I surprised you posted that...seeing how Aquila is mentioned first in many other examples. This is called reading to much into something. How can Spurgeon make a claim like that when the evidence is to the contrary? My pastor introduced me and my wife yesterday as Jan And Chris. I preach, my wife doesn't. Does this mean that if someone was to read the minutes of our church meeting that they would assume she was the preacher?
“And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them.” Acts 18:2
“And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Acts 18:26
“The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” 1 Corinthians 16:19
women preachers/pastors....biblical or not?
Page 4 of 6
Just wanted to give everyone an update. You may have changed my mind about women pastors.
People who hold to scripture on this issue don't hate women. I certainly don't! I married one. We do; however, wish to be true to God's deign and desire in these matters.
Gender roles and marriage are physical realities that reflect spiritual truths. The Apostle Paul made reference to such and idea, so this is important stuff.
Anyway, thanks for sharing.
Good! I love my wife and treat her very well in our God created roles. She goes out every week and saves souls. She is a very biblical women and she has no problem with any of these scriptures. She teaches other ladies and talks to other lost souls. She is a servant of our church for sure.
I suppose anyone can call themselves a preacher (ie T.D Fakes, Olsteen, Benny Chicken, Joyce Myers, etc....) but does that make them one?
What does God say about it?
I will say though, that before you flippantly quote bible verses like its your tv guide magazine, and make light of them, please understand that God said in psalms 138:2 that He "magnified his WORD above his NAME"
that's what he thinks of his word. we know there is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved. that's a powerful name. but God says he magnifies his word above his name
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
imagine a church that picks through the bible saying "that wasn't written to us"
your bible would be pretty small after you got out all those pescky verses you don't li
God cleared that up for us when he said ALL SCRIPTURE was for doctrine
May the seeds planted mightlity grow then, under seasons refreshing, the latter rains. And may the people of God stand for the truth, though the heavens fall.
Jesus was clear, John 14:15; Exodus 20:6 KJB. There is only one lawigver [James 4:12 KJB], and one Law [Exodus 20:1-17 KJB] to all man-kind [Deuteronomy 4:6-8,13 KJB], being spiritual [Romans 7:14 KJB], love to God and man [Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:17-18; Daniel 6:22; Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:28-31; 1 John 4, etc.], which encompasses all Ten Words.
Yet not to derail the OP, it is my last comment on it here.
Here is what puzzles me about women looking to men for their spiritual leadership. What would prevent a woman from being misled by man into believing or doing unscriptural things -- unless she has her own internal understanding of scripture to compare to what a man is teaching? If a woman places a man as an authority above Christ, isn't this a form of idolatry?
But if a woman has her own internal understanding of scripture to use to "test all things" and to "test the spirits" and to avoid being misled into sin or apostasy -- then doesn't this mean that a woman has to be capable of reason and conscience?
If a woman is allowed to say no to a man's spiritual leadership if he misleads her into sin or apostasy -- then don't we have to give some respect to her freedom of conscience? If we are respecting her freedom of conscience, we then need to respect a sphere for her freedom and self-expression. It does not make sense for any individual to have free moral agency without a sphere of freedom to learn to make moral choices in this life.
Further, why should women be entrusted with teaching the young and having incredible power of the formation of their minds, language, socialization, sense of trust and security and development of morality? How can they be trusted with this but yet they also need to be treated like children themselves? Isn't this like the blind leading the blind?
Hello ILAA, welcome to the Forum, I hope your time here will be blessed.
Unfortunately, few people study. Most hear the Word of God only on Sundays, some Sunday and Wednesday, and some even go so far as to have "devotionals," where they read the Bible during the week. But that isn't necessarily study.
And I hate to say it, but study is not always encouraged for new believers, because some "leaders" want people to simply take what they say without question.
Christ is still over the Man, regardless. And what should be happening is that the man is in submission to Christ, and if he is, then things will usually run in a proper pattern.
A woman being more knowledgeable than her husband in regards to the Word of God doesn't nullify the principles laid out in Scripture. She is still called to be in submission to her husband. And again, I reiterate that Scripture is looking at both being in submission, and when we have a marriage where the man is not in submission, then we have extenuating circumstances.
Here is a passage dealing with that:
1 Corinthians 7:10-14
King James Version (KJV)
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Nothing in there that would teach a woman can depart from a Biblical standard. There is hope for the unbelieving spouse by the submission of the spouse to the Lord and His will for marriage. When the man, for example, is not in submission to Christ, the woman is still called to be in submission to the husband, and to Christ.
That doesn't mean she should remain in close proximity if she is being beaten or abused, I don't think anyone would rationally suggest that. But should she leave, she does not have liberty to remarry. If the man departs, then she has liberty to remarry.
She doesn't have a "sphere of freedom and self expression," lol. She's married.
And what constitutes what is moral is taught us in Scripture.
If the man is a heathen, then it is even more important for the mother to teach her children Biblical Morality. I don't think any mom has ever been upset that her children waited until marriage to have intimate relations, didn't have children out of wedlock, or knew right from wrong.
So can I guess you are a woman married to an atheist? Were you saved prior to being married? After? Are you okay in your marriage to an atheist? Is he trying to lead you into sin and apostasy? If so, you can refuse to do that which violates the principles of Scripture. Your submission to Christ takes precedence. Doesn't mean you can throw your "knowledge" in his face, but you can, with humility, decline that which violates your conscience. But I would suggest that you know, from Scripture (and be able to show him), that which you present as a violation.
Hi Darrell, thank you for engaging sincerely and respectfully with my questions. By "free moral agency" I meant Christ's concept of freedom within love and grace. I also meant the free will God gave humans to choose or reject Him. It is my idea of what gives meaning to this life. After all, God could have created Christian-bots but chose instead to create human beings who have free will.
I was speaking of the historical source of the idea of the individual and of individual rights and liberties. That is the idea that each individual needs a sphere of freedom so that they may learn to make moral choices in this life. Eventually this gave rise to Classical Liberalism, which replaced the older system. The Roman system that existed during the time of Christ and the apostles was based on practices of male ancestor worship. In this system, they did not have any concept of individual conscience. They only knew shame, not guilt. They had a concept of virtue but not of morality. Their concept of virtue consisted of a a social order characterized by fixed inequalities. If you had virtue you were in your place and performing your role. There was no idea at all of any moral egalitarianism in the sense that the Hebrews had, of a King who could sin equally with a little guy.
Christ did not come as a revolutionary or a social reformer, but the historical effect of his coming was a ripple effect starting from the simple beginnings of self-regulated individuals forming communities based upon voluntary association. Although the main purpose is eternal life, not justice in this life, lots of people behaving according to the golden rule could not help but increase social justice over time. Eventually centuries later our whole world changed from Roman times. Now we have lost the original sense people had about rights as being about learning to live morally and think of rights only as what we have coming to us, not as how we are responsible to regulate ourselves in our freedom. So individualism now has a bad name, yet it would never have existed without Christianity eventually leading to Classical Liberalism.
What I also have in mind is that we are not supposed to give away our conscience to an authority to make our moral choices for us. Long ago my mother stood by while my father spanked a baby as a method of teaching him to listen to commands, in accordance with their sect's teachings about child rearing. This was my oldest brother, who grew up to become a felon and went to jail from age 16 to age 30. Because of my family history, I am keenly aware that women allow children to be hurt when they don't speak up from conscience and instead give their free moral agency away to authority.
I'm not sure why being married would mean a woman can't have freedom or self-expression, so long as it remains within the parameters of loving God and following the golden rule. This sets parameters on freedom but does not dictate every option somebody must choose within those parameters. I don't mean radical self-expression such as wanting to get plastic surgery to look like an alien or cults of self-expression that make a religion out of art. I'm not quite sure how you are imagining self-expression as being necessarily not something morally available in any way, shape or form to a married woman. After all some Christian women are creative and artistic.
Nothing about this would be disrespectful to a husband or unfaithful to him, since behaving unfaithfully or disrespectfully would not be in accordance with the golden rule. It is a higher form of behavior to do something from the motive of your own conscience than from the motive of obedience. This is what God wants of us and is why God gave us free will so that we could freely love God and choose to obey Him. If you are only doing it because you are not free to do otherwise, there is no moral development in that.
Yes, I am a woman married to an atheist. I married him before making a conscious choice to re-embrace my childhood faith with a better understanding of it after praying and reading the Bible.
My husband and I have had conflict occasionally that boils down to the fact he wants me to be a tough negotiator and approach other people as if they are a business adversary. He does not want me to be charitable, and he does not trust me trusting other people. He has also wanted to discipline our child in a harsher way than I thought was right.
I want to talk a little bit more about the virtue of being in your role vs. the morality of acting with conscious choices and choices of conscience. It may be said I'm living my life in my traditional role because I am a stay-at-home mother. Think about it a little bit more deeply, though. Not just the outer part of what I do, but the inner part. The part where I have to care and I have to think.
For the fact is that in some traditional societies in South America by son would be killed for having ASD. But since I live in a society with a Christian heritage, the dignity of an individual life is thought to be too great to allow that to happen for the sake of yielding to more Darwinist pressures.
Okay, so much for tradition then? Not quite. I can't just be a mother the same way my aunts, my mother and my grandmother carried out their responsibilities. Their children did not need medical care for Lyme disease. They did not need vision therapy, speech therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, ABA therapy of Floortime therapy.
How can this just be a role for me, then, when there is no script for what I do? The only way I can do what I do is to think and choose and problem-solve.
What is motherhood, then? Is it a role, or is it a responsibility? There can be a difference.
What is always absolute is the value of the child and the value of taking care of the child. But everything else may be situationally variable. Values can be unchanging. Circumstances are not. Changing circumstances require thinking women who are loving and responsible. Love is active. Sometimes love is very active. Some mothers are required to love much more actively than others.
If I were to conform in the fifties, that would not help me in my responsibilities. In the fifties autism mothers were pscychoanalyzed as "refrigerator mothers".
Do I do what I do to submit to my husband? But during the time he was in denial about the autism, he was pressuring me to go back to work. So how can this motherhood of mine be an act of submission to his headship, then?
There is just no equivocating about it. There is just no squaring the circle. A mother's love is not in a role or a script.
For the record I don't think anybody should have women pastors forced on them if they believe this is a violation of scripture. It would not be fair to their freedom of conscience to disrespect their beliefs. People who wish to join a denomination that ordains women pastors or to attend a church with a woman pastor are free to do so. I don't think the position of pastor is something that is just another career. What's most important is the message, not that an equal number of women are preaching it or even whether any women are preaching it.
Page 4 of 6