Women Pastors?

Whoa, this is strange. "'God-breathed' is not 'God-spoke'"? What do you think the word "Scripture" means in that verse (2 Tim. 3:16)? It is the Greek word graphe, meaning "writings." And guess what, you can't do "Scripture" without words!! "All Scripture (written words) is given by inspiration of God" (theopneustos, "God-breathed"). :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:

If we go down this path we will derail the thread, but I just had to respond to your strange statement. :tongue3:

 

Since you ask so nicely, Jim....:thumbsup:

You might have a point if (1) we didn't already have the first deacons, all male, being appointed in Acts 6, and (2) if there were any other mentions of a woman being a deacon (the original is the same word used for men). All of the other mentions of deacons/servants in the NT are of men.

Still, personally I have no problem with an official office of deaconess in the church as long as they are the same as the Biblical male deacon--a true servant of the church, with no inherent authority in how the church is run.

 

Friend your opinion is just like my opinion it isn't worth fifteen cents.

 

* I do not agree with these ministries perfectly just pointing to the fact womens voices are being heard more and more and the landscape is changing and I believe their are some good hearted women serving with all their heart to shepherd a flock under the submission of the local church whom with prayer and help of the Holy Spirit can either ordain a woman or not ordain a woman...I respect that and will not insult their sincere prayers of help from the Advocate who sits at the right hand of the Father.[/QUOTE]

The Spirit of God will never be in conflict with the Word of God which is sitting at the right hand of the Father.

 

A minor opinion or a humble one???

deacon jd

just curious are you a minor deacon??? perhaps humble..oh no just read your post and its 15 cents worth:tongue3:


It is written: "The humble will be exalted"

 

You must be a liberal that thinks your opinion is worth more that the Word of God too.

 

Not so, Paul mentions Phoebe as a servent (literally, "deacon") of the church in Rome. (Romans 16:1)

So you want them to be biblical?

I think a lot of the problem that people have with female deacons is that many of our churches have made deacons the rulers of the church instead of the servants of the church. In our church, women serve as deacons, usually with their husbands, to minister to the congregation and the community.

 

Aslans.....

Im sorry but you act as if women of today are still being pushed down. Let me disagree with you there....especially here in America virtually the ONLY voice being heard is women's.

Now, Im not against listening to us gals, BUT there's "women's voices" being heard all over the place. Id be more afraid of what our society of today is doing to MEN'S voices.

Regardless, the BIble is what says that the ladies are needed to fulfill a specific role. IF we are trying to do the man's job, than who is doing our job? Just because the ladies' job isn't authority over men doesn't mean that it is less valuable.

 

If you are going to compare "mentions," and use that as a standard, it is going to be hard, in your verbal-plenary view of inspiration, to be consistent on a whole lot of other doctrinal matters and avoid showing contradictions in scripture. Moving from one extreme to another to set your view apart from others won't cut it. If we take your view, and we consider Phoebe, and we look at the term "guniakas" in both I Timothy and Romans 16, and realize that Paul uses it in similar contexts, then the passage that is sometimes translated "their wives" in Timothy, must correctly be translated "women-servants." That leaves it open to interpretation as "women who serve the church as elders or deacons, likewise..." instead of "their wives." Phoebe is clearly not a wife, no mention made of that. Nor does Paul ever call Priscilla the preacher-teacher a "wife" in the same way.

Paul applies his own authority, and doesn't involve "thus saith the Lord" on this issue. Are you therefore saying that Paul, while he was serving as an Apostle, was perfect?

 

I really do hope that made sense to you when you wrote it . . . 'cause it does not make sense to me as I read it.

Are you saying that you do believe the words of Paul should be included in the Canon of God's Word, or are you saying that they should be excluded?

Are you arguing that similar contexts support women pastors, leaders, and teachers? Or are you arguing that similar contexts do not support women pastors, leaders, and teachers?

How similar is similar?

 

Oops, forgot that one. As the Japanese saying goes, "Even a monkey can fall from a tree once in awhile!"

Biblical!! A novel idea, I know. Anyway, we agree here. :thumbsup:

 

I'm saying that Paul, in placing the personal pronoun "I" in what he wrote to the Corinthian church was not supporting women in authority in the church over men, but that his use of the term "I", rather than saying that God spoke or Jesus spoke, indicates that the restrictions may have been local and specific as to time and place, and that by using the term "I" he is indicating that this particular prohibition is not universal or eternal. I didn't say it was, I said it is open for debate.

The verbal plenary discussion is for another thread. I have the feeling that's been discussed here before I came to the board.

We are dealing with a practice of the church here, rather than a doctrine of the church. To be consistent, if the church insists on literal obedience to this particular practice, shouldn't it insist on literal obedience to all other practices of the church that are discernable from the New Testament?

 

You know what I think is dangerous? Setting oneself up as an expert in Greek exegesis and a linguist when one is not. Is that what you are doing?

Whoa - settle down John. I never said you were dangerous.

And there is a difference in our assertions. You have argued that the textual reading explicitly shows a. and b. My assertion is that while your overall opinion regarding women being preachers is correct you have overestimate what the text specifies. The point is that while ektithemi and didasko are different words there is some overalp of their semantic domains. Thus to differentiate the two requires context and not just a lexicon. I was not intending to imply that you approached the text with bad faith - rather that you were operating within a late 19th century mindset in terms of language analysis - one that has since been significantly "tweaked" by several generations of linguists.

As for linguistics - I can speak Arabic and English. No I am not a formal linguist. But I am one who wants to know all I can know regarding the text of the Bible. I am a pretty good translator of biblical and ancient Latin, Hebrew, and Greek - but I do not claim to be a professional - only an interested amateur. But that has not stopped me from reading Porter, Carson, Wallace, Roberston, Fanning, Caragounis, Horrocks, McKay, Decker, Black, Buth, and others whose works are available for purchase.

The point is that you made a statement that the text - not the passage or its context - proves your point. My contention is that this statement is wrong.

And I think it is important since (albeit well-meaning) over specified exegesis leads to things like the Watchtower translation of Jn 1:1.

 

Jack,
first of all, Paul makes the same sort of statements to two different churches at two different times........so this is obviously not restricted to a specific time and place. In Corinthians he was writing to an entire congregation, and in Timothy it was to a pastor over a different church in Ephesus.

Also, the reasonings for the restriction against women pastors was a doctrinal reason. The woman was the one deceived in the Garden, and in a sense, it was a "doctrinal" deception.

Further, this restriction was given as a command.....it was not mentioned as just "what they did there".....such as having communal property (only mentioned at the church in Jerusalem.)


Let's take your idea further. If the words to the church at Corinth and the pastor at Ephesus were only for that locality and/or that time, then what other similar things could we say the same of? Paul speaks extensively on marriage in Corinthians.....well we know that particular church was having issues on adultery and such, so were Paul's words on marriage only "local"? We take those as applying to us today. Why do we pick this one particular issue and try to say it was "local or cultural"?

Because of OUR culture....that's why.

 

The writer of i Timothy makes a strong case for men, the husbands of one wife, being a pastor or a deacon,,yet in Romans we have this same Paul identifying a deaconess named Phebe...Now she is not the husband of one wife......problem between the two passages..........

1. Paul forgot about 1 Timothy.
2. Paul misspoke
3. The unmentional...
4. Paul speaks to local problems in some local churches.
5. The Bible is not without contradictions.
6. Perhaps culture plays a more important part in understanding scripture than we care to give it.

I live in the 21st century.. I drive a motorcar, and don't ride an ass.....I wear modern clothing, and not gowns and sandals.....etc

Cheers,

Jim:BangHead:

 

but Jim,

as I and several others have already stated several times........deacons/deaconesses are NOT authorities in their churches! "deacon" is NOT synonymous with "pastor".....so your point about Phoebe means virtually nothing. She was a faithful lady servant to her church, in whatever capacity she served. There is, however, NO indication that Phoebe was in charge of anything whatsoever. There are many many instances where a trusted lady of the church is the more appropriate choice for some service, rather than a man of the church. That doesn't mean that the lady has spiritual authority over the men.

I count myself as serving WITH all the people in my church, men and women alike. But I have no authority over the men. I might even DO more than some of the men, but that doesn't make me their spiritual authority.

 

Jim, I think 4 and 6 carry some water even if that's not popular to say in these parts,

 

ok, let me say this, too.........

if a travelling evangelist comes to my church and sees a good faithful lady who works hard here. She's a bus captain, she is in charge of the nursery, always at church when the doors are open, etc, etc. The evangelist writes a letter back to us and says "Hey, you've got a great lady serving there! Please tell her Hi for me." Does this suddenly impart to her the PASTORATE?

Nope:BangHead:

 

These two passages are not all that similar in nature. There are some differences, especially if you look at the way they are structured and worded.

In I Timothy, speaking not to a church, but to one of its leaders, Paul says "I do not permit a woman to...." In I Corinthians 11, Paul says that he does not permit a woman to pray or prophecy without a covering on her head, and adds that this is the practice of all the churches. But in 1 Corinthians 14, he says that they are to keep silent, not to speak, and if they have a question, ask their husband at home, also noting that this is a practice of all the churches. Neither case is doctrine. Either that is inconsistent, and he forgot what he said to them before, or there is a cultural factor here related to the practice that must be taken into consideration in their interpretation because it is not possible for a woman to speak or prophecy with a covering on her head, but to keep silent at the same time.

Now, about those inconsistencies. If churches today are to literally follow the practices of this nature, then let's be completely consistent.

1. Do you allow women who have cut their hair to participate in worship in your church?

2. Do you allow women to pray publicly, and if you do, is their head covered?

3. Do you have the Lord's Supper every time you meet?

4. In your worship service, does every baptized believer in attendance make a contribution to the service in the form of a hymn (not just singing it corporately, but bringing it to the church and leading), a word of instruction, a revelation, or a word through tongues and interpretation?

5. Do all the men in your church lift up their hands when they pray, without disputing or anger?

6. Are there women in your church with braided hair, gold jewelry, pearls or expensive clothes?

7. Do you follow the practices outlined for widows in I Timothy 5 literally. How many widows in your church are responsible for foot washing?

8. Have you put the wine on the table for dinner, replacing the water, as instructed in I Timothy 5:23?

 

I feel like the preacher who had to preach the same sermon on 2 successive Sundays before someone admitted they had heard it.
-----------------------------------------

yet in Romans we have this same Paul identifying a deaconess named Phebe...Now she is not the husband of one wife......problem between the two passages..........
-----------------------------------------------

Please just address the question regarding the deaconess...Is this a contradiction in Paul's address, or does it suggest that the verses in 1 Timothy are addressing a specific cultural situation?

All serious theologians and language experts...Greek and Hebrew....agree that Phebe is a deaconess...........The role of a deacon changed down through the years, and no theologian had difficulty with these changes.........the lead, govern church affairs, help to establish doctrinal statements at that local church, and etc.........Now, mention female preachers and it becomes a problem.

No wonder the outside world looks at the church, shakes his head, and says,,,,,,,,,,,,,What?

Cheers,

Jim

Circumlocution was created by baptists.......