two sons who shook the world.
All men and women are called to minister. The word means servant. It may not be as flashy a term as Pastor, but it is just as needed and can provide even more rewards. Look at our world. Do children need ministering? Who best has the ability to nurture a hurt and lonely child? Who has the most influence on a child? Compare the number of times you hear "Thanks, Mom" to "Thanks, Dad" from folks who receive public recognition. Who do "Da Boys" say, hello to most when they catch the camera on them? A child may love and respect their Dad, but they will always cling to Mom. Talk about a man's Dad and he may cuss you, but talk about his Mother and he will bust you.
Take another look and see how young women are doing? No pain, hurt or confusion there right? Somewhere a generation or so of older women have abdicated their call to ministry and the young women are suffering from it. They are more likely to do drugs, be promiscuous, and allow themselves to be abused than any other time in our history. Who will minister to them? Male pastors have limited ministry to women who have grown to hate or mistrust men. Who can better understand these women than women? Ladies, you have a calling and an equipping to minister in a way so powerful that you can literally change the world if you will submit to the role God has given you instead of seeing it as a second-class, hand me down thing of oppression. The world needs you and the Lord has called you. Will you answer His call?

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

If there is still any doubt that a woman was not meant to pastor, this verse should end the discussion for reasonable folks who believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Of course, if you do not hold that basic premise then it would not matter if it were in the Bible 900 times from Genesis to Revelation you would find all kinds of intricate ways to dispute it with your vast enlightenment. Such a pity that wisdom shall die with you. (Job 12:2,3)
For the rest of us, plain language makes plain sense. A woman will have a hard time being the husband of one wife. Since homosexuality is a sin and not condoned there is no room for a same sex marriage here where one woman could call herself the "husband." While I am here, I openly rebuke SBC churches that sanction same sex marriages and I trust the Convention will quickly remove them from fellowship as well as those who have women pastors. Soul liberty does not include blatantly disregarding the clear teachings of the Word.
Secondly, just a few verses ago, Paul instructed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and eternal principles that women were not to teach in the assembly. This would make it kind of tough to pastor. The Greek word that is translated as teach is the same in both passages. Paul therefore leaves no doubt that the pastor-teacher is to be male. There are no ifs, ands, ors or what about in this passage.
We have a couple of choices. We either maintain our belief that Bible is from cover to cover the preserved, verbal-plenary, inspired word or God or it isn't. If it isn't then we have no assurance of anything. The foundations are destroyed and the righteous cannot stand. (Psalms 11:3). If it is all that then we have a couple of choices. We can obey it or not. If we do, all is well. If we don't then things turn out not so well. This really is one of the easier things to obey. If we mess this up how will we handle the tough issues and choices.

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

These are good characteristics for either sex regardless of our place in the body and need no discussion.

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Here is another reference to the man being the head of his home and the one God holds accountable. How he rules his own house gives a clue as to how he will take care of the church. When we are faithful in little God gives us more. Since the church is to be a large family then how a man's small family operates gives a clue to his leadership capabilities and whether he could deal with a large family.

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

Ouch, here is one we go to both extremes on in the church. There are many places where a guy gets saved and because he is a good old boy and zealous someone thinks he has the call and they ship him off to Bible College or put him in a position of leadership six months after he is saved. Depending on his own natural maturity, he will be strongly tempted to think he is some special pumpkin since he is such a hit in the church so soon and that will open up the door to his fall. Instead of realizing where his real strength and wisdom for ministry comes from he will rely too much upon himself and if he has some success he will get arrogant. He won't last long after that. When he falls, his pride will be damaged and it may be years if ever that he attends church or attempts anything for God.
It does not matter how promising a person may be; they need to mature in the Lord. Paul was highly educated, mature and zealous when he was called and God still hid him three years in the wilderness before his ministry started. The disciples were with Christ three years before He left them with the full responsibility of the ministry. I am not saying three years is a magic number, but there does need to be a time of maturity and growth.
On the other extreme, there are some that feel a person is a novice until he has attended ten years of schooling and three years of apprenticeship somewhere. We need to get back to where we are spiritual enough to truly discern when God is calling someone else or us to a larger ministry or place of responsibility. Subjective emotions, charming personalities and a laundry list of degrees or experiences are not the ways to call pastors or evaluate our own call.

7 Moreover, he must have a good report of them, which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

It is good if the lost folks have no quarrel with your pastor or have some secret from
the past on him. It is often tough for a guy that was a local rowdy to get saved, train and then return to serve in his hometown. Even if he was not the guy voted most likely to be in jail folks will say I knew this guy when he was knee high to a grasshopper and what makes him so holy. Jesus went through that in His hometown and you can expect the same. (Matt 13:57) Have you witnessed to your relatives lately? Is that tough or what? "Why I remember when I changed your diapers, you little upstart! Who do you think you are to preach to me?" Don't you hate when they bring up the diaper thing? Man, I'm forty-six and I still have people who remember changing my diaper! I must have been awfully cute if everyone was getting in on that task! Too bad I lost it! The cuteness that is, I'm glad I lost the diaper although sadly I am getting older and may have new people who remember me in diapers! Oy vey!
Pastors are no where near respected like they were in the old days and it will be tough to have a good report with the lost, but it can happen. Also, remember you can't please everybody. Some lost folks will hate you and some will love you even if they think you are a nut. Come to think of it that works in the church as well as without. All you can do is be faithful to your calling and fix what you can and then leave the rest of it in His hand!

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

While a deacon is not a pastor, he should also be full of the Holy Ghost (Acts 6:3). Deacons were first selected to provide meals to widows and to make sure there was no favoritism between the Jewish and Greek widows. They were and still are servants, not associate pastors. Some places have pastors that are deacons and deacons that are pastors and they wonder why the church is a wreck. When the roles are reversed nothing can be done efficiently.
Deacons are to handle whatever might be called secular kind of things so that the pastor can devote himself to study and other types of ministry. The pastor is not called to be a plumber, electrician, etc. The deacons should handle these things. The deacon was not called to be a teacher or preacher in those days, but Philip was eventually called to be an evangelist. Stephen died as the result of a strong evangelistic message given to the Jews which caused them to stone him, but a lad named Saul was there and we do not know the impact that had on him.
A deacon also working with the poor will learn things about the family that need not to be shared all over town and in the church hence his need to be serious, not doubletongued or two faced as we would say it. He should not be able to be bought or find ways of pulling from the Samaritan's purse for his own use. He will at times have to minister spiritually to folks as he is ministering to them things of a physical or material nature so being full of the Holy Ghost and holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience is definitely an asset. They need to be as above reproach as a pastor also and not a new believer.

11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

Note these ladies are wives of the deacons. They are not deaconesses. No such office is given here. However, for a man to be an effective minister he has to have a supportive wife. His wife may accompany him on his missions. If he is going to the home of a widow or a single mother, she had better go with him. That just keeps everyone from trouble. Her being a part of his ministry makes her privy to the same information he has and she needs to have some of the same character traits required of her husband or there will be needless scandal in the church.

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith, which is in Christ Jesus.

Again if a man cannot keep his own house in order how can he help anyone else? The office is to be one of great dignity/degree. It is an honor to be chosen by your brothers and sisters and to have the elders lay hands on you. The fact that you will be involved in a greatly needed public ministry gives you an opportunity to exercise the boldness in the faith these folks have seen in you.

14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV)

Paul was expecting to be in Ephesus soon, however there were some things that he wanted to tell them just in case he was delayed. His purpose was to provide Timothy instruction on how folks ought to behave in the house of God. The whole book is an instruction manual for church life. It covers prayer, worship, church government, respect of Elders, women, widows, rich, servants, heretics, false doctrine, seducing spirits and devils. It covers a great deal in such a small treatise. Paul did not write things just to be scribbling or doodling. He was very serious and adamant about the things he wrote. He wrote with the authority that God gave and through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. What did he think of folks that wanted to argue about what he wrote?

1 Tim 6:3-5
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (KJV)

OUCH!!!! Oh, Paul where is thy tact? He is just as tough in other passages. He did not write as the scribes and Pharisees. Paul knew the danger of error and as a good under shepherd to the flock and loving mentor to Timothy he could do no more than attack the wolves that would destroy the flock. No Pastor worth his salt can do anything less today. He may seem fanatical or unloving to some, but then they have no clue the dangers in this world.
Bottom line? May a woman pastor? No, she may not according to the word of God. If the Bible said otherwise, I would preach as strongly in favor of women pastors as I now do against them. I have no personal grudge or agenda. I am just a messenger. If the message is offensive, please take it up with the author. His office is open twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. If you approach Him correctly you will always get an audience and leave with wisdom. May we seek Him often!