Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:17 pm Thank you guys for discussing this

adding one more link to the debate https://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html
today we have conference to this topic in my republic church

Man, that's tough for me. As I mentioned I've had a lot of experience of female pastors (as well as 'men pastors') - I've been part of six churches and at only two of them can I not recall any women ever preaching. My memories of one of those are quite hazy and I can't remember who preached at all apart from one pastor, so I'm not at all sure on that one. So were the other four all wrong? I'm not asking you specifically - just wrestling with it now

RickD wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 am

Kurieuo wrote:
And, I also don't see that because she's led a service that such puts her in a position of authority over anyone (and same with men). Some perhaps might see it like that, but I see it more in terms she's respected.

Because by the very definition of a pastor, it is someone who leads, or is in a position of authority.

Unless you want to argue that a leader isn't in a position of authority?

pas·tor
/ˈpastər/

noun
1.
a minister in charge of a Christian church or congregation.
synonyms:

Then by definition, if being "in charge" means power over a Christian church or congregation rather than merely leading, then I'd reject any "pastor".

Again, it comes back to what "authority" entails? It won't do to leave it unanswered since an understanding of such is central to the discussion.

If by authority one is inferring "power", then I'd argue no pastor has a assumed right to have power over any other person. Churches that try to play power games, people who do so with churches, I've always given a wide berth.

Biblically, I'd say, there is only love and respect to be had, and it goes both ways regardless of position or status.

So then, if Phil is saying that a woman shouldn't have authority over men in a church, I'd agree -- because I do one better than that and say neither should a man have such authority if it is defined as "having power over".

K: So then, if Phil is saying that a woman shouldn't have authority over men in a church, I'd agree -- because I do one better than that and say neither should a man have such authority if it is defined as "having power over."

OK, I was going to drop my input - don't want to argue. But merely doubling down on asserted nuances won't change the fact that Scripture says only men are to be pastors or elders. Nor are women in the Church to have authority over men. It doesn't matter one bit what Philip or K thinks about this - one can argue against the texts' verbatim instructions or not - it's their own conscience they need to compare against Scripture's teachings on the matter. My guess is K came up in a different tradition and he's sticking to it. Whatever the case, I don't care about traditions of men.

K: Churches that try to play power games, people who do so with churches, I've always given a wide berth.

If you think that only churches playing "power games" are adhering to the instructions about pastors and elders, that shows me you discern this issue as more of one of emotional or societal politics and modern sensibilities, than of what Scripture actually says about it. And it would be helpful if you'd finally answer my direct questions about the issue.

Kurieuo wrote:
Then by definition, if being "in charge" means power over a Christian church or congregation rather than merely leading, then I'd reject any "pastor".

"Merely leading" is still having a position of power or authority over those he/she is leading.

Even the most basic of what we consider a leader, like a tour guide, is in a position of authority.

For me personally I have never worried so much about whether or not it is a man or woman preaching,what matters most is they are properly feeding their flock good spiritual food from the word of God.This is always what I focus on the most when it comes to preaching.Also I have come to realize that I'm not so sure scripture claims only a man can be a pastor as I used to back when I was only Baptist.You could interpret Corinthians like that however if the women in the church of Corinth were interrupting the church service by talking during the service interrupting the church service while there was preaching going on then you're not interpreting Corinthians correctly. Remember the church at Corinth was a chaotic church and Paul was addressing MANY problems with it and I think women could have been interrupting the church service during the preaching and Paul is just telling them to not speak in the church,to wait until they get home so that they do not create chaos and confusion in the church. In other words be quite until you get home if you have questions,don't interrupt the church service ,talking, asking questions during the church service.

People lead via it being demanded or commanded. Someone who is respected will be esteemed and so gain a certain level of authority ie being looked up to and opinion valued. The moment one starts declaring this person and that person is a "leader" and so YOU WILL RESPECT THEIR AUTHORITY, is the moment I'd walk and even encourage others to do so as such is dangerous.

Point to me in Scripture where it is demanded we submit to pastors or like and I'll happily eat my words. We're told to submit to governing authorities, be humble, respectful and peaceful as much as it depends upon us, to test teachings, examine the fruits of leaders and the like.

Churches that cross personal boundaries they shouldn't, by demanding obedience to their leaders, well a great many splinter groups and cults are had due to such.

Philip wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:51 am

K: So then, if Phil is saying that a woman shouldn't have authority over men in a church, I'd agree -- because I do one better than that and say neither should a man have such authority if it is defined as "having power over."

OK, I was going to drop my input - don't want to argue. But merely doubling down on asserted nuances won't change the fact that Scripture says only men are to be pastors or elders.

I didn't think I was doubling down, but rather conceding and going one further to say not only should a woman not have authority over men, but neither should men. I'd be interested in your understanding of "authority" and what such entails.

Re: what Scripture says, no offense, but such sounds like a tact out of a staunch YEC textbook with what they say of OECS viz. Scripture says days are literal days. And yet, there are camps on all sides who equally value Scripture that disagree with such a summation.

Nor are women in the Church to have authority over men. It doesn't matter one bit what Philip

I do agreed you know? Again, I didn' double down, but gave in. I simply pressed that neither should adult men in church have authority over other men, that is, authority in the manner that people are morally obligated to obey. I'd never place myself under the thumb of such, and psychologically see such as dangerous and harmful. Care to argue otherwise?

or K thinks about this - one can argue against the texts' verbatim instructions or not - it's their own conscience they need to compare against Scripture's teachings on the matter.

What is it you think I'm arguing for that is at odds with Scripture?

My guess is K came up in a different tradition and he's sticking to it. Whatever the case, I don't care about traditions of men.

We all do have influences. As a side, YECS too often throw out there a similar challenge, that those who disagree with them follow the traditions of men i.e., with what modern science -- which they challenge has since influenced the way in which many Christians understand creation in Scripture.

I'd agree though, with you, that every form of Christianity today has behind it certain traditions of thought whether or not a person is aware to such. I don't claim to be free of such with the formation of my views. I may have a "different" tradition to you (although I'm doubtful I do, as except for our age, we're otherwise quite similar I'd think), but I find it strange that you appear to think -- where you say you don't care about traditions of men -- if you think you're free of any such influences. I mean no disrespect, but perhaps that's a sign you're just unaware to your own traditional biases.

Phil wrote:

K: Churches that try to play power games, people who do so with churches, I've always given a wide berth.

If you think that only churches playing "power games" are adhering to the instructions about pastors and elders, that shows me you discern this issue as more of one of emotional or societal politics and modern sensibilities, than of what Scripture actually says about it. And it would be helpful if you'd finally answer my direct questions about the issue.

I don't know what this really means. As for your questions, if you can make them more direct then that'd be appreciated. I've seen mainly statements. And, you do know it works both ways, right?

Interesting topic here that I have studied a few times since my daughter did a report on Women in the Church for a college paper.

To he honest I don't have a firm position, but (to steal a phrase from Heiser)I am dating one.

A key verse to this discussion is clearly 1 Timothy 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man

Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:12 appears to be pretty straightforward and unambiguous... not much flexibility for interpretation there.

But if that is the case then Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:12 appears to come into conflict with other Scriptures, including some of Paul's writings.

First and foremost is Paul's guiding principle in Galatians 3:26-29

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Ok, I acknowledge that there are ways to reason around that passage, but how about multiple examples in Scripture where women are specifically placed in positions of Spiritual authority?

Old Testament
- Deborah held the spiritual office of Prophetess and was the political leader of Israel. (Judges 4:4-6)
- Huldah held the spiritual office of Prophetess and as a prophet of God she exercised spiritual authority over both the King Josiah and the High Priest Hilkiah. (2 Kings 22:11-20)
New Testament
- Phoebe held the spiritual office of Deaconess at the Church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1)
- Junia held the spiritual office of Apostle (Romans 16:7)
- The four daughters of Phillip held the spiritual office of Prophetess (Acts 21:8-9)

So we have multiple examples in the Old and New Testaments of women who were placed in positions of Spiritual authority and in some cases explicitly exercise that Spiritual authority over men.

So in 1 Timothy 2:12, is Paul contradicting himself and other Scriptures?
Obviously I don't think that is an option.

I think its worth taking another look at what Paul is getting at in 1 Timothy 2.
Here is the context of 1 Timothy 2:12
1 Timothy 2:11-14

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

I think verse 11 provides some valuable context.
The women is question are women who are currently learning.
One thing that Paul is explicitly saying is that women should learn, which was not a common cultural practice at that time.

The phrase "I do not permit a woman to teach" is also interesting when you deep dive the grammar.
Paul statement can be accurately translated "I am not now at this time allowing"
The tense of Paul's statement is the present tense dealing with the present situation, not a general command for all time.
And what is the present situation?
Verse 11 tells us the context... while a woman is learning.

Ok so what is Paul getting at in verse 14?
Why did Eve sin?
Because of her gender?
No... Paul specifically points that Eve sinned because she was deceived.
Which brings us back to verse 11 again.
How do you help prevent women from being deceived like Eve was?
You teach them... You encourage them to learn.

So I believe a Scriptural argument could be made that in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 Paul is telling Timothy.
1. In order to prevent women from being deceived (like Eve was), they should be given the opportunity to learn.
2. And while women are learning they should not be placed in positions of Spiritual authority, but they should learn in quietness and submission.

Again... I am not trying to be dogmatic on this... but I think this could possibly be a more internally consistent understanding of what Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2, especially given other Scriptures and statements by Paul himself that indicate that women were given positions of spiritual authority in both the OT and NT.

That's where I currently am on this topic...
But I am open to other positions... as long as they do not involve Scripture contradicting Scripture... or Paul contradicting Paul.

Are we to believe the list of qualifications for pastors and elders, which notes only men and only uses masculine pronouns, isn't definitive? A mistake? An oversight? Paul rendered only his personal and biased preferences? And never subsequently changed or modified? Paul was giving key instructions as to how to set up key Church positions. Yet Christ chose no male disciples. There were no female Apostles chosen to convey Scripture or to lead the early Church! WHY - if women were clearly were to inhabit such positions. Why would women not have been chosen in these foundational examples God chose to use? Why is the man to be the leader in the family? Because these appear to be glaring and intentional exclusions of women, purposely made.

And the accusations in which people appeal to male chauvenism, or societal oppression, emotional arguments, etc. - these are an irrelevant way to discern the truth of this matter - and students of Scripture all know it. If God wanted the Church to be set up differently, well, all of the above doesn't appear to remotely encourage or model that. I would just like to see the above explained away as not being valid for today, and WHY, based upon SCRIPTURE. Where were Paul's instructions changed or modified? And when inspiring the relevant Scriptures, with such instructions being foundational to how Church leaders would be chosen for centuries afterward, why would God not realize, as written, that further illumination would be required, as otherwise, error and unintended exclusion would occur? And yet clear, subsequent understandings were never provided. WHY? To me, that makes no sense.

Titus 1:5-9

"5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the [d]overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict."

What do you think of these verses?

elder... husband of one wife... ?

Philip wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:49 pm Are we to believe the list of qualifications for pastors and elders, which notes only men and only uses masculine pronouns, isn't definitive? A mistake? An oversight? Paul rendered only his personal and biased preferences? And never subsequently changed or modified? Paul was giving key instructions as to how to set up key Church positions.

This is where the Scriptural office of deacon comes into play.
In 1 Timothy 3:8-13 Paul gives Timothy the requirements for the Spiritual office of deacon.
1 Timothy 3:12 uses masculine terminology to describe the office of deacon.

12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.

However, in Romans 16:1, Paul refers to Phoebe as having the spiritual office of deacon (diakonon).

So, does the masculine verbage of 1 Timothy 8:12 mean that a woman could not hold the office of deacon?
In Romans 16:1 Paul tells us that women did hold the office of deacon.

Do I think that Paul contradicts himself?
No, that is not an option for me.

The question becomes, since Paul uses masculine verbage to describe the spiritual office of deacon and yet also refers to female deacons, does that principle translate to other spiritual offices that also use masculine verbage such as pastor and elder?
I don't know

Yet Christ chose no male disciples.

I assume you meant "Christ chose no female disciples"
yes... and no...
None of "the Twelve Disciples" were females. That is true.
However, the gospels do mention a number of female disciples of Jesus, who followed him and financially supported him.

I do think it is interesting to note that the first people that the resurrected Jesus appeared to were not "the Twelve Disciples".
The resurrected Christ's very first appearances were to female disciples, and Jesus gave these women instructions that he told them to give to "the Twelve".

There were no female Apostles chosen to convey Scripture or to lead the early Church

I'm not sure that statement is 100% accurate.
In Romans 16:7, Junia (a woman) is referred to as "an apostle"

Why is the man to be the leader in the family?

Within the context of the family unit the role of spiritual leader is given to the husband.
(understanding that the model for spiritual leadership was the servant leadership that Jesus displayed)

But I don't think we can Scripturally extrapolate the husband's role of spiritual leadership within the context of the marriage relationship to other relationships that exist outside the context of marriage.

DBowling wrote:
In Romans 16:1 Paul tells us that women did hold the office of deacon.

It does? One possible meaning is deacon. It could also mean servant.

Why do you think it means deacon, and not servant?

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:18 am

DBowling wrote:
In Romans 16:1 Paul tells us that women did hold the office of deacon.

It does? One possible meaning is deacon. It could also mean servant.

Why do you think it means deacon, and not servant?

Well a deacon is a servant, so I don't think this is an either/or issue...

But to answer your question...
1. The same person (Paul) uses the same word in 1 Timothy 3:12 (to describe the spiritual office of deacon) that he uses to describe Phoebe in Romans 16:1.
2. Paul doesn't just refer to Phoebe as a diakonon. Paul refers to Phoebe as a "diakonon of the church in Cenchreae"
Paul associates Phoebe's spiritual office with a specific church.

What I see is people latching on to nebelous "maybes" and then ignoring the obvious omission of women in the stated criteria for elders and pastors. The ommissions cannot possibly be happenstance or unintentional! Paul was very specific and thorough in how he communicated. And if it's not clearly right - if it has good reason to be questionable, if we can't be certain, then why allow or pursue it? No obvious male disciple or apostle leaders chosen - when supposedly desiring females in such roles - really, that as well has to have been intentional. So, I think people arguing for women in these roles have highly suspect Biblical support behind them, and they are bringing their modern sensibilities into how they parse this. It's certainly not how I would have set things up, butvthat is irrelevant!

Philip wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:12 am What I see is people latching on to nebelous "maybes" and then ignoring the obvious omission of women in the stated criteria for elders and pastors.

I hope you acknowledge that I have not done that.

I have made no claim to a position regarding pastors and elders.
Because as you note, there are no specific examples of women holding the office of pastor or elder in the NT.
So I'm just not going to make any kind of dogmatic statement on those two offices.

However, Scripture (OT and NT) does provide examples of women in positions of spiritual authority.
And Scripture does provide examples of women holding the following spiritual positions.
- apostle
- deacon
- prophet

The question then becomes, can we use the basic principle Paul gives Galatians 3:26-29 and the specific examples of apostle, deacon, and prophet and extrapolate that to apply to the offices of pastor and elder as well?
As I said earlier... I don't know.

And that is why I can't make any dogmatic statements regarding what Scripture teaches about women and the specific offices of pastor and elder.