Another "member" thread

Male pastors are in the news for violating women almost every week too. Shall we do nothing to prevent that or shall we continue on providing opportunities for temptation?

There are churches which have women counselors that are very well trained. Before my wife and I were married she saw a lady in the church who was a professional conselor and had a practice of her own. She was much better equipped than the pastor and had lots of training and degrees in that area. Most pastors have very little or no training in counseling. When I went to seminary it was not required at all. However I did take some classes because I knew that it would be needed.

In the parachurch organization I was involved in it was never permissible to counsel a woman. Another woman always did that.

Some of the women in churches would like nothing better than to trap the pastor into doing something they would like and to do something he should not.

When I worked in industry we had glass walls for our offices to prevent that very problem. The church should always take greater care than a business where non-Christians work because it is held to a higher standard. Christians should have the highest ethics of anyone.

To think that a pastor can counsel better than a woman counselor if ridiculous. Where are the older women teaching the younger women? How does the pastor fulfill that role?

If you look back at what the early Christians did, a pastor never dealt with a lady in the church. That was very much consider a taboo. It was the role of the women leaders in the church to deal with the women in the church. In fact today that practice is still common in many of the churches in those countries. If you read some of the early church documents you will quickly see that the mixing of men and women was not like what we do today. Look at how promiscuous the church is today. It is amazing how many young peope in the church today have done things they should have never done which in earlier years would have never been considered.

When I pastored it was never the men who had a problem with my stance on counseling women. It was the women who did.

There are also men who have violated women numerous times and there are women who have falsely accused the pastor of things he did not do.

Women should be daling with women and men with men.

What you write about is American Christianity with its promiscuous ways and not historical bibilical Christianity making every effort to maintain its holiness and integrity.

 

Do you consider them active members of the church? Why or Why not?

Sure. Why not? They are participating in active ministry....just not at the church they are members of. Nothing wrong with this.

Do you feel obligated to mail them the weekly bulletins to keep them updated on the church doings? Why or Why not?

If they ask for it, I might. Maybe their Sunday school class could be responsible for this.

When they are at their home church, can they fill their normal teaching roles? Why or why not?

Nothing against them, but if they are out a lot, maybe they should step back into the assistant teaching role, and give up the main role to someone who could be there every week.

Can the brothers be Deacons or Trustees?

Sure. Unless there would be something else keeping them from it. The sistern too.

Further thoughts? No.

 

Then you are suggesting that we violate scripture.
I think the woman should do somehting to prevent it, like,, not having a sexual realtionship with her pastor.

A woman counselor is one thing, a woman pastor is another. One violates scripture, the other doesn't.
A professional counselor has no guarentee they can counsel from a biblical stand point. And thats why most people go to a pastor for counseling. I would not consider someone who was counseling from a secular stand point(as in thats their education), but would seek soemone biblical, even if they were not educated in a secular university. A pastor is christian and knows scripture.

And yet you would punish all women by denying them pastorial counseling.

Again I said nothing against women counselors, but women pastors, which you endorsed, even though it isn't biblical. Why not address what I did say, instead of what I didn't say.

 

Mostly hypothetical means mostly not real, but it also means some of it is real, making it not exactly hypothetical. Hypothetical would mean totally made up, not mostly.

 

What I am suggesting is that women can not be pastors.

 

A mature godly woman would not think of such a thing but the churches are full of immaturity today. Just look around and decide for yourself about how many have even made on disciple in their lifetime.

I wish what you said about pastors were true, but it is not. Many are misled by the denominations they are in. There are many counselors who counsel from a biblical standpoint and many who do not just as there are pastors who are the same way. If pastors were so biblical we would not see so many who have discipled few if any new believers. If pastors were so biblical we would not see so much easy believeism in the churches in America today.

It is not about punishment. Why not do what the early church did instead of flying by the seat of our pants. Who are you to suggest an improvement on what the early church practices were? It is obvious from your post that you really do not know how little preparation most pastors have in the area of counseling. In most cases it is zero unless they purposely decide to go into that area.

When did I ever endorse women pastors in any of my posts?

 

An open door policy is always best. In my case, my secretary was always present or at least nearby when counselling either women or children, including teens. I am not huggy-buggy and always keep space between myself and the person bing counselled...a desk between us or even sit in different pews in te sanctuary. One can never be too careful in this department.

Cheers,

Jim

 

When one has nothng to say, it is best saying nothing and that is hypothetically hypothetical but even hypothetical expression can be fully true without convicting an individual. Is the jury still out?

Carry on Spinach, we mostly understand.

Cheers, and bless,

Jim

 

You did not say purely hypothetical, but you did say mostly hypothetical. Theres a difference. It isn't my fault you can tell the difference.
Nothing out of context, you said "mostly hypothetical". Maybe you should go back and reread it and you'll see thats what you said.
I said nothing about anyone being dishonest. That, your making up.
I ahve no track to cover, so why would I care to try.

 

and so you would punish all women by denying them being counceled by their pasotr, not some woman who may be secualrly qualified, but may not be biblically qualified.

I guess there are no biblical pastors?
I guess we could go with an unbiblical woman pastor then couldn't we.

And the scripture would be? What?
Otherwise we're only doing what church fahters did, making it all completely right, which is basically what the RCC claims to have authority. I don't know about you, but biblical authority comes only from scripture. Not what other men do.

who are you to suggest what men do has some sort of authority over chrisitans, I still see no scripture.


Tom Butler said

To which you replied

I replied

Now of course the US millitary has authority over what chrisitans believe and do?

you again replied

me again

you replied

Are you not endorsing women pastors to counsel other women?
Because it sure sounds like.

If I wanted a secular counselor I'd get one, but I would prefer someone biblical in their counseling, someone who knows scripture and can tell me what God says.