Do you believe women can be preachers/pastors?

It’s already been asked to not continue this discussion publicly, and I have no desire to personally do it privately at this time.

Does it mean something that on a discussion about women as preachers, there’s only been one reply so far from a woman (not counting this post)?

I recently found a 1955 book by Edith Deen called All the Women of the Bible. It lists all the named and unnamed women in the Bible – over 300 women in total, all of whom contributed in some way to our ongoing understanding of how to be in relationship with God (in both good and bad ways). Isn’t that the role of a preacher? To help us better relate to God and God’s good Creation? Are God’s female children less capable or less qualified than men to help mentor others on the most difficult questions (e.g. love, forgiveness, healing, and redemption)? 'Cause if your answer is unequivocally “yes, men are always better suited,” then I have a whole bunch of history books with descriptions of the terrible deeds of ordained men that might balance out the theological scales a bit.

If in doubt we can always return to Genesis 1:27, where God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Sounds pretty equally qualified to me. Men and women can equally create great suffering but also can equally create great healing. If the ability to help others generate healing of all kinds (spiritual healing, emotional healing, physical healing, economic healing, environmental healing) isn’t considered a prime qualification for a preacher or pastor, then maybe it’s our definition of “preacher” that’s at fault.

6 Likes

I think the only thing it means is that hardly any women have commented on it. It’s open and anyone can respond to it. It’s not like there are woman haters in this group, even if some don’t see biblical evidence for a female pastor. Though normally I see preacher associated with evangelist.

But I did suggest earlier on that maybe dissecting the differences between pastor/elder/overseas/ and evangelist/preacher and teacher and apostle and so on would help. The terms biblically are not used interchangeable. A deacon for example is not the same as a elder and a elder is not the same as a teacher even if some parts overlap as done with being a disciple not holding any biblical position.

It’s also not about who can do a great job. It’s beyond just a academic understanding of scripture and bearing fruits of the spirit. Such as why does Paul say having 2+ kids is a requirement for eldership but is not a requirement for teachers, evangelist, or apostles.

As to whether there are any woman haters in this group, I can’t say for sure one way or the other. I hope not, but who knows what some of us may be thinking that we wouldn’t dare say (or write) aloud? All I can tell you is that from my perspective as a woman who was on track to be ordained (until I realized on my own that I’m not obedient enough to church tradition to accept human doctrines that cast God in a very poor light), it’s so sad to see a thread entitled “do you believe women can be preachers/pastors?”. Men and women can hide all they like behind what scripture may or may not say about the issue, but at the end of the day, God expects us to listen to what our conscience says on matters such as slavery; Greco-Roman cultural norms about women and children; caste systems; punishment; bloodlines; and, who has the authority to speak for the soul’s needs in a complex world.

Women throughout history have pushed hard for advancements in all the socioeconomic and cultural norms that most of us value – and take for granted – today. Christian women have played proud and prominent roles in many of these advancements, though for many long centuries they were required to work behind the scenes after leadership rights they had in the early centuries of the church were taken away from them in the Middle Ages. Women have played every role imaginable in the history of the church, whether teacher, mystic, healer, disciple, parent, organizer, provider, martyr, caregiver, preacher, even soldier. Women CAN do all these things and more. So really, what’s being talked about in this thread is not what women CAN do but what women should be ALLOWED to do by the church, based not on what God is saying about women’s abilities but on what certain small passages of scripture say.

Tradition says that women can’t be pastors, but genetics say otherwise. I prefer to side with the realities revealed by our genetics, which come to us from God.

2 Likes

Well here we have two world views that can’t meet. There is no middle ground between them. For me, doctrine is not based on science. It’s based on theology and theology is developed by scripture. I can’t dismiss scripture because someone feels differently. It’s ultimately Gods word that develops my doctrine. But I understand your view. I just don’t believe it’s compatible with scripture.

All scripture, even the random verses that others don’t like, are the thoughts of God. I would be hard pressed to say Gods word is not really his word and that we know better. That’s something I can’t personally attach myself to.

1 Like

I wonder. It might just be a reflection of what appears to be the case: that there are more male posters here and they account for the great majority of all posts. Even so we might wonder why those women who do post here mostly haven’t done so in this thread. Some might not care to take part in a discussion regarding the relative adequacy of their entire gender to competently perform positions of responsibility in the church regardless of what gender biases may be present in scripture.

3 Likes

As a divorced, and soon to be remarried man , I have always been aware since the divorce that it also made me unable to meet the requirements to be a pastor. But should I even want to, the door is still left open for me to be a evangelist or teacher. But eldership is forever beyond my reach because I fail to meet the qualifications given by Paul. But it’s God I seek to please and I do my best not to seek my own self fulfillment and desires or that of the philosophy of the world on how God should govern his church. At least the beast as possible in light of needing to apply biblical hermeneutics.

Sooooooo . . . the good news is that God would be pleased if I were sold into slavery because . . . it’s in the Bible?

1 Like

Where does the Bible say that it’s mandatory for us to have slaves? Where does the Bible
Command Christians to have slaves? No such command exists. For a fact the Bible says to treat your slaves like your brothers and sisters in Christ, and paul says not to harm them because they are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Since scripture no where commands us to have slaves, and it leaves it up for Christians to choose to be indentured servants to others or have them as our own, it’s a choice.

The typical European African slave trade in the new americas is not what the Bible talks about when it’s talking about indentured servitude translated as slaves.

So you really have no leg to stand on.

However, when it comes to eldership, there is commands on how to do it. Apples and oranges.

I’m at work so I can only give a Barney style response at the moment. When I’m off I can give a more detailed answer with the necessary scriptures showcasing the misunderstanding of indentured servitude vs slavery as it comes to mind and how beyond all of that the scriptures themselves thst govern all of it.

Fully agree. I see this distinction, and I’ll raise you one more:

There’s a real distinction between an elder/overseer and a pastor/shepherd. The Greek word for elders simply means old men. When this becomes a title rather than a description, I think we both agree there are a number of qualifications set out so that men don’t just immediately enter this group at a certain age. They must have raised kids well, maintained a good reputation, steered clear of contention, etc. Paul does the same thing with widows (1 Timothy 5), taking a culturally commonplace term and adding a bunch of qualifications that go well beyond the death of one’s husband.

But not all pastors are elders. Paul and Timothy weren’t. (Paul once calls himself an old man, the same word as elder, but he isn’t claiming to meet these qualifications since he’s clear that he doesn’t have a wife.) And beyond these two, others like Epaphrus, Philip, Lydia, James, Euodia, Syntyche, Barnabas, Phoebe, Chloe, Nympha, Prisca and Aquila seem to be among those who shepherded groups of Christians.

The New Testament doesn’t use titles as much as we do. No man or woman is ever called a pastor. So mostly we’re left guessing by what people are described as doing. When we look at the work of a pastor, it’s done without censure by women and men alike.

1 Like

I think it’s fairly clear that you and I interpret the Bible in very different ways. I’m quite happy with the leg I’m standing on, so please don’t feel you need to provide me with scriptural proofs. Others might be interested, perhaps.

Don’t you find it strange, though, that Paul never comes out and explicitly prohibits slave-owning by his church members?

1 Like

Paul was not an elder. Paul was an apostle. He often worked with the council of elders but he was not one himself. I don’t recall of Timothy was an elder or a evangelist.

But in scripture the council of overseers is the same as the council of elders which are pastors. In a few hours I’ll read through everything new and begin more detailed responses.

I will always use scripture to argument doctrine because that’s what it’s based off of. But even if you’re not interested, as you stated others may be and it’s also how I typical discuss my points. I’m just at work and so it’s shorter and missing them atm.

Why would he?

It would only be strange if the Bible is expected to be the final definition of the differences between good and evil. And it is easily demonstrated that this is a completely absurd expectation in a changing world. Requiring human activities to be limited to only those possibilities considered by the Bible is frankly a greater evil than those which have been described in the Bible.

I agree with you. Completely. I’ve been arguing throughout this thread for an open-hearted, evolving response to the question of women in ministry.

With regard to the specific question of Paul and slavery, I’m not as accommodating as some people to Paul’s wishy-washy “be nice to your slaves” approach, as I believe Jesus took a much firmer anti-slavery stance than Paul. This might be one of the reasons Jesus found himself in hot water with all those in authority, as these were the people who had a vested interest in preserving the theological justifications for slavery.

Oh? Where would that be? I can tell you right now that Matthew 23:10 doesn’t do it, and that is the only passage that even occurs to me as coming close. Nothing in the context of that passage implies even the slightest reference to slavery let alone an opposition to slavery. Even if you agree with the translation to “master,” the word “master” was used in many contexts other than slavery.

Where? . . .

The entire Gospel of Mark is about a man who inverted all the social norms of his times and substituted two new laws about love in Mark 12. In what way can you take Mark as a whole (not chopped up into little bits, but taken as a whole message) and see Jesus as a man who would have endorsed slavery? He didn’t endorse the ill treatment of women or children or the disabled or the ill or tax collectors or sinners, so is it likely he would have enthusiastically endorsed slavery? Do we hear mention in Mark that Jesus had his own slave? Or even his own paid servant? Or a rich patron who might have lent him a slave?

Divine Love, such as Jesus taught, is antithetical to the concept of slavery. It could not be more obvious.

Slavery does not equal ill treatment nor is slavery antithetical to love. Nor did Jesus show any opposition to the social order, quite the contrary. What He did do was make it clear that greatness was not to be found in those who rule but in those who serve. Frankly, slavery was an alternative to slaughter and genocide for those defeated in military conflict. Nor is it clear that prison or mutilation let alone execution is such a superior way of enforcing the social order, especially when prisons were far from humane. The point is not to argue that we do not do things in a better way in modern times but that it is far from clear that such a black and white view of slavery is appropriate for the conditions 2000 years ago when practical options were far more limited.

I certainly agree that Christianity had a major role in abolishing slavery and I don’t think the revival of slavery in the Americas was a good thing – not the least because it was very different – economic and exploitive rather than military – as well as racial and permanent rather than socially dynamic.

Again I think the main point here is that the Bible cannot be taken as a final definition of the differences between good and evil in a changing world.