Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??
- Thread starter Major
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
Guilty as charged at this time, I was waiting for the washer to finish and TV is boring. 
-
1
- Show all
S
I washed and dried my wallet yesterday.
I'm gonna need a new wallet.
-
2
- Show all
This is a ludicrous imaginary scenario. Let's get back to the Bible. Does God authorize women to go out as evangelists, pastor/elder/bishops, and teachers? If so show us the Scriptures. However, God shows us who He is by instructing his apostles and prophets to write down by divine inspiration exactly what needs to be revealed. And the roles of men and women in the home and in the church have been clearly revealed.
It is extremely significant that the entire Bible was written by MEN -- the OT prophets and the NT evangelists and apostles. It is also extremely significant that Christ chose twelve men as His apostles. It is even more significant that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all masculine.
The Feminists and evangelical Feminists can carp and complain all they want, but these are the facts. So if you choose to go against what God has revealed, you are essentially IN REBELLION. And Feminism is a rebel movement, rooted in godless Marxist/Communism. Definitely not in the Bible.
It is extremely significant that the entire Bible was written by MEN -- the OT prophets and the NT evangelists and apostles. It is also extremely significant that Christ chose twelve men as His apostles. It is even more significant that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all masculine.
The Feminists and evangelical Feminists can carp and complain all they want, but these are the facts. So if you choose to go against what God has revealed, you are essentially IN REBELLION. And Feminism is a rebel movement, rooted in godless Marxist/Communism. Definitely not in the Bible.
S
It has already been posted many times. Jesus gave the great commission to go and teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But then he said WAIT in the city of Jerusalem until you are empowered by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of being a witness (evangelist) to me to the utermost parts of the earth. The power fell and Peter specifically pointed out that it was God's will to include the women. Include them for what? To be witnesses with the power of the Holy Ghost to go into all the world and Teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Many women get it and are Going and have gone.
No one is talking about the feminists who reject the scriptures that wives should be submissive to their husbands. The feminists were not part of this conversation. They don't apply to the topic.
No one is saying that the women and men do not have specific roles in marriage. I Tim 2:11,12 is the same subject matter as 1 Pet 3.
The wife should not usurp authority over her husband and should yield to his leadership. This can be done while being used by God in ministry gifts and offices and there is no contradiction.
The kind of teaching Paul is talking about in 1 Tim 2:12 (a word found only once in the NT) was explained by Paul in the next words USURP AUTHORITY type of teaching. Everyone agrees that a wife should not do that.
What we don't agree with is adding a bunch of words that Paul never said such as "Teach the bible in church when men are in the audience" or "pastor a church" or other phrases and wordings that is not in the text.
Go ahead. Say the same things that have been said 1000 times before and act like you did not understand what I just posted. I'm getting quite used to it.
No one is talking about the feminists who reject the scriptures that wives should be submissive to their husbands. The feminists were not part of this conversation. They don't apply to the topic.
No one is saying that the women and men do not have specific roles in marriage. I Tim 2:11,12 is the same subject matter as 1 Pet 3.
The wife should not usurp authority over her husband and should yield to his leadership. This can be done while being used by God in ministry gifts and offices and there is no contradiction.
The kind of teaching Paul is talking about in 1 Tim 2:12 (a word found only once in the NT) was explained by Paul in the next words USURP AUTHORITY type of teaching. Everyone agrees that a wife should not do that.
What we don't agree with is adding a bunch of words that Paul never said such as "Teach the bible in church when men are in the audience" or "pastor a church" or other phrases and wordings that is not in the text.
Go ahead. Say the same things that have been said 1000 times before and act like you did not understand what I just posted. I'm getting quite used to it.
Jesus selected the Samaritan woman as the first evangelist; that is significant! A woman was the first messenger of Christ's resurrection; that is extremely significant! When writing to the Romans, Paul praised several women including a deacon, and possibly an apostle; that is highly significant! Paul clearly thought very highly of a female teacher, even naming her before her husband more than once; surely that is abundantly significant!
Not to you though; those facts don't align with your sexist interpretation of Scripture. Grind that heel a little harder, dude, lest some God-gifted female get uppity.
Here we go with the "Disagree with me, disagree with God" hogwash again. Do you guys take classes in arrogance?
This is the only part of your entire post with which I agree.
Not to you though; those facts don't align with your sexist interpretation of Scripture. Grind that heel a little harder, dude, lest some God-gifted female get uppity.
Here we go with the "Disagree with me, disagree with God" hogwash again. Do you guys take classes in arrogance?
This is the only part of your entire post with which I agree.
-
1
- Show all
I am curious if you are you going to use this same argument against single men leading a church?
I am most delighted that the men who wrote The Book of Judges & 1 Samuel didn't have the same religious fervour to silence women as you do. We would have lost the words of two important prophecies about the coming of Jesus. I know the world has some serious problems but women who read, study, speak & teach in the church are not all militant third wave feminists. Perhaps a little discernment is required on your part?
I am most delighted that the men who wrote The Book of Judges & 1 Samuel didn't have the same religious fervour to silence women as you do. We would have lost the words of two important prophecies about the coming of Jesus. I know the world has some serious problems but women who read, study, speak & teach in the church are not all militant third wave feminists. Perhaps a little discernment is required on your part?
-
1
- Show all
Are WOMEN Pastors Biblical??
All Pastor's should preach the Word of God.
2 Timothy
2:14 Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.
2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2:16 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
All Pastor's should preach the Word of God.
2 Timothy
2:14 Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.
2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2:16 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
Those who will not endure sound doctrine will gather to themselves teachers that will teach what they desire to hear. They will accept women as preachers, pastors and evangelists as long as they teach bible like messages that do not offend their sinful hearts. They will not object to sodomites who are an abomination to God as long as they do not teach offense to sin harbored in the hearts of the congregation.
They will ardently defend their beliefs as long as they can pretend to be Christians. Make no mistake about it Jesus is an offense to sin. Sinners are offended by the righteousness of Christ. They fear Gods eternal judgment on sin. God's word is declared that men might come to repentance unto salvation in Christ.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
They will ardently defend their beliefs as long as they can pretend to be Christians. Make no mistake about it Jesus is an offense to sin. Sinners are offended by the righteousness of Christ. They fear Gods eternal judgment on sin. God's word is declared that men might come to repentance unto salvation in Christ.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
S
No one who is born again and knows Jesus Christ and has the Holy Spirit will tolerate sodomites other than letting them know they can be set free and changed by the blood of Christ. So please do not compare women ministers with sodomites or we will not be able to have a civil conversation.
At risk of beating a dead horse (because that is what we are doing at this point) I wanted to bring up the children factor again.
If an elder is appointed over a church who is advanced in years and his children are grown and have families of their own are we do disqualify him? Must he have children at the age of still living at home for us to observe whether they are being governed well?
If you say that Paul was not requiring that they have children then you have allowed yourself to shift from discerning his intent as "if he has children" and if you are going to do that you must allow for "if he is married" as well. It is not intellectually honest to allow for a meaning of "if he has children" but not "if he is married"
Now if you insist that Paul mean he must have children in the home that he can rule or govern well, then what happens when they grow up and depart. Now that pastor has no children at home to govern? Would you make him resign because he does not have children to govern well therefore he cannot meet the criteria that you think Paul demanded?
Please answer this question about ruling children criteria as best as you can and maybe we can make some progress in authorial intent.
At risk of beating a dead horse (because that is what we are doing at this point) I wanted to bring up the children factor again.
If an elder is appointed over a church who is advanced in years and his children are grown and have families of their own are we do disqualify him? Must he have children at the age of still living at home for us to observe whether they are being governed well?
If you say that Paul was not requiring that they have children then you have allowed yourself to shift from discerning his intent as "if he has children" and if you are going to do that you must allow for "if he is married" as well. It is not intellectually honest to allow for a meaning of "if he has children" but not "if he is married"
Now if you insist that Paul mean he must have children in the home that he can rule or govern well, then what happens when they grow up and depart. Now that pastor has no children at home to govern? Would you make him resign because he does not have children to govern well therefore he cannot meet the criteria that you think Paul demanded?
Please answer this question about ruling children criteria as best as you can and maybe we can make some progress in authorial intent.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
S
I did not know this about Wesley. Good for him.
John Wesley's views on women
John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, was the first within his movement to authorize a woman to preach. In 1761, he granted a license to preach to Sarah Crosby.[9]
Mary Bosanquet was responsible for Wesley formally allowing all women to preach. In the summer of 1771, Bosanquet wrote to John Wesley to defend hers and Crosby's work preaching at her orphanage, Cross Hall.[10][11] Bosanquet's letter to Wesley is considered to be the first full and true defense of women's preaching in Methodism.[10] Her argument was that women should be able to preach when they experienced an "extraordinary call", or when given permission by God.[10][12] Wesley accepted this idea, and formally began to allow women to preach in Methodism.[13][14] Later, Wesley also licensed other women as preachers, including Grace Murray, Sarah Taft, Hannah Ball and Elizabeth Ritchie.
Wesley's appreciation for the importance of women in the church has been credited to his mother, Susanna Wesley. It is said[by whom?] that she instilled in him, and in his brother Charles Wesley, a fellow preacher in the movement, a deep appreciation for the intellectual and spiritual qualities of women. Susanna Wesley and other women in the early Methodist movement helped to evangelize and were active members in Methodist activities ranging from band classes to raising funds for the continuation of Methodism and managing educational institutions.
John Wesley's views on women can be found in his 1786 sermon "On Visiting the Sick". In the sermon, he attacks the requirement of submissiveness that was often imposed on women of the time:
John Wesley's views on women
John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, was the first within his movement to authorize a woman to preach. In 1761, he granted a license to preach to Sarah Crosby.[9]
Mary Bosanquet was responsible for Wesley formally allowing all women to preach. In the summer of 1771, Bosanquet wrote to John Wesley to defend hers and Crosby's work preaching at her orphanage, Cross Hall.[10][11] Bosanquet's letter to Wesley is considered to be the first full and true defense of women's preaching in Methodism.[10] Her argument was that women should be able to preach when they experienced an "extraordinary call", or when given permission by God.[10][12] Wesley accepted this idea, and formally began to allow women to preach in Methodism.[13][14] Later, Wesley also licensed other women as preachers, including Grace Murray, Sarah Taft, Hannah Ball and Elizabeth Ritchie.
Wesley's appreciation for the importance of women in the church has been credited to his mother, Susanna Wesley. It is said[by whom?] that she instilled in him, and in his brother Charles Wesley, a fellow preacher in the movement, a deep appreciation for the intellectual and spiritual qualities of women. Susanna Wesley and other women in the early Methodist movement helped to evangelize and were active members in Methodist activities ranging from band classes to raising funds for the continuation of Methodism and managing educational institutions.
John Wesley's views on women can be found in his 1786 sermon "On Visiting the Sick". In the sermon, he attacks the requirement of submissiveness that was often imposed on women of the time:
It has long passed for a maxim with many that "women are only to be seen but not heard." And accordingly many of them are brought up in such a manner as if they were only designed for agreeable playthings! No, it is the deepest unkindness; it is horrid cruelty; it is mere Turkish barbarity. And I know not how any women of sense and spirit can submit to it.[15]
Previous to this sermon, John Wesley had also removed the word "obey" from the marriage rite he sent to North America in 1784.[16]
If you are married and I know you are not at this time why would you not want children? I think having children teaches sacrifice of self for others. Having children will teach many things that you cannot learn in a classroom. You will learn patience having children. So no you do not need to have children but they are probably an evidence of the health of the marriage and the maturity of the parents.
I do not think it wise to not consider how the denominations that embrace women pastors also embrace sodomites in the clergy.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
I do not think it wise to not consider how the denominations that embrace women pastors also embrace sodomites in the clergy.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
-
1
-
1
- Show all
S
The United Methodist Church has also been discussing the issue for many years; its official position until May 2018 denied ordination to "Self-Avowed Practicing Homosexuals". On 7 May 2018 the Bishops in the United Methodist Church, a denomination long divided on questions of LGBT equality, have proposed allowing individual pastors and regional church bodies to decide whether to ordain LGBT clergy and perform same-sex weddings.[31] In theory, a homosexual who is celibate is a fit candidate for ordination within the United Methodist Church, but in practice this rarely happens. However, in 2008, the United Methodist Church Judicial Council ruled that openly transgender pastor Drew Phoenix could keep his position.[32] At the UMC General Conference the same year, several petitions that would have forbidden transgender clergy and added anti-transgender language to the Book of Discipline were rejected.[33] Additionally, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, in full communion with the UMC, currently prohibits its ministers from officiating at same-sex weddings, but it does not have an official policy on gay pastors and, so, some openly gay AME clergy have been ordained.[34]
Yet, in 2016, the New York Annual Conference ordained the United Methodist Church's first openly gay and lesbian clergy.[35] In July 2016, the Western Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church consecrated the denomination's first openly gay and married bishop, Karen Oliveto.[36]
In the United States, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) allows the ordination of openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual clergy.[24] In 2012, Katie Ricks became the first open lesbian to be ordained in the church.[25]
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the second-largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States, adheres to what they perceive as the biblical stance on homosexuality, affirming that "the act of homosexuality is a sin according to God's Word." Therefore, a practicing homosexual continuing in this sin would not be a fit candidate for ordination or membership in the Presbyterian Church in America.[26]
In the United States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) and the Episcopal Church or ECUSA[3] allow the ordination of openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender clergy. In 2012 the Episcopal Church of the United States approved a change to their nondiscrimination canons to include gender identity and expression.[4] The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided in August 2009 to accept gay, lesbian, and bisexual clergy in sexually active monogamous relationships.[5] In 2014 Megan Rohrer became the first openly transgender leader of an ELCA congregation (specifically, Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church of San Francisco.)[6]
In July 2011 the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada decided to accept gay, lesbian, and bisexual clergy in sexually active monogamous relationships. In 2013, openly gay minister Guy Erwin was ordained as a bishop in California. In 2016, the Anglican Church of Canada elected its first openly gay bishop.[7]
Yet, in 2016, the New York Annual Conference ordained the United Methodist Church's first openly gay and lesbian clergy.[35] In July 2016, the Western Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church consecrated the denomination's first openly gay and married bishop, Karen Oliveto.[36]
In the United States, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) allows the ordination of openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual clergy.[24] In 2012, Katie Ricks became the first open lesbian to be ordained in the church.[25]
The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the second-largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States, adheres to what they perceive as the biblical stance on homosexuality, affirming that "the act of homosexuality is a sin according to God's Word." Therefore, a practicing homosexual continuing in this sin would not be a fit candidate for ordination or membership in the Presbyterian Church in America.[26]
In the United States, the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) and the Episcopal Church or ECUSA[3] allow the ordination of openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender clergy. In 2012 the Episcopal Church of the United States approved a change to their nondiscrimination canons to include gender identity and expression.[4] The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided in August 2009 to accept gay, lesbian, and bisexual clergy in sexually active monogamous relationships.[5] In 2014 Megan Rohrer became the first openly transgender leader of an ELCA congregation (specifically, Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church of San Francisco.)[6]
In July 2011 the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada decided to accept gay, lesbian, and bisexual clergy in sexually active monogamous relationships. In 2013, openly gay minister Guy Erwin was ordained as a bishop in California. In 2016, the Anglican Church of Canada elected its first openly gay bishop.[7]