Women Preachers/Pastors

[Geberia]

Do you think women should be pastors/ preachers in churches? Why or why not?

[heartofgold]

Well, it kinda depends. I would say no, but if she's just a preacher, or pastor, like the ones wearing the suit instead of the robe, doesn't make any difference. However, in the Catholic church (and other more liturgical churches), the priest is up there as the representative of Christ. Christ was a man, not a woman

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve."
(1 Timothy 12-13)

So, there is obviously some difference between male and female (meaning, of course, that we are infinitely Superior, as is shown when it comes to knocking the Doritos bowl off the couch during the football game ;D). But like I said, it does depend upon what she's doing. She's got every right to teach people and all that, but she can't be a priest. The priest being the symbol of Christ in the Mass, that would be like sticking a woman on the crucifix (which some people have done, but that's beside the point).
Also noteworthy is the fact that well, first off, Christ was a male. That wasn't some biological conspiracy. Second, all of his disciples were male. Now, Jesus obviously didn't have any problem breaking cultural traditions, so calling a female would have been nothing, but he didn't. This is especially noteworthy to a Catholic (and other more liturgical denominations), because every priest can trace his himself back to the disciples.

But I notice nobody here seems to go to any sort of liturgical denomination, so you can discard everything I just said.

[Geberia]

Well I agree with you, hoG, on the fact that women should not be preachers/pastors. I don't know about all the Catholic stuff But every time in the New Testament (especially in the Pauline epistles) where it mentions a bishop, it is talking about a man. I know there were some judges that were women, like Deborah, but that was before the church as we know it today was set up.

[heartofgold]

Well (now that I'm full swing in the argument against myself ;D), I'm not sure. For instance, Baptists. Now, I'm not trying to put down Baptists in any way, but the pastors don't do anything. They don't bless, they don't consecrate, they don't do any of that fun stuff. Basically, they're there to preach a sermon (among other things probably, but I'm not Baptist so I wouldn't know). Now, a woman, I think, is perfectly entitled to give a sermon, especially in a Baptist church (Catholics are a little different).
The reason no woman are mentioned as priests or bishops in the bible is because they were all Catholics, and they weren't allowed to be priests back then either.

[Geberia]

Well, I'm Baptist, so I should be able to answer this a little better. Some Baptists, like American Baptists, are more okay with the women standing up and preaching. Church is more like a social get-together for them anyways. (again, not trying to put them down.) However, most Baptists believe that a woman should not be a pastor, deacon, or that sort of thing ( they CAN hold offices in the church such as Nursery Superintendent though ;D). But since there are godly women out there and both males and females can learn from them, oftentimes a woman will just give a testimony, about how she got saved, what God is doing in her life, etc.... now oftentimes the testimony is convicting, and much like preaching, but since its called a "testimony" everyone's okay with it.
A Baptist pastor dosn't be consecrating and all that suff because, for the most part, Baptists don't believe in it. But he does do baptisms, visits the people at their homes, prays with them, talks with them, encourages them, oversees the church projects, baby dedications, ordinations, all that. So yeah, he does a bit more than preaching

[falklands]

In agreement of those bible quotes from Heartofgold, I think the roles designed for men and women differ. Men are meant to lead, and women to nurture and support. So I voted "no". One exception, however. In the Old Testament, God raised Deborah to be a ruler over Israel. So it is possible for women to lead, but I should think in exceptional circumstances. Deborah's leadership could have served also as a rebuke to the men of Israel (and the same could apply to women leaders today).

[Armany]

heartofgold said:

The reason no woman are mentioned as priests or bishops in the bible is because they were all Catholics, and they weren't allowed to be priests back then either.

I'd like to see some evidence for that. I've never considered Paul a Catholic.

[heartofgold]

I'd like to see some evidence for that. I've never considered Paul a Catholic.

Alright, Ignatius of Antioch, one of John's disciples, is the earliest document we have calling the Early Church Catholics, so he was Catholic. The Catholic Church says it was the only church. So the only other choice here is that its some huge conspiracy, which I doubt. All I know is come Constantine (probably a little earlier actually), there's the Catholic Church, where did the other one go? Why did God let it vanish and die out when he promised to guide it? Where did it come from, and how did people like Ignatius get led astray by it? Early Christians and Catholics being different relies on the assumption that the Catholic Church is some huge racket cooked up a Roman emperor, and that the real Christians died out when God promised to guide them, neither of which seems very likely.

[Armany]

heartofgold said:

The Catholic Church says it was the only church. So the only other choice here is that its some huge conspiracy, which I doubt.

The fact that the Catholic Church says it was the only Church until the reign of Constantine doesn't automatically validate the fact itself.

All I know is come Constantine (probably a little earlier actually), there's the Catholic Church, where did the other one go? Why did God let it vanish and die out when he promised to guide it? Where did it come from, and how did people like Ignatius get led astray by it? Early Christians and Catholics being different relies on the assumption that the Catholic Church is some huge racket cooked up a Roman emperor, and that the real Christians died out when God promised to guide them, neither of which seems very likely.

Where's this idea of "another church" coming from? I assume you mean that I'm implying that the "true" Christians were in an organization separate from the Catholic Church. I'm not. My whole perception of the matter is that the early Christians were just that: early Christians. I don't think that, immediately upon Jesus' ascension, someone said, "Let's start the Catholic Church."

I've always thought that it took maybe a century or so post-Jesus' resurrection for the Catholic Church as we know it to come into existence. I don't think that there was some other church that was formed alongside the Catholic Church, then was vanquished and totally disappeared from the files of history. The early Christians were, IMO, an unorganized group of people who simply spread the gospel. In calling them "unorganized," I simply mean to say that they didn't have a united hierarchy.

[heartofgold]

The fact that the Catholic Church says it was the only Church until the reign of Constantine doesn't automatically validate the fact itself.

My point was I don't think the Catholic Church is some huge conspiracy with a bunch of forged documents from the Early Christians (unlike certain bone boxes *cough cough*).

Where's this idea of "another church" coming from? I assume you mean that I'm implying that the "true" Christians were in an organization separate from the Catholic Church. I'm not. My whole perception of the matter is that the early Christians were just that: early Christians. I don't think that, immediately upon Jesus' ascension, someone said, "Let's start the Catholic Church."

I've always thought that it took maybe a century or so post-Jesus' resurrection for the Catholic Church as we know it to come into existence. I don't think that there was some other church that was formed alongside the Catholic Church, then was vanquished and totally disappeared from the files of history. The early Christians were, IMO, an unorganized group of people who simply spread the gospel. In calling them "unorganized," I simply mean to say that they didn't have a united hierarchy.

Now I'm confused (don't do this to me!). Who were the Early Christians then? They had to be somebody. Did they just realize, come 100 A.D that they weren't early anymore and vanish? Who is the Catholic Church and where did it come from? Just because the Early Christians were "unorganized" (which isn't really true, we've got documents and such showing they had a whole system of bishops set up by then), doesn't mean they didn't teach what the Catholic Church teaches. Saying the Early Christians evolved into the Catholics (which I think is what your saying), but saying that the Early Christians didn't teach anything the Catholics taught doesn't make any sense.

[Armany]

heartofgold said:

[Now I'm confused (don't do this to me!). Who were the Early Christians then? They had to be somebody. Did they just realize, come 100 A.D that they weren't early anymore and vanish? Who is the Catholic Church and where did it come from? Just because the Early Christians were "unorganized" (which isn't really true, we've got documents and such showing they had a whole system of bishops set up by then), doesn't mean they didn't teach what the Catholic Church teaches. Saying the Early Christians evolved into the Catholics (which I think is what your saying), but saying that the Early Christians didn't teach anything the Catholics taught doesn't make any sense.

Whoa! Now I'm confused! I don't get what you're saying about what the identity of the "Early Christians" was. I am using the term early Christians to refer to the entire world of Christians that existed in the early years after Christ's death, or to refer to the Church (as in all Christians, everywhere; Christ's Church, in other words).

When I said that these controversial "Early Christians" ;D were unorganized, I meant that they didn't neccessarily say, "We're all united under Pope so-and-so and we believe this and we frown upon these teachings." Sure, they had bishops. Paul refers to bishops (or "overseers") in Timothy, I believe. I don't think that these "bishops" were priests within the Catholic hierarchy, though. That's my point.

[heartofgold]

Whoa! Now I'm confused! I don't get what you're saying about what the identity of the "Early Christians" was. I am using the term early Christians to refer to the entire world of Christians that existed in the early years after Christ's death, or to refer to the Church (as in all Christians, everywhere; Christ's Church, in other words).

But the problem is all the Early Christians taught the same thing. It doesn't follow logically that after the disciples told them what to believe, these people believed something totally different. There isn't any record of any other group besides the Catholics, so the Early Christians couldn't have been anything else.

When I said that these controversial "Early Christians" ;D were unorganized, I meant that they didn't neccessarily say, "We're all united under Pope so-and-so and we believe this and we frown upon these teachings." Sure, they had bishops. Paul refers to bishops (or "overseers") in Timothy, I believe. I don't think that these "bishops" were priests within the Catholic hierarchy, though. That's my point.

Well first off, I think they did have that all figured out. The difference between then and now is there wasn't really a religion like Christianity today, with thousands of denominations preaching the different things. If you didn't agree with what your respective apostle told you, then you weren't Christian. That simple. The weren't all these little groups of Christianity running around back then.
Second, if the bishops and priests weren't within the Catholic hierarchy, then they were part of another group which we have no record for and must have vanished. My little realm of logic is being skewed (don't do this to me!), if there wasn't any other group besides the Catholics back then, how do you have priests and bishops that weren't Catholic?

[Armany]

heartofgold said:

But the problem is all the Early Christians taught the same thing. It doesn't follow logically that after the disciples told them what to believe, these people believed something totally different. There isn't any record of any other group besides the Catholics, so the Early Christians couldn't have been anything else.

Then how come we have all these ideas within Christianity flying around today? We've got tons of denominations of Christians now. That's what people do: they disagree on things, change the meaning of things, or decide that they don't agree with something. The Christians back in the early first and second centuries AD were no different. They were not infalliable.

An example of this can be found in the fact that several heresies arose during the Early Church period. Gnosticism, Aryanism (I believe that's what it's called), and Pharisitical Christianity (as in a perverted, legalistic Christianity; that's probably not what it's really called) are all examples of this. These heresies show that there were radicals out there that were more than willing to depart from the teachings of the apostles, thus establishing the precedent of disagreement with the current religious order. So, I must conclude that it was quite possible, if not even inevitable, that there would be different sects that would arise out of the Christian faith, such as Roman Catholicism, which rose to be the only sect of the faith in later centuries.

Well first off, I think they did have that all figured out. The difference between then and now is there wasn't really a religion like Christianity today, with thousands of denominations preaching the different things. If you didn't agree with what your respective apostle told you, then you weren't Christian. That simple. The weren't all these little groups of Christianity running around back then.

That's not what I meant. I was referring to one united, organizational structure, not one religion. IMHO, it would have been impossible for the Christians pre-Constantine to be one united church, in the sense of being one ordered hierarchy.

Second, if the bishops and priests weren't within the Catholic hierarchy, then they were part of another group which we have no record for and must have vanished. My little realm of logic is being skewed (don't do this to me!), if there wasn't any other group besides the Catholics back then, how do you have priests and bishops that weren't Catholic?

Let me use an example to illustrate my point: today, we have a bountiful supply of "non-denominational" churches that do not proclaim allegiance to one sect. The pastors (just meaning the head of the church) are not a part of any group. So it was with the bishops, overseers, and what have you back in the Early Church period. They were just the officials of their congregation, not subservients to some other official in a hierarchy, such as it is with the Catholic Church or the many Protestant denominations.

[Teckor]

Back to women preachers, I'm personally unsure.

Sure it says not to let women teach, but how does that work. Just to be devils advocate, God is now some sort of sexist. Seriously. That's the way it looks. Are there any other verses or context that that verse could be taken in.


About Catholics/Early Church, the EARLY CHURCH is generally before it became officially known as the CATHOLIC CHURCH. However, being "official" means little, since evolution is also "officially" true, despite the evidence.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Constantine was around 300AD. You might be thinking about the time of death of John (the only Disciple who died naturally and not from another human/caused by human).

Furthermore, the truth is always there, just sometimes it's more prominent or noticable than others. Example: the ppl before John Wicliffe, they existed, they simply aren't well known or of major significance.


Final note, we are all entitled to our opinion (even the atheists), no matter what it is, if that's what they want to believe then fine, their choice.
(Ironic ain't it, how true the Bible is? Last of the 7 Chruches, lukewarm. Sad but you can see the resemblance)

[heartofgold]

Then how come we have all these ideas within Christianity flying around today? We've got tons of denominations of Christians now. That's what people do: they disagree on things, change the meaning of things, or decide that they don't agree with something. The Christians back in the early first and second centuries AD were no different. They were not infalliable.

That all happened after Luther though. For fifteen hundred years there weren't any other Church's (big ones anyway). Luther split up, then split up again, and again, and again. So now we have thousands of different Christians, but only one sect of Catholicism.

An example of this can be found in the fact that several heresies arose during the Early Church period. Gnosticism, Aryanism (I believe that's what it's called), and Pharisitical Christianity (as in a perverted, legalistic Christianity; that's probably not what it's really called) are all examples of this. These heresies show that there were radicals out there that were more than willing to depart from the teachings of the apostles, thus establishing the precedent of disagreement with the current religious order. So, I must conclude that it was quite possible, if not even inevitable, that there would be different sects that would arise out of the Christian faith, such as Roman Catholicism, which rose to be the only sect of the faith in later centuries.

Well then where did the true one go? Your saying that the Catholic Church rose out of all these heresies, there had to be somebody who wasn't heretical, where did they go? I'm almost getting the feeling that your drawing the conclusion that there weren't any Christians for 1500 years, which probable isn't what your saying. Its highly improbable, what with all the documents we have and such, the the Early Church was just in total shambles.

That's not what I meant. I was referring to one united, organizational structure, not one religion. IMHO, it would have been impossible for the Christians pre-Constantine to be one united church, in the sense of being one ordered hierarchy.

They manage it quite easily now, why couldn't they have done it before Constantine?

Let me use an example to illustrate my point: today, we have a bountiful supply of "non-denominational" churches that do not proclaim allegiance to one sect. The pastors (just meaning the head of the church) are not a part of any group. So it was with the bishops, overseers, and what have you back in the Early Church period. They were just the officials of their congregation, not subservients to some other official in a hierarchy, such as it is with the Catholic Church or the many Protestant denominations.

But once again it is highly, highly improbable that everything that's going on now was going on then. Paul was warning against splitting up, which makes me think they hadn't done it yet. Who was Paul writing to? If all these Churches disagreed with each other, which one did Paul belong to? Why was he writing to all these churches talking about unity if he didn't want to believe anything they said?

Furthermore, the truth is always there, just sometimes it's more prominent or noticable than others. Example: the ppl before John Wicliffe, they existed, they simply aren't well known or of major significance.

Well, first off, no offence, but just because he translated the bible to English doesn't make him the final authority on everything. Second, now we're getting into conspiracy's and cover ups and Catholics controlling the world and all that, which just seems unlikely. I mean, if they were, they were really good at what they did because they managed to hoodwink most of the world into thinking they were the only church this whole time. It just seems unlikely.

[Geberia]

Wow....how come these Catholic arguments keep coming up? LOL

[Triphus (Titanian)]

ok I really don't know that much about what the Bible says about women pastors, but I do know that at my grandma's church the pastor is a woman, and she is fantastic. She gives some of the best sermons I ever heard, so I don't think we should limit the "sermon box" to just males. Also your comments about the Bible saying that women should not preach, i have trouble with too. I agree with Teckor, doesn't that make God seem sexist??? God is perfect, He cannot be sexist, I mean look at Ruth and all those other important woman leaders. You also have to remember that back in the day women were treated like scum, so now in a day of "equality" we will have things they didn't back then.

[heartofgold]

ok I really don't know that much about what the Bible says about women pastors, but I do know that at my grandma's church the pastor is a woman, and she is fantastic. She gives some of the best sermons I ever heard, so I don't think we should limit the "sermon box" to just males. Also your comments about the Bible saying that women should not preach, i have trouble with too. I agree with Teckor, doesn't that make God seem sexist??? God is perfect, He cannot be sexist, I mean look at Ruth and all those other important woman leaders. You also have to remember that back in the day women were treated like scum, so now in a day of "equality" we will have things they didn't back then.

Well, like I said, a woman is perfectly entitled to teach. I think that makes her perfectly entitled to be a Baptist, the only problem I would have with the list Geberia so kindly provided ;D would be baptism and ordination. However, since, quite frankly, they don't really mean anything to the Baptists, they might be OK. What I mean is, compared to Catholics who believe Baptism washes away sin and ordination is a really big deal, for a Catholic that should be left to a priest, who can't be a woman. However (not putting Baptists down in any way), for Baptists its just a symbol, so I almost (not quite though) think it would be fine for a woman to do that too.

[Teckor]

Heartofgold, I'm simply saying that personally, I do not believe that the Catholic church is right in what it teaches and the way that its set up. This is however, simply an opinion.

Secondly, if you wouldn't mind reading "Foxes Book of Martyrs" because you've mistaken Wicliffe for William Tyndale.


Also, Baptists hold baptism right up there with salvation, do they not? Otherwise, why are they called "Baptists"?


Still, the Bible says that women should not "teach" men, so I think that it means more than just doing baptisms or consecrations, but also sermons. Although, it seems strange then that women used to be the majority of teachers in time past (unless your being specific about the differenciation between a man and a child) but still, why would God have it okay to let a woman teach a child who will someday be a man, but not a man.

[Geberia]

We are called Baptists because of the differences between the baptism we do compared to the baptism of the Cahtolic church. But that's a different subject.

I know a woman has rights, I'm not saying that, but where in the Bible when a bishop or pastor is mentioned is a woman mentioned? In fact in Timothy in the list of the "qualifications" of a good bishop, it says that HE should be the husband of one wife, thus meaning the bishop should be a man. Also, us girls, like it or not, were not made in God's image, Adam the man was and we were made from Adam, not from God. Also, the Bible tells a woman not to ursurp authority over a man, Now I know alot of women pastors do not look at it that way, but that is really what it is. God is not a sexist, but there are some jobs that are specifically for men, and some for women.

[heartofgold]

Secondly, if you wouldn't mind reading "Foxes Book of Martyrs" because you've mistaken Wicliffe for William Tyndale.

Oh, sorry, didn't actually bother to read what you wrote ;D. However, I assume you don't think anybody is the supreme authority on what your should believe.

Also, Baptists hold baptism right up there with salvation, do they not? Otherwise, why are they called "Baptists"?

Well, actually I'm not sure why their called Baptists (ask Geberia). However no, I'm pretty sure they don't look at Baptism like the Catholics.

Still, the Bible says that women should not "teach" men, so I think that it means more than just doing baptisms or consecrations, but also sermons. Although, it seems strange then that women used to be the majority of teachers in time past (unless your being specific about the differenciation between a man and a child) but still, why would God have it okay to let a woman teach a child who will someday be a man, but not a man.

Exactly, which is why I (almost) think it'd be perfectly fine for a woman to stand up and preach a sermon. However, there's a big difference between preaching a sermon and being a priest. To be a priest in a Catholic or other traditional denominations that I can't spell means to be a representative of Christ. A woman shouldn't represent Christ.

I know a woman has rights, I'm not saying that, but where in the Bible when a bishop or pastor is mentioned is a woman mentioned? In fact in Timothy in the list of the "qualifications" of a good bishop, it says that HE should be the husband of one wife, thus meaning the bishop should be a man. Also, us girls, like it or not, were not made in God's image, Adam the man was and we were made from Adam, not from God. Also, the Bible tells a woman not to ursurp authority over a man, Now I know alot of women pastors do not look at it that way, but that is really what it is. God is not a sexist, but there are some jobs that are specifically for men, and some for women.

Well, because they were all Catholic bishops. Still, I'm don't really think a woman should do anything in any denomination (pastor wise).

[Chocolate Bar]

What is everyone's opinion on a woman being a Children's pastor or a Youth pastor?

[Geberia]

Mmm, I don't like it being called a pastor. I would rather have a youth pastor be a man, married who has a wife so she can help him, but not be in charge of it. Nurserys, though.....women canbe in charge of those

[Triphus (Titanian)]

ok so could somebody help me out? Why is it so bad if a women is a pastor or a youth leader???

[Armany]

heartofgold said:

Well then where did the true one go? Your saying that the Catholic Church rose out of all these heresies, there had to be somebody who wasn't heretical, where did they go? I'm almost getting the feeling that your drawing the conclusion that there weren't any Christians for 1500 years, which probable isn't what your saying. Its highly improbable, what with all the documents we have and such, the the Early Church was just in total shambles.

Once again, let me state what I've stated all along: Christians prior to the Catholic church were not one Church, as in one organizational structure. They had a set of doctrines, passed down by the apostles, that was the truth. A bunch of heresies arose, including Gnosticism, and these were false teachings.

Pretty soon, Christians among the Roman world decide to unite under one central Church, again in the organizational sense. These people, who were not heretics, created the Catholic Church, which later came under heavy influence from the Roman government.

The "true" Christians probably started the Catholic Church; some "true" Christians may not have, but they were soon overwhlemed by the Catholic Church and its ensuing popularity.

What I'm suggesting is that the Catholic Church was initially made up of "true" Christians. I personally think that Catholic doctrines became perverted by pagan influences in the Roman government (ie- Constantine), but I'm weary of debate for now, so I won't fight the good fight over that one. ;D

For 1500 years, Christians did exist, the vast majority of them Roman Catholics. I am in no way trying to say that "all those Catholics were so blind for 1500 years" and that no Christians existed in the time in between.