Women pastors and preachers. | INFJ Forum

Women pastors and preachers.

Should women be able to preach?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 87.9%
  • No

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • I have no idea, lol. =P

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33

Matariki

Donor
Sep 30, 2009
3,491
513
0
MBTI
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
For some of you that know me, I am a Christian.
However being a Christian there are things that I struggle with that has been written in the bible.
One of them is about female leadership. This was one of the reasons why I left the church, as I used to go all out on debates about this.
Everyone seems to believe its the word of God. I'm not denying it is, and I am sure that God had his reasons, but I know that God is smarter than that, which makes me think that this could of possibly been Paul's personal opinion.

Today I still debate over this with my older ISTP brother (although, I tend to debate over everything with him, including intuition) :mpff:

Its not so much the idea of that women shouldn't preach that makes me upset but the sexism that is involved in it and how it fuels men in the church with tiny man syndrome.

picard-facepalm.jpg


I was reading this article on Women and leadership in the church not so long ago, and there's just something about this that makes very little logical sense.

Question: "Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?"

Answer:
There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.

The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.

There are many “objections” to this view of women in ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek/Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in the passage could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words refers to men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.

Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women in ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. This objection fails to note some significant factors. First, Deborah was the only female judge among 13 male judges. Huldah was the only female prophet among dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel—hardly examples of godly female leadership. Most significantly, though, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue. The book of 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles present a new paradigm for the church—the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves the authority structure for the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.

Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more “prominent” in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).

In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons.

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for” and gives the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. This order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable, but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching men or having spiritual authority over them. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors/preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.
DoubleFacePalm.jpg


Yes, I tend to face palm allot.

Saying that, what is your opinion one this? I've also included a poll.
So please feel free to vote and debate over this, I would be more than interested to hear your opinions on this subject.
 
Last edited:
If God gives a talent, then we can probably assume he would want us to use it. Not all Christian churches who follow the Bible believe it's a simple matter of women shouldn't preach.

And it sounds like Paul's pronouncement . . . Paul uses first person throughout the passage. And the article above is logically incorrect. Simply because the scripture doesn't address other influences or reason's for Paul's statement to the church doesn't mean there isn't one. By allowing Paul to make that statement, maybe the point was to teach the church the problem with how easily a rule or law can be abused; consequences which have been demonstrated throughout the centuries.

i think we use scriptures to justify abuse which is clearly not the intent of the scriptures. God is wise. And i'd doubt God supports anything that would cause a woman to be seen or treated as less or oppressed, because that would encourage forced or reluctant obedience rather than true/personal committment to serve God however we can. i'm sure the scriptures are more complicated than that.

in regards to the poll - i think it's really not so much about whether women should be able to preach. If God calls someone to serve as a minister then that's more relevant than whether someone should just because they can.

Not sure though.
 
Last edited:
I've read that Paul was just jealous of Mary Magdalene, who was actually a powerful priestess/preacher, and not letting women preach was all a bunch of pansy-ass political infighting amongst the apostles. Reading that passage from Paul, it certainly sounds -- petty? Like he had an ulterior motive.

I am not, however, all that well-versed in biblical matters, and tend to ignore people who preach to me too much or try to use chapter and verse to explain their own jackassery. In real life, I've known female ministers, so they certainly exist and are loved by their congregations.
 
The problem I have with the article is that it off the impression to me that women are spiritually weaker then men, now that could of been me misreading the article as I have a habit of doing that (dyslexia)

It took the devil to deceive Eve and Eve to deceive Adam.
So who is weaker? In my eyes, neither of them are because they were both deceived and both ate the fruit of knowledge.
Woman was not made in the image of man, woman was also made in the image of God.

The only logical reason that I can see here is that women are better at deceiving or lack the dominance required to lead, which could be true or not. I would have to see evidence on that. The problem though with that is that its instantly putting individuals into boxes and generalizing them which anyone with a brain knows that in reality that doesn't work.

The second problem I have is the examples of female leaders that were used, implying that women should not have any form of political leadership either. I can think of many male leaders that tripped up in the bible, church and in politics. I can also think of many fantastic women leaders in both the church and in politics.

I also question if MBTI could come into play here, considering that females are generally 'F' dominated and males are 'T' dominated which could play a large part in leadership. It says in the article that women often excel in the church at mercy,teaching, and helps.
But again that doesn't make sense either as many men are 'F' dominated and vice versa.

I mean look at Jesus. INFJ anyone? :m075:

Many people dislike Paul, but I feel sorry for the guy and more sorry for those that take his word seriously (like my ISTP brother) and the people that have suffered from it.
I need to borrow Doc Browns time machine, go back into the past, have a cup of tea and a nice, long chat with Paul.

Back to the future 4 anyone?
 
Last edited:
I think people are capable of pretty much anything, regardless of gender. I don't know if it says this anywhere in the Bible (probably not), but I know this based on looking at the people around me, and reading historical accounts of powerful male and female leaders, who all seemed to share similar qualities, and who are all subject to the same human vices & virtues -- the whole range of them.

The way I look at it, in all of humanity, there is a huge range of talents, abilities and features, and personalities, and men and women might be more statistically prone to certain of these, but they exist in all of us. (If that makes sense.)

It's sort of like probabilities: the dice are slightly weighted according to gender, but any combination can (and does) come up each time you roll the dice.
 
The OP proves beyond any doubt that a woman is able to preach. I'm convinced!
:hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail: :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail: Where do I sign up?

I don't know, to me it obviously should be no problem at all. God could very well be female anyway, if that matters.

Eve was tricked by the grand master of trickery - the devil - while Adam was tricked by his wife. Who's the bigger fool of them? Obviously Adam.

About female leaders, it has been proven in numerous ways that they are more stable and consolidating. Recently a lot of female leaders are seen in the highest positions of politics and business. It's because they are (at least as) good at it.
 
Are we trying to apply logic to religion now?
 
Are we trying to apply logic to religion now?
Always; logic works well over axioms / unverified assumptions.
Logic doesn't have to be in accordance with nature or the real world.
Err... yes it does.
Logic is meta-science. It's about the method of reasoning. You are allowed to start from unverified claims and build a theory based solely on logic, which may end up physically incorrect, even if it's logically correct in itself. This risky approach of course brings a ton of deceptions and gives me the headache, but was also the reason for many groundbreaking scientific models to be developed, and later verified successfully, which wouldn't have happened if someone wasn't crazy enough to assume something could be true, for which there was no insurance.

I also don't support religion, because it's inapplicable, or even horribly applied, but that doesn't mean logically correct statements cannot be formulated there. Logic just isn't enough to make something valid or useful. The main problem with religion is not in logic, but rather in supporting evidence / data; and the axioms we start with - eg: there is God.
 
Last edited:
Always; logic works well over axioms / unverified assumptions.
Logic doesn't have to be in accordance with nature or the real world.

Err... yes it does.
 
Personally, I separate faith from religion; the former is trust when one cannot know for sure, the latter (to me anyways) seems to be dictation of belief structures (faith's counter opposite.) That said, I still prefer to believe in god; I just mistrust human interpretation... probably, in part, because it seems to be largely driven by testosterone. I'd much rather that such broad and heavy-implication subject matters as politics and religion (among other things) were majority (if not entirely) female driven.
 
Well, yes. Logic can coexist with religion and faiths.
I always use logic when It comes to the bible.

All down to the part where god exists because someone said so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DoveAlexa
Personally, I separate faith from religion

Religion exists to control faith, faith exists to keep religion in check. Religion is man's interpretation of God's will, faith is its acceptance.
 
All down to the part where god exists because someone said so?

No, because I know so. Its called faith.
I believe out of my own will.
There is logic in faith just like how there is faith in science.

Both Religion and science require faith in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations.
 
Last edited:
I recall that when this issue was raised in the "Ask a Theologian" thread of another forum I frequent. Plotinus (the user name of he theologian, who is an agnostic but has his BA in Philosophy and Theology, his M Phil in Theology, and I think has probably finished his PhD at the University of Oxford by now) mentioned a few interesting points a while back that could be relevant. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the exact posts of interest, so I can't quote him or his sources, only say it as I remember.


Apparently there are some experts who think Paul was being sarcastic. Apparently many of the oldest manuscripts include small an additional word after the order for women to remain silent in churches, which they translate as essentially the interjection "What?!" They claim that almost everything that might seem misogynistic in the Pauline Epistles could have been attempts at using ruductio ad absurdum to point out how wrong the leaders of the church were for treating men and women differently. It was apparently his style not simply to say what he thinks, but to explore alternate possibilities before developing them enough to be comfortable rejecting them. (Hmm, normally Paul is considered an INTJ, but as Plotinus described him he could be an INTP whose sense of humor just does not translate well.)


He also pointed out that in Acts, Peter pointed out that Paul's writings can be very hard to understand, especially to those who are not experts on the Torah, and that there are issues in which he believed Paul was leading people astray until they met in person to discuss what he meant by his words. (That was probably not so much about the role of women though, but on whether Jewish Christians should still try to keep the Laws of Moses.)
 
There was a woman Pastor at the Evangelical Lutheran church my grandparents went to (Other grandparents are Catholic). She brought a whole new dimension into spirituality and if anyone could have made me a Christian, it would have been her.

I think she did a fabulous job because she knew what love was, and she wasn't afraid to show it.

Of course, my opinion is not grounded in any biblical politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: corvidae
I....Apparently there are some experts who think Paul was being sarcastic. Apparently many of the oldest manuscripts include small an additional word after the order for women to remain silent in churches, which they translate as essentially the interjection "What?!" They claim that almost everything that might seem misogynistic in the Pauline Epistles could have been attempts at using ruductio ad absurdum to point out how wrong the leaders of the church were for treating men and women differently. It was apparently his style not simply to say what he thinks, but to explore alternate possibilities before developing them enough to be comfortable rejecting them. (Hmm, normally Paul is considered an INTJ, but as Plotinus described him he could be an INTP whose sense of humor just does not translate well.)

Ah, interesting, so Paul was basically a first century Mark Twain? I wonder what the Hebrew or Aramaic word is for "What?!" or "Dude, seriously?"
 
I recall that when this issue was raised in the "Ask a Theologian" thread of another forum I frequent. Plotinus (the user name of he theologian, who is an agnostic but has his BA in Philosophy and Theology, his M Phil in Theology, and I think has probably finished his PhD at the University of Oxford by now) mentioned a few interesting points a while back that could be relevant. Unfortunately I can't seem to find the exact posts of interest, so I can't quote him or his sources, only say it as I remember.


Apparently there are some experts who think Paul was being sarcastic. Apparently many of the oldest manuscripts include small an additional word after the order for women to remain silent in churches, which they translate as essentially the interjection "What?!" They claim that almost everything that might seem misogynistic in the Pauline Epistles could have been attempts at using ruductio ad absurdum to point out how wrong the leaders of the church were for treating men and women differently. It was apparently his style not simply to say what he thinks, but to explore alternate possibilities before developing them enough to be comfortable rejecting them. (Hmm, normally Paul is considered an INTJ, but as Plotinus described him he could be an INTP whose sense of humor just does not translate well.)


He also pointed out that in Acts, Peter pointed out that Paul's writings can be very hard to understand, especially to those who are not experts on the Torah, and that there are issues in which he believed Paul was leading people astray until they met in person to discuss what he meant by his words. (That was probably not so much about the role of women though, but on whether Jewish Christians should still try to keep the Laws of Moses.)

that's really interesting.
 
I don't like hearing anyone preach - men or women - so, no.


I must say, in a sexist way, women look ridiculous in male clerical garb - even more so than men in male clerical garb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
From what I read about a lot of these bible-interpretation stuff is that hyper-religious nations seems to be about 4000 years behind the cultures that founded their religion XD. Or at least it seems like.