Do you believe women can be preachers/pastors?

Faith & Science Conversation
122

“Orthodoxy does not see the priesthood has a “right” or a “privilege.” It does not see the clergy as a caste apart from the laos tou Theou, the People of God. It does not understand ordination to the priesthood as a matter of justice, equality, political correctness, or human rights. No one, not even males, has the “right” to ordination; even our seminary catalogues state that the awarding of a divinity degree in no way guarantees ordination, as this is within the competency of the hierarchy alone. And no one, not even males, “chooses” ordination; we believe that it is God Who does the choosing, even if His will in this instance seems completely contrary with the understanding of this world or this culture or this era.”
…
"If we truly believe that all that happens within the Body of Christ is directed and inspired by the Holy Spirit, we might well question why calls for the ordination of women only surfaced some 1,950 years after Christ. In His own time we see the exemplary ministry of the myrrh-bearing women who served Our Lord while the male disciples hid in fear and denied knowledge of Him.

While it is only my opinion that the question should never be silenced, I would also propose that its discussion must be conducted within the parameters of the Church’s ongoing Tradition and not in post-modern secular or humanist categories which bear little relationship to the Gospel. While Orthodoxy has not accepted the ordination of women, it does laud a woman, the Theotokos, as the one who is “more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim” and holds her up as a model for all of God’s People, male and female alike. In this light, salvation, not ordination, is the goal of Christian life." Ordination of Women - Questions & Answers - Orthodox Church in America

123

The responsibility is entirely yours. Take it. Or leave it and ignore me. Don’t try justifying it.

124

How though? You are here telling im false. Prove it. Or else just state your belief that im fault. So either try to prove me or not. I wasnt the authoritative one here. You were and the burden of proof is yours. So either get some free time and do your reshearch or stop arguing with me as you always do. Funny thing how you always ask for sources when yourself at any post ive seen comented you provide zero? My last reposnse is this. Im sorry if offended you but this leads to nowhere

125

The burden of proof is entirely yours as you are making bizarre claims about slavery that you cannot substantiate.

126

Search it up. I cannot waste my time citing historival records here just because you are maybe uneducated on this subject. I just dont have the time. I know im right. If you cant disprove me dont challenge me then.

127

To be fair, we also haven’t had any verses saying men can be pastors. That’s because the Bible doesn’t talk much about pastors as a role. The sole verse where it does (Ephesians 4:11) doesn’t specify either sex.

Instead, we’ve had arguments that elders must be men and elders are pastors, or priests are always men and priests are pastors, or Jesus’ initial 12 apostles were all men and apostles are pastors. (Since the Twelve were all Jews, the last is an equally good argument for an all-Jewish pastorate – and there seems to be something biblically resonant about twelve sons of Israel that could explain Jesus’ choice – but I digress.)

My case for women and men serving the church alike through leading, teaching and pastoring begins with Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12–14, as I described up-thread.

No, I didn’t. I wrote that pastoral associates are not ordained and not priests. Some are men and some are women. Some preach and pastor and others don’t (largely dependent on how close and capable the nearest priest is). If your point is that Catholic priests are all male, I agree but am confused why you’d expect that to surprise us. This thread is about preachers/pastors, not priests, and that’s why the role of pastoral associates is relevant.

There are many Catholics who are upset about pastoral associates precisely because it blurs the distinction between clergy and laity and allows women to preach and pastor. But as someone from an Anabaptist tradition that doesn’t ordain anyone and stresses the priesthood of all believers, I find that blurring a step in the right direction.

I “liked” Merv’s response and didn’t feel the need to write my own essay on that one. :slight_smile: But yes, in the same sense that Vatican II introduced novelties, so has Protestantism. One could even say that Protestantism is responsible for Vatican II!

128

Well - they can’t honestly answer it “no” if it’s in fact not true. Technically, I guess the OP question is even: “Do you believe women can…*”, but I think we can all assume we’re actually speaking here of whether or not a faithful reading of scripture allows for accepting women as pastors.

Well - yeah; not only is my attention on some of the late Protestant reformers but also on the 1st century reformers that went by names like Jesus, Peter, and Paul. After that, whatever later church traditions may say about such things - those will be weighed accordingly.

Thanks for the reminder. I should indeed always be operating with grace and light!

Maybe a little. Not all fragmentation and splitting ends up being a bad thing, though I do agree with you that it often is, and there is no doubt too much of it. What can start out as ugly schisms, though, can also end up being different denominations with differently needed strengths that can interact with each other like different members of the same body of Christ. Granted, it isn’t good that so many might fail to recognize other legitimate members of the body as such; but that doesn’t mean each isn’t doing something in their own way.

I don’t know that I would make too much of Jennifer’s use of the word “evolution” - especially given how loaded down with bad things that term might already be for you; and given that this casual use of the word has nothing at all to do with biological evolution. But perhaps that isn’t even what is bothering you … let’s charitably grant that, terminology aside, you are bothered by the notion of “novelties” being added on to, or even replacing traditional theologies. I gather this is probably what is a trigger for you, and maybe rightly so. We all have our triggers. The 1st century folks had lots of triggers and Christ and the early apostles managed to trip most of them. They probably would have accused them of all sorts of “theological novelties” (or the good Aramaic equivalent, of course!) I am definitely not of the school that says just because something is new, therefore it must be better. But nor do I wish to err the other way and declare “this has been tradition for many centuries, and therefore it must not be questioned.”

Let me add here as a question to you, Gregory. Since one of the verses Mi Krumm sites actually directly commands that women “be silent” in church; do you then only attend churches where women are completely silent? If not, then how do you defend your “dismissal of scriptures” on that point?

1 Like
129

Yes, I agree with you on the latter. I was really asking you to clarify your remarks about Schindler in your earlier post, but I see that you’ve edited your comment to take out the part about Schindler having been put on trial.

No doubt there were some people who would have wanted to punish Schindler for his early misguided Nazism, but I wouldn’t be one of them. On the contrary, true narratives about people who find redemption are great sources of strength to me and many others.

130

Know all you like. Stop wasting time in this futile activity. Prove it.

131

No . I would be glad to if it was someone friendly here. Since your attitude makes me not to actually engage in a debate with you ill leave it. Search it up yourself and then if you want ill go into a debate. Not wasting my time with that. Paul spoke of bondservants anyway not slaves. And do you want proof of that? Im Greek and i inderstand the language the official scripture is writte to

1 Like
132

I have no need to research for you.

133

Good then…

1 Like
134

Marshall,

“This thread is about preachers/pastors, not priests” - Marshall

Really? Yet you identified “priests” above. That’s strangely self-contradictory, so I don’t know how to respond to it.

There’s admittedly at least some truth in that claim, though, since “priest” is not in the OP title. Shall we ask @Vivi_O2 what she had in mind, rather than letting you speak for her what she meant? If what you say is true, then we should ask here why she left out “priests”. Perhaps it’s sectarian language?

If you want to fault the OP’s title for using only “preachers/pastors” instead of “ordained priests”, Marshall, that’s fine by me and would likely be a more appropriate and helpful approach than what you are now doing in faulting me for simply sharing here the historical teachings of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, which are widely available in multiple languages. I have no authority whatsoever, and nothing to prove to anyone here, so it won’t upset me at all if you simply disagree with those teachings in your own life, worldview and personal opinion. The historical Christian Church’s teachings aren’t going to change merely because English-native Protestants wish them too, or because you think a “western secular feminist” interpretation of Scripture is better than an “orthodox” interpretation.

If it might help with your language awareness, Marshall, the term “priest” is used over 1,000 times in the English translation of the Bible I read most. In contrast, “pastor” is used there only once. Likewise, “preacher” is there only once. Yet this thread’s title uses “preachers/pastors” exclusively? Why? Is it a KJV-only thingy?

“Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me as priests. Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue throughout their generations.” - Exodus 40:15

It strikes me that you seem to now be asking for people to pay disproportional attention to terms that are not used often in the Bible. It’s a “novelty-driven” Protestant interpretation, apparently, that elevates “western secular feminism” above historical Christian teachings. The issue seems to be “ordination” and “holy priesthood”. When it comes to the historical Christian Church, Protestant novelties should not be able to retrodict “orthodox” teachings with impunity. Sadly, that seems to be what has happened among some “autonomous” Protestants. They think they’ve “evolved” past or “beyond” the Orthodox and Catholics, yet while having to distort the teachings of the Christian Church to do so.

135

Yes, except for it is written in Scripture and is unambiguous in the history of the Christian Church, which seems to come as a gap for you between Jesus, Paul and … (1500 years later) the 15th century. Are you a “modern guy” who down-talks the supposed “dark ages” too? The best response here is clearly to answer both “No” and not to get upset about it, either women or men. Amen!

“Thanks for the reminder. I should indeed always be operating with grace and light!”

You are welcome. I will do my best to remember this too. Thanks.

“differently needed strengths that can interact with each other like different members of the same body of Christ.”

Yes, this reminds of the text “The Anti-Christ” by Vladimir Solovyev. All 3 branches of Christianity are represented there as “the same body of Christ”. A Short Tale of the Antichrist by Vladimir Soloviev

“do you then only attend churches where women are completely silent?”

It seems I’m laughing with you. :laughing:

“maybe rightly so.”

Yeah, good on you to say so against what appear to be heretical Protestant “novelties” that divert from the teachings and tradition of the historical Christian Church.

136

I have though.

A pastor is the man who shepherds his flock. He oversees the congregation. That’s why a pastor is s overseer.

https://biblehub.com/greek/1985.htm

What role do you believe the overseer is supposed to preform and how is it different from a pastor?

https://www.theopedia.com/pastor

It’s pretty clear cut that a pastor is indeed the overseer of a congregation which is an elder. The position of an elder, is not the same thing as being elderly.

137

So… you ARE defending the evils of slavery. shock!

138

I gots just three things to say. Nadia Boltz-Weber.

139

So far I’ve been primarily focused on showing that a Elder, Bishop, Pastor, and Overseer is the same office within the body of Christ and that it lines out it’s qualifications very clearly including what kind of wife and kids he must have. It’s quite detailed.

The other issue that keeps popping up has to do wth a completely different set of verses and subject.

It’s first 14:33- something. When we look at the entire chapter it’s focus is on order in the church. It’s about people not talking over one another and what takes priority in a service. If someone is telling a story about their life and another has a prophetic word for the church which one needs to be silent and which ones needs to be given permission to speak.

So while reading these verses specifically,

1 Corinthians 14:33-36
New American Standard Bible
33 for God is not a God of (A)confusion, but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or was it from you that the word of God first went out? Or has it come to you only?

So while reading this in light of knowing it’s about order in the church and the service not being disrupted by talking over one another we know that is what it’s focused on.

The second thing to focus on is the word women. Here it’s “guné” and means women or wife. So by looking at the context what’s the best fit.

A good clue is the verse where it says ,” if they have questions let them ask their husbands at home and be silent in church.”

The fact that it mentions husband, is clear that it’s talking about wives.

So what being said is that, “ don’t keep letting those wives disrupt the service, but to remain silent, and ask their husbands questions at their home”

It’s clear that the issue , and why Paul
Was writing to them, was because their was complaints about the services. It’s was disruptive with people speaking over one another. People speaking in tongues without a translator just mumbling things no one understood with a sermon that could have lasted who knows how long. It also says just let there be one or two. That means there was potentially 7 people talking for 10 minutes each and only 1 of them may have even had a translator and so the other hour was just useless mumbling while there was others there with words of prophecy to share and then among all this chaos you had some group of wives that kept asking question not allowing the sermons to carry on.

So paul is telling several people to politely shut up, and let the service be one of rational conversations and not a big ball of confusion.

It’s not by any means saying women have to be completely quiet. It’s not forbidding women from prophecy or tongues. It’s telling a group of wives to be respectful and ask their questions at home not disrupting the service and that the other groups also told to be silent and orderly need to do just that.

These verses are also not at all related to who can and who can’t be a pastor.

1 Like
140

No … very much not, actually! I’m with you on that. But that doesn’t mean I automatically accept everything from that time as gospel truth either. Do you?

I’m not upset, and in fact will happily leave you with the last word if you like.

Oh - I wasn’t laughing. I was asking in all seriousness how you dismiss how you (or @SkovandOfMitaze) go about dismissing what you no doubt must insist is being “clearly taught” by Paul himself about women being completely silent in the church? You aren’t one of these people going in for “theological novelties” to explain that away now, are you? :wink: But that is tongue-in-cheek of course, and I won’t insist you answer. I’ve probably already spent more time running around this bush than is justifiable. Beyond another post or two (only if necessary) - I’ll plan to exit here.

And I do thank you for the civil and spirited discussion!

141

I was actually answering that question about does it actually demand complete silence and showing how it does not. It would not make sense to interpret the actual Greek that way, and it would not fit systemically with theology since scripture shows women speaking by singing praises, by prophecy, and so on. That’s why I enjoy systematic theology. It makes you deconstruct false views and keep on studying until it’s harmonized.

Later on, perhaps tomorrow or the day after, I’ll work on showing what’s actually be said in the verse that is also often misunderstood and misused by English speakers concerning where it talks about for Eve sinned first in 1 Timothy 2.

1 Like