Women Pastors

[Heart2Heart]

There are couple of people who I know are pastors. They went to seminary. One of them left her family (husband and two children) to do God's work and moved to another state. I've heard two sides about whether or not women can be pastors. One of the views was culture during the biblical times. Do you think women should be pastors? If she is not married, do you think it is all right for her to be a pastor?

[Trinity]

There are couple of people who I know are pastors. They went to seminary. One of them left her family (husband and two children) to do God's work and moved to another state. I've heard two sides about whether or not women can be pastors. One of the views was culture during the biblical times. Do you think women should be pastors? If she is not married, do you think it is all right for her to be a pastor?

I can only talk for my church. Generally, we the Catholics, we see no problem to receive education through women who are theologians. Occasionally, even from some educated women who are laical.

St. Thérèse de Lisieux, St. Teresa of Ávila, and St. Catherine of Siena, those women were famous doctors of the church.

Doctor, teacher, from Latin "docere", to teach.

The priesthood is an other question. :)

Trinity

[Heart2Heart]

I can only talk for my church. Generally, we the Catholics, we see no problem to receive education through women who are theologians. Occasionally, even from some educated women who are laical.

St. Thérèse de Lisieux, St. Teresa of Ávila, and St. Catherine of Siena, those women were famous doctors of the church.

Doctor, teacher, from Latin "docere", to teach.

The priesthood is an other question. :)

Trinity

Hi Trinity,

Why do you think women shouldn't be part of the priesthood?

[Trinity]

Hi Trinity,

Why do you think women shouldn't be part of the priesthood?

Catholics are very strong on the tradition. :)

There were historical reasons.

Trinity

[sayso]

There are couple of people who I know are pastors. They went to seminary. One of them left her family (husband and two children) to do God's work and moved to another state. I've heard two sides about whether or not women can be pastors. One of the views was culture during the biblical times. Do you think women should be pastors? If she is not married, do you think it is all right for her to be a pastor?


It's an interesting topic H2H.

First consider the difference in a pastor and a missionary. There really isn't much difference except that generally the role of a pastor is to feed and pasture the "sheep" and missionaries generally are like evangelists who are sent to take the Gospel to those who haven't heard. Much of the time missionaries not only share the Gospel but also provide education, food and medical help to those less fortunate.

I don't see much of a difference in what they do so I find it interesting that women can be missionaries but not pastors. :)

One of the biggest differences that I see between a pastor and a missionary is that the pastor interviews for a church and is voted in or out and is paid x amount of money for wages. A missionary must come up with the money themselves or travel and get sponsors to pay his/her way to the mission field. Many churches and/or individuals sponsor them monthly, but if they have a tough month, then that missionary may or may not get their support that month.

Either way I believe that God uses each of us man or woman to accomplish His purpose and it doesn't really matter what label (pastor, teacher, missionary etc.) that person wears while serving Him.

[Heart2Heart]

It's an interesting topic H2H.

First consider the difference in a pastor and a missionary. There really isn't much difference except that generally the role of a pastor is to feed and pasture the "sheep" and missionaries generally are like evangelists who are sent to take the Gospel to those who haven't heard. Much of the time missionaries not only share the Gospel but also provide education, food and medical help to those less fortunate.

I don't see much of a difference in what they do so I find it interesting that women can be missionaries but not pastors. :)

One of the biggest differences that I see between a pastor and a missionary is that the pastor interviews for a church and is voted in or out and is paid x amount of money for wages. A missionary must come up with the money themselves or travel and get sponsors to pay his/her way to the mission field. Many churches and/or individuals sponsor them monthly, but if they have a tough month, then that missionary may or may not get their support that month.

Either way I believe that God uses each of us man or woman to accomplish His purpose and it doesn't really matter what label (pastor, teacher, missionary etc.) that person wears while serving Him.

Do you think my friend should have stayed with her family (husband and two kids), even though she had her training? I think single women should have an option to be a missionary, but I am not sure about as a pastor though.

[sayso]

Do you think my friend should have stayed with her family (husband and two kids), even though she had her training? I think single women should have an option to be a missionary, but I am not sure about as a pastor though.

I wouldn't have if I were her. It also depends on how long this separation would be I suppose. When did she get her training before or after marriage and two kids?

There are many "families" who are in the mission fields. I wonder why aren't her husband and children with her? Is he saved?

I myself do not feel comfortable having a woman for my pastor. I also don't believe women belong in the armed forces but that is my own personal beliefs.

I believe that God made men and women different for many reasons. Men and women react differently in the same situations. For that reason I don't think that women should get to do everything that men do. Why would a woman want to urinate while standing? :D

[Heart2Heart]

I wouldn't have if I were her. It also depends on how long this separation would be I suppose. When did she get her training before or after marriage and two kids?

There are many "families" who are in the mission fields. I wonder why aren't her husband and children with her? Is he saved?

I myself do not feel comfortable having a woman for my pastor. I also don't believe women belong in the armed forces but that is my own personal beliefs.



She received her training before marriage. Her husband is atheist, and she hoped he would change after they got married. Unfortunately, he hasn't changed. Their children are effected by the polarized belief between their parents.

[CleoSquare]

Hi heart to heart. I think that God would always, in a marriage want the husband or wife to put the other before ministry. I think where one is an atheist, it becomes even more important for the believing partner to put their unbelieving partner first, even more so where there are children too. This applies to men and women.

[johnd]

Since our move, my wife and I have been looking for a Church home. There is little variety here, so we've been going to the traditional big three to see how it feels. Generally we move on when the typical happenstances recur prompting memories why we left that particular denomination years before.

For the past several Sundays, we have been attending a Methodist Church... In the back of my mind I recalled that UMC has women preachers. The female ***istant pastor has been away at retreat and whatnot until today.

I thought I had made my peace with women preachers... using the reasoning that women preachers are better than no preachers... since the vacancies are not being filled with enough male pastors. But this town has no lack of male preachers. And there is a male senior pastor... who apparently is in the ministry full time.

The lady preached an interesting sermon about suffering. She presided over the communion (which we did not partake... because P***over Seder is the true Lord's supper). And she did the benediction with up lifted hand.

In the past, I have argued against women preachers and shown how 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is as universal as marriage is (Matthew 19). And how the prophetic ministry of Deborah and her leadership in the war was to the shame of the men who would not step up in cowardice. Also how the scriptures are silent as to what exact role Priscilla played in Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos the fuller truth about Christ... that her ministry could have been Stephen ministry (Acts 6:1-5).

Then I started having difficulty separating the fact that there are many women in places like this forum... and on the radio and television. Would it be a sin if a man (the forbidding does not seem to cover male children in 1 Timothy 2) actually learned something from a woman?

1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

For years I had seperated the goings on inside the Church those out in the world... we are in the world but not of the world that sort of thing...

And the last time I approached the subject online I came to the aforementioned conclusion (paragraph 3). But that was while not attending Churches that are lead by women. Today, the reasons why it is unbiblical came rushing back.

Even in the benediction, her uplifted hand did not have the loving sense of leadership instilling confidence in the followers. It was more like defiance. A hand drawn back as if to strike rather than the hand of comfort and blessing... and I feel sure she did not consciously intend any of it.

The senior pastor sat in silence during the service. Oblivious to the emasculation effect. God has his reasons for what he condones and what he forbids / warns against. I reread the p***age. It covers a lot of ground that has been long forsaken by society and now the Church.

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

Two things came from the overzealous feminist movement:

1. women show how bossy they can be
2. women can exploit their femininity for personal advantage

Part of the reason for a liberation movement was the exploitation of women by men. And for a woman to exert authority she must because beastly. She does not have that innate exertion of authority that males due. The closest example of that would be in her influence over children.

Mother could beat us within an inch of our lives using whatever object she could find to beat us with... and we wouldn't cry or we'd be defiant. But God helps us if Dad were angry with us! We feared for life itself. And he only used a belt...

There's something in nature that God provided for this. And when the male exerts authority (especially over children) ladies, you don't do the children any good whatsoever fussing at him for getting angry. If allowed to run its course, things work out, lessons are learned, children grow into responsible adults.

But these things, in recap, cause imbalance in society and now the Church. Exploitative males should have been censured by the church... but the church didn't want to be bothered... so ****sexual feminists stepped up and exploitative males have been replaced by irresponsible males who are emasculated Peter Pans that never grow up and who are always in trouble when they dare act like a male... that, after all, is a woman's *** to act like a male now.

[johnd]

My wife and I locked horn over the imbalance of pay that still exists in the *** market. Her argument (and I used to buy into this) is equal pay for equal work. That a man who supports a family does so by choice, and a woman should not have to "pay" for his choices.

It's a sound argument... until you realize that 90% of men spend 90% of their money on women or their wives and children. So it makes the argument not so sound or sounding more like a librarian should make as much as a doctor...

Most who learned lessons living through the Great Depression are gone now. They knew first hand that life could be cold and wet and hard even to just survive... and generations since then have taken the utopia at***ude that ***umes prosperity is the God-given right to all and it is the minimum standard...

I am very afraid we have a lot to learn. And egalitarianism will be a higher cost than even greed and fraud. There's only so much wealth to spread around, so feigned prosperity comes from cutting it out of something vital somewhere else.

[Norrin Radd]

I used to be a hierarchialist. But, the "problem p***ages" kept nagging me. I considered both the opposing viewpoints, and ultimately landed squarely and firmly in the so-called "Egalitarian" camp -- to the point that I am convicted I should not be a part of a church that does NOT permit women to pastor. :)

[sayso]

She received her training before marriage. Her husband is atheist, and she hoped he would change after they got married. Unfortunately, he hasn't changed. Their children are effected by the polarized belief between their parents.


Where in the world do believers get this idea? The Bible clearly says, "DO NOT BE UNEQUALLY YOKED WITH AN UNBELIEVER". But too often we women think that we can change a man's mind and heart. Only God can change a heart. I think that is a song Dion sung. :D

[Norrin Radd]

Where in the world do believers get this idea? The Bible clearly says, "DO NOT BE UNEQUALLY YOKED WITH AN UNBELIEVER". But too often we women think that we can change a man's mind and heart. Only God can change a heart. I think that is a song Dion sung. :D

It is an unfortunate fact of human nature that we often join to others based on what we hope they will become, rather than what they ARE.

[CleoSquare]

Don't quite understand where you are coming from here John..... I am of the opinion that two people doing the same *** should get equal money-regardless of sex... Why should a female consultant of medicine get less than her male colleague?

Now, I appreciate that many men support their famillies, but this is usually the case where the wife is the main carer (and worker) at home.

In my own marriage, there have been times when my husband has been the main earner and other times when I have. While the children are young, we have taken the choice for me to be at home more for the children- it is something that we as a team have decided. I know other famillies where the wife is the one who is the main earner, and the husband is the one at home- should the woman earn less than a male colleague in this scenario?

[Heart2Heart]

Don't quite understand where you are coming from here John..... I am of the opinion that two people doing the same *** should get equal money-regardless of sex... Why should a female consultant of medicine get less than her male colleague?

Now, I appreciate that many men support their famillies, but this is usually the case where the wife is the main carer (and worker) at home.

In my own marriage, there have been times when my husband has been the main earner and other times when I have. While the children are young, we have taken the choice for me to be at home more for the children- it is something that we as a team have decided. I know other famillies where the wife is the one who is the main earner, and the husband is the one at home- should the woman earn less than a male colleague in this scenario?

It depends. If a husband is more capable of doing better *** than a wife, so be it, he should get paid more. Here is a scenario. Is a wife able to lift a 300-pound man or woman out of a burning building?

[Heart2Heart]

Where in the world do believers get this idea? The Bible clearly says, "DO NOT BE UNEQUALLY YOKED WITH AN UNBELIEVER". But too often we women think that we can change a man's mind and heart. Only God can change a heart. I think that is a song Dion sung. :D

Ideally, men and women hope to change their spouse after marriage. But, it is unrealistic. Finding the right mate is not easy amongst a herd of cattle.

[jade84116]

1 Timothy 3:2, KJV, states: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach." The same thing is said regarding Deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and Elders in ***us 1 I believe. Okay, Isaiah refers to a prophetess, but she's thought to be Isaiah's wife by most Bible scholars. Okay, Romans 16 could be viewed as making women Apostles and Deacons, but that would contradict 1 Timothy 3 and the women in Romans 16 are plainly presented as wives and relatives there. If women are one flesh with their husbands, then, they can be called by their husband's priesthood office without actually holding that office in their own right, a principle that squares difficult p***ages with 1 Timothy 3:2 and such like. In the end, 1 Timothy 2:12, KJV, states: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." It's impossible to square Women Pastors with that verse!:)

[Norrin Radd]

1 Timothy 3:2, KJV, states: "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach." The same thing is said regarding Deacons in 1 Timothy 3 and Elders in ***us 1 I believe. Okay, Isaiah refers to a prophetess, but she's thought to be Isaiah's wife by most Bible scholars.

What's your excuse for Deborah and Huldah?



Okay, Romans 16 could be viewed as making women Apostles and Deacons,

Also patronesses (Gk. prostatis), a role which traditionally involved teaching, esp., e.g., when applied to the courier of a letter.



but that would contradict 1 Timothy 3

Maybe. Depends on one's starting ***umptions.



and the women in Romans 16 are plainly presented as wives and relatives there.

1) Not so "plainly."

2) So what?



If women are one flesh with their husbands, then, they can be called by their husband's priesthood office without actually holding that office in their own right, a principle that squares difficult p***ages with 1 Timothy 3:2 and such like.

1) That is "reading into" the text, at least as much as is any egalitarian solution.

2) The notion that there even IS a "priesthood" (other than the universal believers' priesthood) in the NT is dubious at best.



In the end, 1 Timothy 2:12, KJV, states: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." It's impossible to square Women Pastors with that verse!:)

IF it is translated properly, and IF it is intended to be universal as opposed to situational, and IF we are to apply it exactly as written, then it is impossible to "square it" with Rom. 16, Col. 4:15, 2 John 1:1, Acts 18:26, Gal. 3:26, Acts 2:17-18, Jud. 4:4, 2 Ki. 22:14, and probably more.

[CleoSquare]

It depends. If a husband is more capable of doing better *** than a wife, so be it, he should get paid more. Here is a scenario. Is a wife able to lift a 300-pound man or woman out of a burning building?

I quite agree... where a man can do a better *** than a woman, he should be higher in the scale and paid more. The woman should also be paid more if she is doing a better ***. IMHO, pay should be given for the *** done and how well it is done, not on the basis of sex.

In most cases, women are probably not best suited to being firewomen- however some of the women I see at the Gym, are probably better suited than most men. ;)

[jade84116]

What's your excuse for Deborah and Huldah?

The Septuagint calls Huldah a son not a wife of Shallum. Deborah could've been a wife of a prophet which, would explain that.


If women are one flesh with their husbands, then, they can be called by their husband's priesthood office without actually holding that office in their own right, a principle that squares difficult p***ages with 1 Timothy 3:2 and such like.

Bears repeating.


1 Timothy 2:12, KJV...IF it is translated properly

Proof lies with they who ***ert. What's your proof that it's translated improperly?

[Norrin Radd]

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd -- What's your excuse for Deborah and Huldah?

The Septuagint calls Huldah a son not a wife of Shallum. Deborah could've been a wife of a prophet which, would explain that.

It only explains it IF your unproven presupposition below is valid.



Originally Posted by jade84116
If women are one flesh with their husbands, then, they can be called by their husband's priesthood office without actually holding that office in their own right, a principle that squares difficult p***ages with 1 Timothy 3:2 and such like.

Bears repeating.

Also bears demonstrating. Do you have a Biblical example of a woman being "called" a certain thing -- prophetess, priestess, etc. -- merely because her husband held that office?

It's an idea that is, at best, interesting; it *presupposes* male priority as normative, and carried to its conclusion leads to women deriving the entirety of their iden***ies from men.

There are other ways that "square" with the difficult p***ages just as well, though of course all involve their own presuppositions.



Proof lies with they who ***ert. What's your proof that it's translated improperly?

With the full understanding that "proof" is in the eye of the beholder --

Here is the KJV, with the questionable parts highlighted:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." -- 1 Tim. 2:11-12


"Silence" in v. 11 and v. 12 would better be rendered something along the lines of "peaceable" or "tranquility," in keeping with both its intrinsic meaning, and its translation earlier in the local context, v. 2.

"Subjection" is an ok translation ("submission" might be slightly preferrable), as long as one bears in mind that it likely is to be understood in counterpoint to authentein, regarding which see below in the section about "authority."

"I suffer not" in v. 12 means, in modern English, "I do not permit." It would be *at least* as accurate to translate the underlying Greek as "I am not permitting"; the construction implies a temporary condition, subject to change.

"Usurp authority over" in v. 12 is probably the most-debated portion. The NET Bible, in its translation notes for that verse, implies the word carries the sense of, "give orders to, dictate to." The old Moffatt translation rendered it, "dictate to." Knox translated it as "issue commands to." The TNIV has "***ume authority over," and in a footnote suggests as an option, "teach in a domineering way."

Catherine Kroeger (http://www.godswordtowomen.org/kroeger_ancient_heresies.htm) surveys ancient literature and concludes that Paul is not forbidding any and all women from exercising authority over men, but rather is prohibiting women steeped in pagan fertility practices from teaching men licentious behavior. Perhaps more current and comprehensive is the research of David Scholer (http://godswordtowomen.org/scholer.htm), who arrives at the position that Paul does indeed prohibit women from exercising a form of "authority" over men, but only when doing so involves a sense of violence and inappropriate behavior. Linda Belleville's contribution is several years more current than Scholer's, and perhaps even more comprehensive. She concludes Paul only prohibits women from attempting to exercise a "domineering" sort of authority. Her ****ysis of the whole 1 Tim. 2 p***age of interest is in a *PDF* file here (http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/belleville_exegetical_fallacies.pdf).

[jade84116]

Catherine Kroeger[/URL] surveys ancient literature and concludes that Paul is not forbidding any and all women from exercising authority over men, but rather is prohibiting women steeped in pagan fertility practices from teaching men licentious behavior.

That's what I call reading something into the text that's just plain and simply not there. That's supposition! I prefer to let scripture speak for itself personally.:)

[Trinity]

What about Junia?

The Lost Apostle: Searching for the Truth About Junia
by Rena Pederson
http://www.equalitydepot.com/ProductImages/book_covers/lost_apostle_web.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Apostle-Searching-Truth-About/dp/0787984434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236722553&sr=1-1

"This is a very readable introduction to some of the characters and stories about women from early Christianity that are known to scholars but are often forgotten rather than celebrated in the rest of the church." (U.S. Catholic Magazine, January 2007)

Trinity

[jade84116]

What about Junia?

The original Greek can also be rendered as Junias which, would make it a man's name.:)

[Trinity]

The original Greek can also be rendered as Junias which, would make it a man's name.:)

That was modified by some Fathers of the Church to Julias because they were living in a patriarchal society (machoism/machismo). In the p***age of the New Testament and in the Greek koine it is a woman.

She was probably the wife of Philologus [Romans 16:15].

As in our days it was a common name for a woman in the antiquity. It was the 10th most popular name for girls born in the United States in 2007 and the top 150 names given to girls in the United States for the past 100 years.

Trinity

[jade84116]

Obviously, anything that I say will be rejected. In the end, the prophetess in Isaiah was his wife with her being called a prophetess by virtue of being his wife. Such also applies to the other references with the possible exception of Huldah that the Septuagint calls a son. Rational people can differ it would seem, but the patriarchal nature of society would go against your view of Women Pastors generally too boot. I won't argue this anymore.:)

[Trinity]

Jesus and his twelve apostles were able to teach full time, and they did not have to work, because that was the women who were paying the bills, and with their own money.

It is fun to see that a bunch of women were supporting thirteen men in their daily needs. They were sponsored by some very generous ladies.

Luke 8:3
And Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager; and Susanna; and many others, who ministered to and provided for Him and them out of their property and personal belongings.

Women have always played important roles in the Church. Even from the beginning.

Trinity

[Norrin Radd]

That's what I call reading something into the text that's just plain and simply not there. That's supposition! I prefer to let scripture speak for itself personally.:)

Scripture cannot speak for itself if it is not translated properly. You say the experts and translators I cited are "reading in"; I say that the translators of the KJV, NASB, etc. are "reading in." Who determines which is correct?

[Norrin Radd]

Obviously, anything that I say will be rejected.

Not necessarily, but many of them will be strongly challenged. That happens on discussion boards, especially with controversial topics.



In the end, the prophetess in Isaiah was his wife with her being called a prophetess by virtue of being his wife. Such also applies to the other references with the possible exception of Huldah that the Septuagint calls a son.

You can say that, but ***ertions do not equal evidence. FYI, I've checked a couple of editions of the LXX, and they call Huldah (or "Olda") "wife" or "mother," not "son."



Rational people can differ it would seem,

Certainly. But "rational" people like to see actual "rationale" -- REASONS.



but the patriarchal nature of society

FYI, I dispute that "the patriarchal nature of society" is normative under the New Covenant.



would go against your view of Women Pastors generally too boot. I won't argue this anymore.:)

As you wish.

[Norrin Radd]

The original Greek can also be rendered as Junias which, would make it a man's name.:)

I know you've ***erted your intent to drop this discussion, but I choose not to leave this point unanswered.

Scholars on "my side" of the debate aver that "Junia" (the feminine form) was in common usage in the NT period, while "Junias" (the masculine form) was totally unknown until years later. Hence, modern translations (ca. 1990s and beyond) and modern revisions of older translations usually employ "Junia" -- notably this includes the ESV, whose creators had in large part an agenda of opposing what they perceived to be trends toward excessive "gender-inclusiveness" in modern translations.

[jade84116]

I checked the Septuagint to verify what I was told about Huldah being a son not a wife. I was surprised to find that Huldah was the mother of Shallum in the Septuagint. That would mean that what I was told about Huldah being a son not a wife was wrong, she's a mother not a son or wife in the Septuagint. Humble apologies for p***ing along something without first verifying it. Does this obliterate my ***ertion that a wife of a Prophet, Apostle, or what have you can be called a Prophetess, Apostle, or what have you as well by virtue of being his wife though not in her own right? I don't think so, but rational people can differ.:)

[denn034]

Is it possible that women became prophetesses, etc., as a result of no righteous man being available? What about special dispensation? There can be little doubt that the New Testament church didn't have any female ministers, Paul's "husband of one wife" requirement for Bishops and Deacons demands the view after all, so I need to know what you think about the above possibilities.:)

[archaeologist]

i was going to go through this thread and respond to certain points but i felt i should do something different and that is what i will do.

when it comes to God's word, humans were not put here to reign over the Bible. They do not get to determine what God's words say from generation to generation, culture to culture. if they think they can and do, then here are some of the that believers are saying by this act of supremacy of God's word:

1. we do not have God's word
2. we do not have the truth or words of guidance
3. we get to determine what God is saying
4. God's words and commands change from generation to generation and culture to culture
5. we do not have a higher morality, standard, and God's word is subjective (existential)
6. God changes

God's word was given to us so that man would know what God wants him to do and it takes humility to submit to God's word and obey it. which means that we do not get to say that culture dictates what God meant for that promotes culture above God and allows humans to remove something they do not like and instill a cultural practice not of God in its place.

that kind of thinking is arrogance, pride and elevating man over God. since God does not change, what He said through Paul, Peter and the other Biblical writers 2,000 years ago applies to today.

it is up to us to submit to the Holy Spirit's leading, and let him lead us to the truth so we do not stray and disobey God and hinder the work of Christ.

since the Bible does not allow woman preachers/overseer/pastor/ etc. and if one checks the biblical trdition, not one woman was placed in that role in the Old Testament nor in Jesus' time, then we cannot in the modern age, allow women to be preachers regardless of what the secular world says or does.

the believer does not follow the secular world but God and it is dangerous and wrong to do otherwise. to follow the world would be abdicating our responsibility to beng the light unto the world and we will have diminished or darken that light so the lost cannot see the alternative and be lost forever.

the idea of man having the right to change God's word to fit culture or the current age removes all hope found in its pages and says thatprevious believers did not have the truth because their culture followed something different. we also could not condemn sinful acts, declare something is sin for we have removed that authority from the christian life by saying that men are in command of the words of God andno tGod thus we have no clue what God wants.

it is best for men to humble themsleves and obey scriptures, which means that women cannot be pastors, etc. and that they cannot teach men, if we compromise on any part of scripture, we have lost. we make our stand with Jesus inspite of the world's reaction. if we don't we have given the world the excuse they need to live as they want without fear.

[kentuckypreacher]

Archeologist,
I just now got around to reading this particular post, and it is excellent! You are exactly right.

[IncitingRiots]

God doesn't change? Interesting, I for one saw a big change from the God of OT to the God of NT. :D

[johnd]

The original Greek can also be rendered as Junias which, would make it a man's name.:)

Also the statement could be interpreted as having favor among the apostles like say Steven did... this did not make Stephen among the apostles but his favorship... if that's a word...

I've argued this point (the OP) 6 ways from Sunday and in the enth degree in Greek.

[alanmolstad]

I cant remember a verse that teaches that Christians who live under the New Covenant are to ban women from this or that position within the church.
The church is not to be thought of as being like a marriage where a man's role is not to be the women's.

But in the church we have the suggestion that among ourselves there is to be seen no difference between rich and poor, male and female , slave or free....

[alanmolstad]

what has happened to many churches that have been swept up in a pro-gayness slant is not to be blamed on some churches allowing women to lead.

The fault is with the men who lead.

I have seen a lot of churches in the past that have been in a lot of trouble for one reason or another, or who have strayed from teaching correctly, and in every case I know of you cant put the blame on women being allowed to lead a church body.