Female Pastors

What are your thoughts on female pastors from a biblical standpoint.

 

If we look at biblical/church history we have seen women utilized in roles where the authority is equivalent to a senior pastor.

Isn't the distinction between male/female mostly a cultural distinction in the New Testament? I like the sentiment expressed in Galations 3:28 - but I will defer to the biblical language experts.

Steven King

 

........

But defer to which expert Steven? Within a year ago I wrote a mostly exegetical paper on this of 60+ pages for a class. I found there are many Greek and theological experts on both sides. Sure I think I can argue my position well, but so can others.
Actually it can easily be shown, which I'd be happy to do, that in general in the patristic and reformational eras women were seldom pastors. But the issue for me is what Scripture says as I am willing to adjust practice to Scripture. Thankfully not too many passages need be exegeted. The most distasteful part of this issue to me is when it is connected to trinal relationships as does Grudem with no contextual support. While I concluded that Scripturally women are not to be teaching elders over men, I have little doubt that I started out trying to prove that . Still in other positions I've been willing to change when I saw the need;I see no need to change my view on this issue though.

 

I can't vote on this poll because my beliefs are not optional.

I do have a carefully exegeted view of 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor. 14 that allows women to teach men, and thus hold ministry roles that are "full time" (our cultural distinction), but I don't see eldership being an option for women.

I recall that I got my view of 1 Cor. 14 from Walt Kaiser, and 1 Tim 2 from a prof. I had in Bible College.

Once I encountered Wayne Grudem, who I do greatly respect. I asked him a series of questions about my exegesis of 1 Tim 2. I came away very disappointed with his responses. I didn't sense that he truly interacted with my opinions at all. Maybe he had a bad day.

Chris

 

Re: Re: Female Pastors

Actually, Bill - I had you in mind when I wrote that. Give me the Reader's Digest version of your position.



Steven King

 

Re: Re: Re: Female Pastors

...............


Steven: see you on off topic

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Female Pastors

Ok!

Steven King

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Female Pastors

 

Well done, Bill!

 

Bill,
Thanks for the insight...I have to work the next few days at a few different hospitals. Let me stew on it for awhile.

Steven King

 

Re: Re: Re: Female Pastors

...........

*ALERT: This is THEOLOGY*




my opinion, cont.
Part Two:

The Pastoral Letters and Women as Teachers/Elders over Men


Above I tried to say that while I Cor 11, 14 seem not to prevent females speaking in the church and while women may have been church messengers or even deaconesses this is not the equivalent of being the Teacher/Elder as that one has the authority in the New Testament church of passing on the apostolic dogma. Deacons and prophets and evangelists do not. But those several points do not exclude the possibility that the Pastorals may open the way for women to be teaching elders. It only means that when we come to the Pastorals we can come somewhat openmindedly . We need not say,eg, "Well, if Priscilla taught Apollos then women can be teaching elders too." Assuming that these letters are God's will for the Church, the Pastorals really should be given much weight in deciding the issue.

So here are two questions directly concerned with Paul's teaching in the Pastorals:

1. Are there gender requisites in 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9? It seems so!

a) Why would it be specified that the elder is to be a *husband*? Why would Paul not just say, the elder should not be a polygamist?

b) The history of the word "overseer" -- as in the synagogues with which Paul had much experience --included the idea of a bearded man . Of course, were Paul wishing to break with this tradition here is an opportune time to clearly do so, but does he?

c) The adjectives relating to the qualifications are in the masculine form. In Greek adjectives follow the form of the noun or pronoun they qualify.

d) The elder is to rule his own house well. This requires comment.

Here the argument can be effectively maintained that the NT says the husband is to govern his family. (eg , I Pet 3:1, 5, 6: 1 Cor 11:3; Col 3:18 and this marital relationship is illustrative of the government of the church (eph 5:23). I'm ready to respond as best I can to the lexical arguments on 'kephale' (head) and 'hupotasso (subject to) and others too, but I believe little semantical evidence will be found to be convincing to support egalitarianism. Heirarchicalism is also attacked by saying that these restrictions were culturally based and that the apostles were merely attempting to fit in with the culture. It can be argued, after all, that they did so on the issue of
slavery. However, a close inspection of these passages re rule in the family will see that they are theologically not societally based. Yes, there were secular "Household Codes" prevalent in Paul/Peter's day, but these evince little parallels to the apostolic familial teaching! Lengthy exegesis can be offered as needed to counter responses, but I'll wait to see if such is required. I have fairly thoroughly reviewed egalitarian arguments proffered by such as Belizekian, Cervin,the Kroegers, Payne,May and Pokrifka, and many others.

But, if the applicant must have demonstrated good familial rule to be considered for that office, yet the husband was to do do this, the conclusion seems to support the view of the gender requisite for a teaching eldership!

2. Does 1 Tim 2:, 11,12 restrict the teaching of women? It seems to me that it does.

a) the woman is to be in silence . [esuchia]. As the opposite is teaching, mere peacefulness seems not Paul's point.

b) the connection seems to be evident here between teaching and ruling. As said above, the didache is authoritative. The teacher of the church, {{and by this I presume, the meeting of the whole church, is the context(cf 1 Cor 14:19; 11:18), and the one given the office of teaching is the referent, }} is responsible to pass on the tradition. If the apostles are correctly being interpreted, then that teaching by the elder becomes authoritative. (if is not correct , then the teaching is not authoritative; it is to degree of consistency with NT that the teacher is rendered authoritative). But it is already much evinced that ruling carries a gender requisite.

c) The same word "hupotage' occurs in 2:1 as is found in 1 Pet 3:1,5,6. That word means subjection to. How could an authoritative teacher of the church be in silent and in subjection ?

d) As though hupotage was not sufficiently clear, the apostle also uses 'authenteo' in 2:12. The woman should not have authority over the man.

Now if Paul in 2:11, 12 really means that a woman should be teaching men, then he has done a very poor job here of making that point clear! Again I'd be happy to provide lexical evidence on my opinion on hupotasso and authentein as needed.

Of course, it has often been countered that this injunction concerns only a particular problem going on then in Ephesus.

e) But were this true, then why does Paul enforce his mandate with the creation and fall accounts? And why does the apostle, as he frequently does in the epistolary, not mention that historical problem ? Why does Paul as he was wont to do, not name the miscreants?

f) In comparing Scripture with Scripture, one is reminded too that Paul specifies that "faithful men" were to be chosen as teachers in 2 Tim 2:2. Also, women are to teach other women, Titus 2:4. This seems confusingunless Paul in 2:11, 12 really is saying that women should not teach men.

Likely no more than 35 years after the penning of the Pastorals Clement of Rome in his first letter to the Corinthians describes the succession of replacement for church leaders. This says "other approved *men* will become the new ministers. (19:17,18).


Therefore my own opinion is that the NT mandates that the teaching elder is to be a male. As said, this does not require that women may not hold other church positions in my mind. Many other doctrinal issues are more importance to me. The dean of the seminary (ACCS) is a grad of Oral Roberts and ACCS offers programs specifically for women in ministry. Do I agree completely with this? No, but I am evangelical and so are they so we can still rub theological elbows. I mean, if I can get along with Unk and Russell, I certainly can with ACCS.

Could I be wrong in my opinion? Unlikely
, but maybe!

Blessings on all egalitarianists,

 

Bearded man?

 

==========

Now , you do have a beard don't you UnK? Facial hair AND masculinity...them's the rules!

 

Bill,

While this thread is still alive, I would suggest you look at I.H. Marshall's treatment of 1 Tim 2 before you decide that women can't teach men.

Another suggestion on 1 Cor. 14 would be to check out Walt Kaisers' (I'm pretty sure this is Kaiser) view that it is a quotation of the Corinthian church. Does the torah "say" that women can't speak in church? Sure, he appeals to the Adam and Eve story as an indirect example in 1 Tim 2 to make a point about submission, but does the torah "state" explicitly that women cant' speak in church?

Just some questions to get you thinking. I would also like to add that one should construct a biblical theology of apostolic teaching in tandem with these passages instead of constructing that first in isolation and then using that to inform one's exegesis of women's roles.

Overall, great job Bill. Keep up your striving. Remember that Paul tells Timothy to "bust a gut" to show himself approoved. You may be older than me, but you sure know how to crank it out, even after passing Timothy's age!!!!

Chris

 

Google Search

Here is a little ditty I found on the 'net.

Seems plausible---and steers toward 1 Tim and 1 Corinthian references being "situationally specific". My commentary, New International Biblical Commentary, on 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus steers this way, as well. Author is Gordon D. Fee.


I post it for any interested
http://www.ag.org/enrichmentjournal/200102/082_paul.cfm

Steven King

 

More stuff to chew on

Here is another balanced presentation by Dr. Gordon Hugenberger

Here is a lengthy discussion for women leadership for those who are interested: (Note---the link jumps forward in the discussion to the relevant texts outlined in this thread.)

http://www.parkstreet.org/pulpit/womenlead3.shtml#texts

Steven King

 

Re: More stuff to chew on

...................

Thanks, as I initially said, there are many with expert opinions on both sides. This is an area where I say "I think " not "I believe." And everyone must do the best they can to reach a decision on the data. As I am now mostly interested in a narrow Christological area, as that wise Greek philosopher, Heracles, once said...

"I GOT BIGGER FISH TO FRY "

 

Without any exegesis...

If one just considers all these passages of the references to women in all aspects within the NT, I think the broader issue is very clear: one cannot help but see the non-inferior order of the roll of men and women in Scripture, something no different than in all areas of life AS LONG as it's not abused; the move of God through the Christ, intrusted to men, with the side-by-side--hence, they are not inferior--help of women.

This theme starts in Genesis, is seen throughout the Bible, is very much the way real life is (again, when men are not abusing it by being warlords over women) and is theologically rich and true God's way of having created all of us. Ask most any women about the way things move among men and women, and you will not hear women (okay, some will) talk about how they should be running churches, pastoring flocks, being on the boards of directorships, etc. No, they will clearly tell you (again, most women), and almost instinctively, that they are most comfortable working side by side their husbands or men in general; that they find their niche not in leading (nor necessarily following), but in assisting the male role, in all areas of life.

I am NOT advocating inferiority, less-than, less-capable--heaven knows that there are more women much more capable in areas of life that I ever will be--but I am advocating recognition of what which is most natural. This means not thje exclusion of positions of authority, but only the way in which women are to be in authority; the way men are to be in authority, the way Christ was in authority to the Father.

Further, it is quite obvious in the NT, particulary the non-gospel writings, that something is to be seen and adhered towith regard to what I've just said. Can women teach? Surely. Can women give prohecies, surely. Can women be in ministry? Surely. But (and here's the essence of what I stated above), the minute the norm we know of and experience daily as men and women among each other either reversed or abdicated in view of something else, there follows the need to go back to the teaching in the NT; NOT necessarily a "Bless God, Paul said it right here, 'women are to remain silent', but the "heart" of what Paul (to use him as an example) was really after.

Bill brought out the good points that there's equal debate across the board on the exegesis of the particular Scriptures he noted, but what I think is simple common sense is what I've just stated above. And this common sense serves us greatly to at least enrichen our walk with God in the manner God created to be enriched, if in the meant time we can't decide on the exegesis. Rarely is something of common sense so obvious and useful in helping when theological issues are at stake.

Keith

 

Re: More stuff to chew on

Ya, I hear ya. I wasn't trying to berate your opinion - just tossing out information. Theological issues prove how inherently subjective we all are. I will never forget the greatest lesson ever learned in my meager courses on hermeneutics - Always know that we bring inherent biases to any given text and will tend to side with those who support our initial position. If I am a calvinist, for instance, I will inherently see "calvinism" in every biblical text dealing with salvation. It really takes a lot of an "A-ha" experience to change someone's mind - even in the light of good evidence otherwise.

Arminianism, Calvinism, God-in-process, Premillenialsim, Amillenialism, Preterist, Futurist....

Geesh, really scholarly types have "proven" each of these. Maybe I am just scared of commitment to "any" theological bent.

My original response was just in the interest of getting the ball rolling but I do not have the time to pull every reference off my shelf, quote the early church fathers, etc. However, this is a pivotal issue in today's church, one with which anyone aspiring to ministry should be equipped to respond.

Bill, I am reading your email to me concerning Pentecostalism with greater interest because it bears on life issues for me currently. I am not sure where I fit theologically - because every time I delve into a specific issue I am bombarded by such variance of opinion.

I was originally raised Pentecostal (Church of God - Cleveland, TN) and grew up accepting certain things in church because I had been exposed to them all my life. Later, at Bible college, I was exposed to the tools to look into matters more closely and found a lot of things wanting. This weekend my twin brother called me to inform me of his "baptism by the Holy Spirit". As I listened to the passion with which he talked it occurred to me that spontaneity and depth of worship is something I miss since I run in Baptist circles now. At one time I really believed that I had also received the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" with the initial evidence being speaking in other tongues. Now, 15+ years later, I have seen such divergent opinion that I am in a conundrum. So, the answer must be to piece it together and accept the outcome by faith.

Herein lies the rub!

Steven King