Her.meneutics: Women Pastors Remain Scarce

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Pants-Wearing Woman Challenges Sudan's Decency Law | Main | Top 10 Most Popular Posts, July »

August 7, 2009

Women Pastors Remain Scarce

The Assemblies of God elected a woman to one of the highest leadership positions in the denomination, but women pastors remain few and far between.

Sarah Pulliam

Members of the Assemblies of God elected the first woman to the denomination's Executive Presbytery. The Ledger reports that 18 percent of the pastors in the denomination are women (where they have long allowed women to lead), but women have not been in the AG's top leadership.

The General Council elected Beth Grant who is a missionary in India with her husband where they run a ministry for prostitutes and sex-trade workers.

Grant said between the 1970s and 1990s, the percentage of ordained women in the Assemblies of God had gone down, and concerned leaders in the Assemblies asked her to chair a task force on the problem.

...In her address to the General Council, Grant admonished the male pastors present to encourage girls and young women to consider the ministry.

"You can say to little girls in your churches, 'God's hand is on you. God is calling you,'" she said.

Nationally, just 8 percent of all congregations are led by women, according to the National Congregations Study released earlier this summer.

Because many of the churches are small, about 5 percent of churchgoers attend a church that is led by a woman.

Here are more results from the survey:

-- 51 percent of churches do not allow women to become head pastors

--33 percent of churches do not allow women to preach

--37 percent of liberal congregations are led by a women (only 9 percent of congregations describe themselves as liberal)

Duke University professor Mark Chavez writes that the number of women seeking M.Div. degrees may have stabilized at about 30 percent after three decades of rapid increase.

Do you attend a church led by a woman? Would you?

Comments

No, Yes

Yes, Yes!

No, No!

Our senior pastor isn't a woman, but one of the associate pastors is (I go to a fairly large church). Yes, I would go to a church led by a woman. I do not pick my church based on the gender of the pastor.

I would definitely attend a church led by a woman. Though my church isn't, it has been before. I am a young woman, and aspire to one day become a pastor in the Methodist Church.

I want people who are opposed to women having leadership in a church to know that God calls both sexes to the ministry. I myself was called by God to the ministry at age 14.

Anyone can become a minister. Male or Female. God calls us as individuals, not genders.

No. Yes under normal circumstances. The small church we moved to from out of state had a female senior pastor who departed before our arrival. Since she voted for the Episcopal Church's General Convention assent to the election of Gene Robinson as bishop, my wife and I would not be attending there under her leadership had she stayed. The obstacle, however, is her acceptance and approval of homosexual practice, not the matter of her gender.

No. It is a direct violation of Scripture (1 Timothy 2:12 being the most explicit reference). Further, it seem that denominations that have ignored this command set themselves on a path to ordaining homosexuals. The Assembly of God churches are an exception to this so far, but I believe it too will succomb to cultural pressures sooner rather than later as society rapidly embraces the homosexual lifestyle. Once the authority of Scripture has been breached in one area, it becomes much easier to do so in another.

I reject the argument that accepting women as pastors will lead to accepting homosexuality; churches in the Pentecostal and Holiness traditions have had female leaders for over 100 years and that has not resulted. One reason is that they do accept the authority of Scripture, but interpret those passages differently; liberal churches reject the authority of Scripture in both areas. It is one thing to differ on interpretation; another to reject Scriptural authority.

That said, I do not believe it is biblical for a woman to pastor a church; I believe Scripture makes it clear that is a position reserved for men. I too was called to ministry as a teenager, and studied in the Assemblies of God with a goal of being ordained at some point. However, my understanding of Scripture changed. My call didn't - I am still called and involved in full-time ministry, but not as a pastor. There are many other vital ways to minister besides pastoring.

Ann,

I agree that women like yourself can and are called to ministries within the church and are all too often under utilized and appreciated as they faithfully fulfill their calling. I also believe, as do you, that pastoring or senior leadership positions within the church (elders for example) are reserved for males.

As for Pentecostal and Holiness churches having female leaders for over 100 years without leading to the acceptance of homosexuality. One hundred years out of a church history of 2000 years is a small fraction of time during which it was understood that the roles of men and women within the church (and home) were clearly defined; each with equal diginity and worth but created to fulfill different, but complementary roles.

My point is just because the Pentecostal and Holiness traditions have not yet succombed to the cultural pressure to elevate homosexuality to the level of heterosexuality is no guarantee they won't. I believe they will. Time will tell.

Perhaps the Pentecostals will, but we shouldn't criticize them for doing so until they do so. After all, every church is capable of succumbing to liberalism, legalism, or a variety of other heresies. Some churches fall to the left while others fall to the right.

I am actually surprised at how many churches support female leadership roles. The number's much larger than I expected.

As for the question: no, yes.

I think women play an important part as pastors and it shouldn't have anything to do with homosexuality.

Women have a big role in evangelism, orders in the church, charities, etcs. If ever there's a need for pastoring a church & men are unavailable, we should give them the opportunities. Should we not be ashamed when our God will use even rocks to glorify Him & the so called men are so few & stone hearted. I admire Godly women. Godbless.

The evangelicals who protest the loudest about ordaining women are the same churches who will allow single women to be missionaries who do the work of an elder/pastor overseas but heaven forbid don't come home and execute the same duties. We allow(passively) the women to be the primary Christian educators for our children(giving the mixed impression that Christianity is really a women's religion) and not aggressively going after men for these positions; as if we did that there would not be enough men to fill the "manly" jobs.

It is unfortunate that there is still unbiblical discrimination in the body of faith. When we discriminate because of race, gender, or any other human factor created by God, we are discounting God's greatness. As well, Jesus has given us many examples of empowering women to take the message to others. We will never be a nation under God with liberty and justice for all when we continue to bicker about who takes the message rather than promote delivery of the message itself by whoever will take it. Shame on us!

The Church of the Nazarene is another denomination that has ordained women from it's inception and in 2005 elected the first woman General Superintendent (the highest office in the church), Dr. Nina G. Gunter. She retired from that position this year.

It is clear to me that there is more scriptural support for women in ministry than there is against it. Unfortunately, even when a denomination supports the ordination of women, it does not mean that it is necessarily easy to obtain a pastorate. For as many churches who embrace women in leadership, there are many more who are not open to a female pastor and the Nazarene denomination does not appoint pastors as a general practice.

In the Church , women are called to do many things, but, calling a woman a 'pastor' is not in the NT and not in the Church. Now, in the west, reformist, neo-catholic genre where anything goes, ...really...does it matter. They do what they want, follow little Tradition and set up their own 'new' traditions. NO, women are not called to the 'pastorship' or the 'priesthood', period.

I am a woman. I have had a call on my life since I was 5yrs. of age. I am not a pastor of a church. However at age 66 I have been greatly used by God, teaching, in the local church Women's Ministries, home groups, christian counselling and encouraging young women and young men to follow the Lord. Several young people I have ministerd to over the years are now in full time ministry or very involved in public ministry of some kind. Is pastoring but not always on a public platform. If you are called God will always make room and a door to walk through. We should not have to be so very concerned about what the law is. The anointing always has first place.

NO, NO! I'll leave here as fast as I entered. But just one question to ponder; Can a woman be a husband??

Obviously this isn't a question that is going to be answered on a blog or in the comments section. I would like to say that it is more than the last 100 years. Wesley ordained women about 300 years ago. And there is some scriptural evidence that women were church leaders (maybe not pastors). But there is a women that is in Paul's list of apostles. Priscilla is almost always listed first (in order of prominence it was not being chivalrous). There are other examples but my point is to say regardless of your opinion on the matter, we should not just say ordination of women is recent and will lead to acceptance of homosexuality.

no. no. of course, if even ONE of the apostles chosen by Christ had been a woman, this wouldn't even be an issue. if you are part of a modern tradition that rejects the validity of apostolic succession, then this question is also completely up for grabs and is "validly" open to the personal interpretation of the reader of scripture within that tradition.

No. Yes, and I have. I have no problem with women pastors. Don't agree that it's not Biblical. The Timothy reference (1 Timothy 2:12) can be interpreted as a personal preference of the writer. Some of the strongest voices in opposition to marriage redefinition in my church have come from women. So, no, I don't agree that the homosexual issue necessarily follows. Scripture is much more specific on homosexuality than on female pastors.

No. Yes! Personally, I don't believe in having only ONE "leader" in the church, but believe that The Church, made up of all believers, should have a collaborative leadership TEAM made up of both women and men with equal "authority" or standing. I also don't buy the apostles argument nor do I understand scripture as forbidding women from positions of leadership within the church, a position which many theologians have successfully argued.

I would think if Jesus were concerned that the proper gender be used in the spreading of the Good News, He'd have been sure to have appeared to a man first after his resurrection.

Truth is not based on someones opinion but on God's word. 1 Tim 2:12 forbids women from excercising any type of authority over men in the church assembly. 1 Tim 3:2&5 shows clearly that church leadership is to be all men. Women can teach other women and children male and female but not from the position of a pastor.True Christians understand and obey scripture. Remember Mark 13:31 Jesus said;"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away". This verse means it is impossible for God's word to be negated, destroyed or altered in any way.

No offense, but just wondering why some would say they, "don't buy the apostles argument..." when speaking of women in church leadership. I'm certaily not saying that women can't speak, etc., but to lead a church, or become a bishop, or higher i just don't see in scripture. Again, Jesus chose 12 DUDES, even though He had many female followers and disciples. None of the women were ever chosen as apostles nor as any of their successors (see Acts for the continuing of the succession, the "ordaining", etc.). It hasn't been until the recent century or two (a spec in the timeline of Christendom) that women have been argued to be able to be pastors/shepherds. In the same way, Jesus never told men that they could now have babies simply because "every one is equal." Some things are for men, some things are for women, some are for both. The really foundational question here is: WHO has the authority to decide the matter? When both sides point to scripture to support their view, who decides? According to Jesus and Paul in the scriptures i read, such decisions appear to be left to "the church" (it's leaders, not a democratic vote of all believers). Virtually every disagreement i've seen within all things "Christian" end up coming down to the idea of ecclesial authority: who has it, how did they get it, and how do they pass it on to others? When you answer those questions, most other "opinions" fall into place rather easily. Case in point: why do we go to church on Sunday? Why do we celebrate Christmas? Further, who finally and officially selected the books to add to the bible? (and who take a few away over a thousand years later?)

"no. no. of course, if even ONE of the apostles chosen by Christ had been a woman, this wouldn't even be an issue."

Did Christ chose any Eskimo males as apostles? Any negroes? Surely, Eskimo and Negro males should be excluded from the priesthood, because Christ could have chosen to include them but instead chose to exclude them.

Funny how this logic is employed selectively by those looking for reasons to exclude women (while refusing to exclude males on the same grounds).

"Truth is not based on someones opinion but on God's word."

Yes, Scripture is Truth, but we are fallible humans who do not always interpret scripture correctly. That is where opinion comes in. I do not think that your interpretation of those passages is the right one, but clearly you do. That doesn't mean either of us has a weaker view of Scripture, it just means we interpret certain passages differently.

And that did not come out the way I intended it. I don't mean interpretation of Scripture comes down to opinion, I just mean that people can pray, read the passage, try to interpret correctly, and still come up with completely different interpretations. There is one interpretation that is right, but we as fallible human beings don't know and won't until heaven.

I would not attend a church that had a female pastor because Paul wrote to Timothy and said that the Elders of the church had to have one wife. The married man--not the married woman--married to one wife. Man has the headship in the hierarchy of authority in the church of Jesus Christ. God is consistent, and that theme is consistent throughout all of his creation from plants, to sea animals, to land animals, to human beings. God has not changed His mind, and I believe that if He said it, that's it. I have been called to ministry, and I have a strong teaching-shepherding gift, but I do not fool myself into thinking that I am called to be a pastor. And I think that is the mistake many women make. There are other outlets that need this gift. However, having said all of that, I also realize that there are many areas in the world where men are not responding to that call to be pastor, and there may be situations where women are the answer to the church need for pastoral leadership. But I do not think that applies to most of the women who have become pastors.

"Man has the headship in the hierarchy of authority in the church of Jesus Christ. God is consistent, and that theme is consistent throughout all of his creation from plants, to sea animals, to land animals, to human beings."

You do no that male animals are not always the ones in charge? Frequently they are, but for some species it is the females and for some neither. You can't say that either gender of plants are in charge, either. That doesn't even make sense. Also, people are not animals. We are created in the image of God, and thus arguments using examples from nature can't be used to apply to us.

The Senior Pastor of our church always says...that he believes that if a woman can carry the Word (as in Jesus Christ)...they she can carry the word of God (verbally)...

“It is clear to me that there is more scriptural support for women in ministry than there is against it” (Rev. Lisa).

Please site some the support you are speaking of.

“But there is a women (sic) that is in Paul’s list of apostles” (Adam S).

The verse referred to here is likely Romans 16:7. In the NASB it reads: “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”

There is some debate as to whether Junias is male or female. But let us assume Junias is female for the moment. Comprehensive research done in 2001 using the aid of computers revealed that the word “among” as used in the syntax of this verse likely means “to”. Thus, it would read “well known to the apostles” as translated by the English Standard Version. Further, the word “apostle” can also be translated as “messenger” as it is in John 13:16, 2 Corinthians 8:23, and Philippians 2:25.

Therefore, this verse is not definitive proof that women (or the men mentioned here) were apostles in the same way as Paul.

“The Timothy reference (1 Timothy 2:12) can be interpreted as a personal preference of the writer” (Truthmeister).

If this is true of this verse then all verses could be interpreted as a personal preference of the writer. Reading the Bible in such a way is dangerous and undermines its divine authorship as clearly revealed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: ”All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (NASU).

“Did Christ chose (sic) any Eskimo males as apostles? Any negroes? Surely, Eskimo and Negro males should be excluded from the priesthood, because Christ could have chosen to include them but instead chose to exclude them” (beatrice).

Christ did not choose any Eskimo males or negro males (or any other ethnic group) as apostles because Jesus came first to the house of Israel (the Jews) to establish His kingdom upon the earth (Matthew 15:24). However, once the Gospel began to spread among the Gentiles, non-Jewish males were immediately included in leadership positions within the church. In contrast to this both women and men were followers of Jesus from the beginning of His ministry. He could have chosen women to be included among the 12 apostles if He had wanted to making his exclusion of females a conscience decision.

“I don’t mean interpretation of Scripture comes down to opinion, I just mean that people can pray, read the passage, try to interpret correctly, and still come up with completely different interpretations. There is one interpretation that is right, but we as fallible human beings don’t know and won’t until heaven” (Anna).

It is true that Scripture can be interpreted more than one way. That is why it is necessary to study the Bible, read what others have written or said concerning it, and of course, pray for discernment. But I think what happens sometimes is our interpretations can be clouded by our own desires. We read the Bible using eisegesis (putting into the text something that is there) rather than using exegesis (pulling out of the text what it is actually saying). It is like the old saying: “I know what I believe. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

We have an obligation to understand as best we can what the Bible is trying to teach us. And on an issue as pivotal as women serving as senior pastors or as elders I believe we can know this side of eternity what the correct interpretation is.

This is a watershed issue. And how it is decided by Christians individually and as the collective Body of Christ will have profound effects upon our world.

quick test: is this working today? i couldn't post the other day...

Eskimos"? "Negroes"? (geez...and who says, "Negro" anymore????). But hey, if want to get into skin color, we can be sure Jesus didn't choose any white guys to be apostles either! He chose the men of his culture and area, and (i think) without any regard to skin color. By the way, Jesus certainly wasn't white either, but skin color doesn't matter to me and is off-topic. Actually, being so close to Africa, it is quite possible that some of the apostles WERE black, or at least African. We know that some of the early church fathers were. Some will now say, "in Christ there is now neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free," interpreting that to mean that girls can be priests/pastors. Could be...but upon really reading the passage, it had much more to do with how circumcision (available only to infant male Jews) has now been replaced by baptism (available to all, with no age limitation either).

Going just on statistical odds alone, it is highly improbably that it was simply chance that had Jesus picking 12 guys instead of 6 guys and 6 gals...or even ONE gal. If the sex of an apostle didn't matter, why wasn't there even 1 female apostle? Also, a priest/pastor is to be married to the church like Jesus is married to the Church. The church is the bride, the priest is the groom. I don't see how a woman can be a groom. Actually, this is all basic Christian history, but few of us modern Protestants have studied it, and thus we have endless questions thinking any opinion is as good as any other.

(cont.)

To equate this to Eskimos and Negroes is terrible logic. Do you have any comments about the main point of my post, that is, ecclesial authority: who has it, how did they get it, and how do they pass it on? Those are the foundational questions and once you have settled these questions, most others fall into place and you can move on to weightier things.

For the sola scripturite, he/she must find something in scripture where women were apostles, bishops, or priests, but i just don't see any. Yes, women were disciples, women apparently did some teaching/preaching, and some missionary work. Heck, a woman even gave birth to God, The King of the Kingdom (which also makes her the queen mother). But i don't see any woman leading a church or group of churches (a bishop), or higher in the holy scriptures. Do you? This should not be seen as a put-down to women at all. Glory in our differences. It's totally okay, right and good that we don't all do the same things. Of course, in our culture, the recent women's lib movement would have us think otherwise. By the way, why don't women compete with men in the Olympics? If they truly want equality and parity, i would say, "go for it!" women's groups! . . . and the crickets chirp at NOW.

"This is a watershed issue. And how it is decided by Christians individually and as the collective Body of Christ will have profound effects upon our world."

I'm not so sure it's a "watershed issue", but this last line is at the foundation of the entire issue: when do "we" (and who is the leader of "we" anyway?) allow issues to be decided by Christians individually, HOW do we decide as the "collective Body of Christ" (do we take a vote of the members of all denominations around the planet)?, and how have things been decided in the past (say, in the first few centuries of the church)?

HOW do we actually find answers to such questions when there are disagreements amongst individual believers, and even between differing denominations and even the "independent" churches? How did Jesus tell us such things should be decided? How did the apostles (ahem, the leaders of the church) decide such things in Acts?

...and i should've added at the very end: and where are the successors to those apostles today?

Jt, not that I agree with you, but I have a question for you. In terms of differences, if there are certain things women can't do, what are the things men can't do? When people talk about differences, generally they just mean to restrict women from certain things.

I'm of the opinion that most of the things we think of in terms of gender are social and that most of them run on a bell curve anyway.

Out of curiosity, what specific difference do you think keeps women from being able to lead in a church? I can understand your interpretation of Scripture, even if I disagree with it. I don't see how we get from that to talking about differences, though. No where in Scripture does it say women are incapable of leading.

Terry, I think that it is dangerous to claim that an issue like this one, based on interpretation of Scripture, is a watershed issue. Abortion is a watershed issue because it is about the sanctity of human life. The Truth of Scripture is a watershed issue because that is how God has revealed himself to us. Christ being both human and Divine, his death and resurrection, and his being the only way of salvation are watershed issues because they are at the core of the Christian faith.

The role of women in the church is not a watershed issue. It can be for those who don't base their views on Scripture, but that is because Scripture is the vital issue. I think that the church often had a tendency to make some issues more important than they are. I do believe that Scripture allows women to be pastors, but I would be okay attending a church that didn't. Some issues are crucial to the Christian faith. Others, while still important, should not be elevated to a position they do not belong in.

I'll go where ever they are teaching the Gospel...according to the Bible. I'm a woman...so I have no problems or restrictions receiving ministry from another woman. I feel pity for, and pray for frequently, men who are unable to receive the word of God, as might be spoken or taught by a woman, but if that is God's will, then so be it. In the end, even as a woman, it is imperative to obey. If that means I can only minister to other women and children, then so be it. God's will prevails despite this seeming "restriction"...so hopefully those women who are thwarted by the instructions of Paul can take refuge in their ability to minister to other women and to children! God bless, and thanks for listening. Glory to God!

Oh...and Jesus didn't choose the apostles...they were simply the only ones left after He ministered the truth..from 10,000. If a modern day minister, in ONE sermon, took a congregation from 10,000 members to only 12, he'd be FIRED immediately. We're not talking about men who were hand-plucked from their communities, except by the grace of God that allowed them to open their hearts to the truth...the true gospel. Women, traditionally at the time of Jesus' humanity were largely ignored spiritually, outside of pagan religion.

That being said, we don't base the argument that women can only minister (still ministering...only now, you're ministering according to God's will) to men on any physical or spiritual differences discernible to humans. Its based on Scripture...nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Instead of focusing on why we can't minister to a room full of men, why not pick up the load, the burden, the BLESSING that God has placed on us to minister to other women and children? Perhaps in His infinite wisdom and grace, He believed that women NEED to hear from other women, especially about motherhood, pregnancy, abortion, sex, grace, attitude, or any of the other multitudinous issues that face a Christian woman?? Instead of whining about what we "can't" do...why not revel in the blessing of what we've been called specifically to do...by GOD above!?

Good luck. Just my opinion. :) God bless!

Hi Anna, first of all, i like the way you disagree! Some folks can't do it quite so charitably. Second, if anyone wants to come to a forum where all things of the faith are talked about openly, from various perspectives, let me know and i'll send you a link to a little Yahoo forum. These blogs can get a big convoluted for a good discussion.

Anna said: "...I have a question for you. In terms of differences, if there are certain things women can't do, what are the things men can't do? When people talk about differences, generally they just mean to restrict women from certain things."

Well, men can't have babies (unless they live in Bend, OR!) : ) Really, i don't think it's so much that women CAN'T be pastors or bishops, it's just that it is not the way it was set up...at least, not according to the bible. Men can't be mothers, and women can't be fathers. Before saying all this, though, since CT tends to be more of a Protestant group than a general "Christian" group, most folks here adhere to the idea of "sola scriptura", so it is incumbent upon the sola scripturite to offer valid biblical evidence ONLY for the support of their ideas. I see nowhere in scripture where Jesus chose a woman to be a disciple (and He had 12 chances!). Nor do i see any of these apostles ordaining any women in Acts, nor is it mentioned anywhere that i know of. Again, this issue, as others, comes down to ecclesial authority. It's not so much MY opinion of what scripture says (and, by the way, how many valid opinions are there on scripture anyway?). Most folks here give little authority to the church (ANY church) anymore. Sure, we all have our denominations we go to, but we actually give that denomination hardly any authority in our lives. Not so in scripture.

Anna said: "I'm of the opinion that most of the things we think of in terms of gender are social and that most of them run on a bell curve anyway."

In my opinion, i think i mostly agree with your opinion! But, again, we're back to earthly ecclesial authority: WHO decides which things are culture-based (and therefore subject to change and interpretation within other cultures and other time periods). Sure, any one of us could say, "i think Jesus did not choose any women to be apostles because it was a cultural thing. Had He come today, he probably would've chose 6 men and 6 women." But then we are basing our theology on conjecture, aren't we? It seems to me the best way, even for a Protestant, to look at this would have to be to go a little outside the bible and look at the early church. How did THEY "interpret" scripture on these matters? Again, the conclusion is the same: only male successors to the apostles. Only male priests. I think the deeper theological reasons are clear, though it gets a bit muddled for a Protestant. Priests/bishops are the successors to the apostles, who were told, "when they hear you, they hear Me. When they reject you, they reject Me." Traditional Christianity has always held that priests/bishops are "in the person of Christ" (in persona Christi) during the church service (the "mass" for Catholic Christians). Why? Well, because Jesus said so...in the bible. Most Protestants no longer believe that. . . so the waters get a bit muddied when trying to figure out things like this. Who has the authority to answer such questions? The more i look into it, i think Catholics actually follow more of the bible than do Protestants.

More to Anna later, if i have time...

Kim, your post was the first time i had ever heard such a thing postulated (and i'm assuming you weren't joking?):

"Oh...and Jesus didn't choose the apostles...they were simply the only ones left after He ministered the truth..from 10,000. If a modern day minister, in ONE sermon, took a congregation from 10,000 members to only 12, he'd be FIRED immediately. We're not talking about men who were hand-plucked from their communities, except by the grace of God that allowed them to open their hearts to the truth...the true gospel."

Where did you ever get such an idea? Which of the four gospels gave you this picture. I'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just saying that i don't see it. I see no congregation of 10,000, nor do i see just 12 guys left. What i DO see is that the four gospels treat the calling of the 12 a little differently. Either way, Peter is almost always the first one mentioned, as well as the only one to get his name changed by Jesus. Also, the 12 are often referred to in terms of Peter and he often speaks for the group.

Kim said: "Women, traditionally at the time of Jesus' humanity were largely ignored spiritually, outside of pagan religion."

That is pretty true, as far as i know, but we also know that Jesus had MANY women disciples and followers...and they don't seem to be treated as second class citizens by Him. In fact, several are held up as great examples of faith. His mother being chief among them. Look at the incredible faith she exhibits in the Magnificat!

Also, it seems there are almost two different ideas going through this blog. One is about women being the LEADERS of a church, more specifically, being a pastor/priest or bishop over an area. The other is about women simply teaching within a church. I believe they are two different issues and i have no quarrel with a woman teaching, nor has the church historically.

Anna said: "Out of curiosity, what specific difference do you think keeps women from being able to lead in a church?"

Again, "lead in a church" (as in lead a Sunday School class in church?), or actually lead a church (as in the role of pastor/shepherd/priest?). To the first i say, "nothing". To the second, i would only restate what i've already said here several times.

Anna: "I can understand your interpretation of Scripture, even if I disagree with it."

And we come right back to the foundational question for all these issues: WHO decides? Let us not forget St. Paul's words about division when he wrote to the Corinthians (NOTE: he didn't just say, "its' okay to agree to disagree.")

Anna: "Abortion is a watershed issue because it is about the sanctity of human life."

While i agree wholeheartedly with your statement, WHO decides what are "watershed issues" in Christendom?

Anna: "The Truth of Scripture is a watershed issue because that is how God has revealed himself to us."

: ) but is the written word of God the ONLY way God has revealed Himself to us? What did the early church use for the decades and centuries before the New Testament was written, decided upon, and codified? What about the Living Word? What about "the church", which is the Bride of that Living Word...and the two are One?

Anna: "I do believe that Scripture allows women to be pastors, . . ."

Chapter and verse?

Anna: :Some issues are crucial to the Christian faith. Others, while still important, should not be elevated to a position they do not belong in."

And once again, WHO decides the list of "essentials" and the "non-essentials" for Christendom?

JT, First off, I also like the way you disagree. I appreciate you listening and interacting with what I say.

Okay, first off, I'm not sure I necessarily think that the disciples were the only model for who and how the church is lead. The disciples were special, a specific group set apart for a specific mission. Once we get to the early church, they weren't the only ones in leadership. James, the brother of Jesus, was clearly high up, and some would even argue that he, rather than Peter, was actually leading the church.

I think we do see examples of women, while not necessarily at the very top, pretty high up, especially considering the culture of the time. I'm not sure I buy your explanation about Junia, so I would say she's considered an apostle. Phoebe is mentioned as a deacon. Priscilla is listed as a fellow worker, which can be interpreted different ways, but it is worth noting that her name is always listed before her husbands.

I think we need to take into account the culture of the time. If we do so, I think the picture we get from Scripture is that the Gospel is paramount. Nothing that may hinder its spread should be allowed. Therefore, while women are acceptable as preachers, they should not be in situations where they might block people from coming to Christ. With that in mind, I'd say that today, if anything, the restricting of women blocks people's interest in Christ rather than their inclusion.

As for who decides the essential issues, I'd say God does. Scripture is clear that the essential issue is the Gospel. What is most important is God, who he is, what he did for us, how he reveals himself to us, our sin, and how we may be saved. All other issues are secondary.

When Paul spoke of division, I don't think he was saying that everyone needed to agree. Even then, Christians disagreed on things. What is important is maintaining unity even in the midst of disagreement. We are all Christians, united as children of God. We can disagree in love as long as we aren't using our disagreement to build up walls of division.

I think people on both sides of this argument have forgotten this. We have taken to demonizing each other, misrepresenting what others say, and making it out that the other side is horrible (Egalitarians are liberal, Complementarians are oppressive). Certainly those descriptions would apply to some on each side, but not to everyone.

JT "but is the written word of God the ONLY way God has revealed Himself to us? What did the early church use for the decades and centuries before the New Testament was written, decided upon, and codified? What about the Living Word? What about "the church", which is the Bride of that Living Word...and the two are One?"

God reveals himself in Scripture, in Jesus, and in nature. We know about Jesus through Scripture. As fallen human beings, we cannot find God through nature without Scripture to tell us he is there. To a certain extent, God reveals himself to the world through the church, but the church is human and therefore full of sin. The church shows God when it uses the Scripture to find out what it should be doing to spread God. It all comes back to the Word.

Another thought: I think that we have misunderstood what leadership meant when the Scriptures were written. When Paul was writing his letters, authority was not yet centralized. The one pastor/elder/priest as head of a specific church with complete authority was not the way things were done. That sort of centralized authority came later out of necessity. We can see it starting in Scripture, but that is not necessarily what Paul was talking about in passages where he talks about church leadership.

We can't really split positions. If women aren't allowed to lead, they aren't allowed in any leadership position. If they are allowed, they are allowed in every position. I don't think there is a Scriptural basis for the divide.

I think often we take Scripture out of context. We need to pay attention to the whole of Scripture and to the culture and time to which it was written. Women simply didn't have the freedom we enjoy today. It was absolutely revolutionary that Jesus allowed women to be taught at all and to follow him. Jesus bucked tradition, but only so far. He still ministered to a specific time, and his priority was the spread of his message. It was the same with the early church. Women were allowed revolutionary things, but the church had to make the spread of the Gospel primary. Also, the early church leaders were themselves members of that time and culture.

Previous post was me as well. Forgot to put information in.

Kim: "That being said, we don't base the argument that women can only minister (still ministering...only now, you're ministering according to God's will) to men on any physical or spiritual differences discernible to humans. Its based on Scripture...nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Instead of focusing on why we can't minister to a room full of men, why not pick up the load, the burden, the BLESSING that God has placed on us to minister to other women and children? Perhaps in His infinite wisdom and grace, He believed that women NEED to hear from other women, especially about motherhood, pregnancy, abortion, sex, grace, attitude, or any of the other multitudinous issues that face a Christian woman?? Instead of whining about what we "can't" do...why not revel in the blessing of what we've been called specifically to do...by GOD above!?"

The problem with this is that just as women need to hear from both men and women, so do men need to hear from both men and women. We see things differently, whether that is innate or cultural, and we each value both from the views of others of our own gender and from those of the other gender. Scripture says that iron sharpens iron, and we need the challenge of both genders in our lives. Men lose out if the don't hear the challenges women can bring to their lives, and women lose out by not being able to bring their views to the table.

Also, it doesn't make sense to me that women can teach male children but not men. Children are the ones who's opinions are forming, who are learning about God. If women were unsuitable for teaching men, why would they be suitable for teaching children.

I attend a church were there is are a couple of women's pastors. (Its a large church.) One of the pastors is an executive presbyter in our district. She heads up a number of ministries. The other female pastor is the Women's Pastor. Women are encouraged to be licensed through the denomination by the bible college on campus. However, other than the women's pastor, I have not seen the church hire a woman for a pastoral position in the years I have been at the church and have not heard a woman guest speaker in the main service except one who had achieved a great deal of fame. I wonder about the glass ceiling in the church. I can see there are cracks, but how deep do they go? I am so pleased with the A/G's actions. I think that it will take many years before local congregations see the difference.

I would attend a church with a senior pastor who was a woman.

Hi Anna,

This is a good conversation. It does seem, though, that not many here are dealing with the basic foundation that would help us answer the question as to whether women should be pastors (and therefore priests, bishops, and even popes). Also below is one that is yet unanswered:

Anna: "I do believe that Scripture allows women to be pastors, . . ."

jt: Chapter and verse?

Of course, this is assuming you adhere to sola scriptura. If so, then i do think you need a very strong case from scripture alone to support your position. If not, then you would be free to look at the teachings of "the Church" (your church, tradition, or movement) in light of scripture.

(i should've added to my previous post, that again, i believe the "basic foundation" of this discussion is "who has the authority to decide the matter for the church, for Christendom?"

Continuing...

Anna said: "I'm not sure I buy your explanation about Junia, so I would say she's considered an apostle. Phoebe is mentioned as a deacon. Priscilla is listed as a fellow worker, which can be interpreted different ways, but it is worth noting that her name is always listed before her husbands."

i don't recall writing anything about Junia, nor do i even know who that is. "Deacon" is one thing, though in other places Paul says a deacon is to have only one wife...which seems to preclude women from holding that position...unless we see Paul as not offering an exhaustive list of qualifications (which i think is highly likely). After all, very few, (if any!) doctrines or disciplines are expressly spelled out in scripture alone. i.e., see if anyone here can find these clearly defined in scripture...and so clearly that there would be no disagreement (esp. if "sola scriptura" is a valid Christian concept):

- sola scriptura itself;
- the defintion of the doctrine of the trinity;
- the definition and efficaciousness of baptism and all the other sacraments;
- the change to now worship on Sunday instead of the Sabbath (which was to be a lasting ordinance forever;
- the command to celebrate Christ's Masse, Easter, Lent, or any other Christian Holy Day;
- even moreso, can you find a listing of the books of the bible that were to be added to the Old Testament?

To this list we could add: are women to be pastors and priests?

How would folks on this blog answer these questions? Again, who has the authority to make these decisions in Christendom? Could we answer that it would be the same people/"men" who had the authority to add 27 books to what was then "scripture"? Who has such authority today?

Anna said: " . . . I think the picture we get from Scripture is that the Gospel is paramount. Nothing that may hinder its spread should be allowed. Therefore, while women are acceptable as preachers, they should not be in situations where they might block people from coming to Christ. With that in mind, I'd say that today, if anything, the restricting of women blocks people's interest in Christ rather than their inclusion."

Did you come up with this premise from scripture alone?

Anna said: "As for who decides the essential issues, I'd say God does."

: ) ah yes... the "Sunday School answer" (no offense to you at all, just a comment). So we come back 'round the circle... what do we do then when one person firmly believes God has "told them" one thing, while another person is firm that God "told them" something 180 degrees different? Do you believe God works that way? This would then lead us into a completely different, though totally related, discussion about what exactly is that list of "essentials" and "non-essentials"? Ironically enough, each new denomination that is formed seems to come up with their own new list...and if we all had the same list...why form a new denomination in the first place? Wouldn't that mean we are dividing over non-essentials?

Anna said: "Scripture is clear that the essential issue is the Gospel. What is most important is God, who he is, what he did for us, how he reveals himself to us, our sin, and how we may be saved. All other issues are secondary."

: ) Yes, but again, therein lies much personal interpretation. What exactly IS "the Gospel"? How DOES He reveal Himself to us? Does He do it through the bible alone? Through the leaders of our Church (the Bride of Christ)? Through other people? Through nature? Through objects? And then, how may we be saved? Is it via "faith alone" (taught nowhere in scripture)? Faith working together with good works (i.e., a holy lifestyle), our perseverance to the end...what? Are the sacraments included in the "essentials", or are they secondary? Are a person's beliefs about which books of the bible should or should not be included essential or secondary?

Though it might sound like it, I'm not arguing. I'm simply throwing in some ideas to think about. Too often i think we have gotten used to giving the "Sunday School answer", though i more often refer these as "spiritual soundbites". I think if we dig and think a little deeper, we will all grow into unity in the body of Christ. Until then, we will all be separated by our factions and sects. (imho)

Anna said: "When Paul spoke of division, I don't think he was saying that everyone needed to agree."

I think you would need scriptural support for this, because i'm pretty sure the opposite is true. In 1 Cor. 11, Paul says: "18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." Here Paul is specifically talking about abuse of the Eucharist, but i do not see him teaching that it is okay to disagree about such matters. Also (and here's another blow to sola scriptura), how did the Corinthians even KNOW they were supposed to observe the Eucharist? They obviously didn't read about it scripture...they had to be taught in person. Anyway, that leads to another great discussion! : )

Anna said: "Even then, Christians disagreed on things. What is important is maintaining unity even in the midst of disagreement. We are all Christians, united as children of God. We can disagree in love as long as we aren't using our disagreement to build up walls of division."

I agree wholeheartedly! So you would agree then that to leave one church and start another is a bad thing?

Anonymous said:
"JT said: "but is the written word of God the ONLY way God has revealed Himself to us? What did the early church use for the decades and centuries before the New Testament was written, decided upon, and codified? What about the Living Word? What about "the church", which is the Bride of that Living Word...and the two are One?"

jt said: You have basically run back around in a circle in answering my questions. Again, who or what was the authority before the NT was written, chosen, and canonized in the early church? I agree the church is human, but i would beg to differ that it is "full of sin". Recall that we are taught (by the church and by the written word of God) that we are to be without sin. Jesus healed, and then said, "go and sin no more". If we do not believe living without sin (at some point) is not possible, then we might as well throw away this whole thing called, "Christianity". I think a more "orthodox" view of "the Church" would be to see her as a "perfect Church filled with imperfect people." Do you believe that Jesus and His Church are "One"? Also, remember, Jesus said that the church He built on Peter/rock would not have the gates of hell prevail against her. That would mean that the Church that was started 2,000 years ago is still alive and kicking...and, yes, still filled with imperfect people, but following Jesus Christ to become "perfect", without blemish or spot.

Anonymous said: "Another thought: I think that we have misunderstood what leadership meant when the Scriptures were written. When Paul was writing his letters, authority was not yet centralized. The one pastor/elder/priest as head of a specific church with complete authority was not the way things were done. That sort of centralized authority came later out of necessity. We can see it starting in Scripture, but that is not necessarily what Paul was talking about in passages where he talks about church leadership."

I hate to be sounding like such a contrarian here, but authority was already quite centralized in the book of Acts. (As a sidenote, do a quick word search on "Simon" and "Peter" and see how many "first's" and "only's" you find regarding him. The list will be quite long!). The Council of Jerusalem was quite centralized, making decisions as lead by the Holy Spirit, and sending out apostles to teach the new churches. Acts 16:4 gives a quick short summary of this, also showing us that Paul certainly was not speaking merely on his own accord.

"Bishops"? Well, we see with Timothy and Titus that Paul had appointed/ordained them to appoint elders "in all the churches in all the towns" that they were in charge of. A very "bishop-like" job description, don't you think? And so Paul would've been in authority over them (that is, Tim, Titus, and presumably others), and in turn Paul was under the authority of the Council at Jerusalem. Tradition and history point to James being the bishop of Jerusalem, with Peter weighing in quite heavily on matters, and whose bishopric would be saved for the heart of the lion's den - Rome. Early church fathers and writers are quite unanimous that once Peter was in Rome, his bishopric was the "bishop of bishops". Quite centralized from the get-go...starting, it seems, in Matthew 16 (also see Isaiah 22 for a foreshadowing of this event.)

Anonymous said: "We can't really split positions. If women aren't allowed to lead, they aren't allowed in any leadership position. If they are allowed, they are allowed in every position."

What is your scripture for such a stance?

Meh....can't we all just move on? Men...do your thing. Women...do your thing. Who cares? Honestly...who cares? In the big scheme of things, this is SO not the biggest issue. I am a woman pastor. I left the church because this whole issue was eating away at my heart. And yet, I still beleive this will all come out in the wash. Who cares?

I will say this...those who claim that women should not have spiritual authority over men have a hard time dancing around the fact that many of the most influential missionaries in history have been women. So...it is okay for a woman to have spiritual authority over the heathens in another country but it becomes wrong when she tries to teach a white man in North America?

Does anyone else think that is more than a little racist?

lisa, it seems you are the only one who chose to turn this into a racial thing. remember, there weren't many (any?) white folks in the bible (no, not even Jesus), so your "white thing" is quite off the mark.

the reason people are discussing the issue here is because of the article that brought up the question. you are right though, there are far more important things to discuss...like WHO decides all these matters? what are your thoughts on that larger question of earthly ecclesial authority?

If anyone can be so arrogant as to even suggest that women cannot or should not be ministers and/or pastors, then I would suggest that these would talk to God and tell Him that He made a mistake in calling me into the ministry and pastorate. And also tell him that those women of the Old and New Testatments that He used in His service are to be dismissed and tell Him that the preachers, exhorters, forth-tellers who have spread His Word are to be dismissed. Even The Apostle Paul in the culture of his day understood and The Word continues to tell us that there is neither male nor female....is this so hard to get?

Ladrev,

Arrogant? Who is being arrogant here? You are the one saying “I don’t care what the Bible says, I have decided that I am ‘called’ and therefore I am doing what I want”. May I suggest that YOU talk to God and tell Him that He made a mistake in the Bible and that He needs to publish a correction and apology because anyone who thinks that Galatians 3:28 is speaking about gender roles in the church clearly has been called as a “pastor”.

Arthur, touche! It seems like everyone who preaches is sure they were called to it. I'm not so sure anymore...

The church of Thyatira in Rev 2:20 was a church who the Lord was not happy with. Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach. http://relijournal.com/christianity/women-pastors-in-charge-and-out-of-order-from-the-theologians-corner/

I am a pastor, prophetess, and teacher under the covering of my husband who is an apostle, pastor and teacher of the church that God would call us to. We are non-denominational, however our upbringing was in the Pentecostal/Apostolic faith. We never had an argument or an inkling that God hadn't ordained (by His own mouth) women to lead, speak, preach and teach. In my own research in looking for truth despite my upbringing, but needing to be a defender of truth and to rightly divide the word, I sought out to research for myself. We believe that the ministry of the apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher are gifts of leadership as well as bishops, elders and deacons (who care for the church), yet we are all ministers, witnesses and servants of Christ. It is man that add the "hierachy" and power struggle, though we are all called to serve. Please be reminded that the apostle Paul was a follower of Christ, Christ is the son of God. Our first mention of a women's role/purpose/plan comes from the mouth of God Himself (Genesis 1:26-27). Then there is where we must start. She was a part of "man" / female that was given "dominion" - already she is given rule and authority along with the man Adam. She the woman / female was also called a "help meet", and this too is from the mouth of God. The female Adam was called a help meet before there was a society, a church (Catholic or Protestant), before there were apostles, prophets, law, children, dishes, dinner, Sunday school, preachers etc. What am I saying, that our first understanding of who and what we are comes from God Himself. What exactly was Even to help Adam with. She was to help him with his God given assignment from God. Since the apostle Paul was a follower of Christ, then we must look at Christ. Our first command to "teach" (Matthew), "preach" (Mark) comes from the words of Christ. To be more specific, is to preach / teach the gospel and to be witnesses - to declare, to publish the good news of the kingdom. In the church, on the missionary field, on the pulpit, the church is not the building or our Sunday services, but it is every born again, spirit-filled believer. Acts 2, all were filled with the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit was given to all, to fulfil this very task among other things. Lastly, because this can become quite long, I want to encourage all women leaders that have been called by God you also must understand the word "usurp". To be a leader in the "ecclesia" of God does not take away the natural headship or authority from a man. It does not say that women cannot have authority over the man, but that she is not to "usurp" the authority of a man. No matter what position that I am assigned to, my husband is still my head and husband and covering and Christ is still his head - it doesn't change. Throughout scriptures you also see God using women leading over his people, ie. Prophetess/judge Deborah who was the "wife" of Lapidoth, yet ruled over Israel for 40 years. Her ruling authority did not remove Lapidoth from his headship. Her authority was not only her respected position, but respected by the men - Barak understood that she was anointed with the WORD from God, which is the real authority. Lastly, I teach indebt about this subject, not my personal emotional feelings but from the Word of God. Paul's statements regarding women does not alter the original plan of God as we see throughout scripture, nor does the role of the women within the plan of God start or end with apostle Paul's 1 Cor, 1Tim letters. His statements must "add" to what God the Father and Christ has already put in place. I must end here, but you must begin from the beginning and not create a doctrine from letters intended to correct a behavior - remember Paul noted Adam/Eve, Abraham and Sarah. You must go back and study what was "it" that caused Paul to use these couples to defend what he was saying. Eve had authority, God gave her "dominion" over everything that He created along with man / Adam. Her "voice" to obey the serpant over God and her husband, and disobey God caused them to receive the punishment of death...Paul's statement "Eve, the women was deceived"...As he refers to Abraham and Sarah...Sarah respected her husband, yet when she "voiced" her opinion to rid of Hagar and Ishmael, though he was greatly grieved, God instructed Him to "listen" to the voice of his wife. One in disobedience, the other, obedient. Again, women already was given authority/dominion and throughout scriptures was used to lead God's people, was used to declare Christ's birth, ministry, and resurrection. If we just use all of the scriptures to understand the total and complete wisdom from God, we will get the correct answer because it is in the Word of God.
>Luv to all and be encouraged in the faith.

I , after much study of this topic stand in the middle and can see the interpretation BOTH ways. I believe that the gifts and calling of God are given to those whom God see's is a willing tool in His hand. The verses in Timothy are being taken out of context. Being gifted in administration, preaching and teaching is not just for men.. woman are quite gifted in this area as well. As long as the heart is submitted to God He will lead the person into their calling and ministry. I am a conservitive dispensationalist with a Dr in theology.. I stand on eternal security and do not hold to Lordship salvation... yet I do agree that woman in leadership is Gods plan and that God would never violate his own will.. If woman were prophets and teachers.. then God can still and does accept and use them in unique ways.

The person who stated that Wesley ordained women 300 years ago is incorrect. Wesley did not allow women to preach publicly. Below is from his response to Robert Barclay's writing and the difference between Quakers and Methodists: (Wesley's words are in bold. Robert Barclay's words are italicized)

"We judge it no ways unlawful, for a woman to preach in the assemblies of God's people."

In this there is a manifest difference. For the apostle Paul saith expressly, 'Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church 1 Corinthians 14:34-45

Robert Barclay indeed says, "Paul here only reproves the inconsiderate and talkative women." But the text says no such thing. It evidently speaks of women in general. Again, the apostle Paul saith to Timothy, 'Let your women learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, (which public teaching necessarily implies,): but to be in silence,' (1 Timothy 2:11-12). To this Robert Barclay makes only that harmless reply; "We think this is not any ways repugnant to this doctrine." Not repugnant to this, 'I do not suffer a woman to teach!' Then I know not what is.

"But a woman 'laboroured with Paul in the work of the Gospel.'" Yea! but not in the way he had himself expressly forbidden.

"But Joel foretold, 'Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.' And 'Philip had four daughters which prophesied.' And the apostle himself directs women to prophesy; only with their 'heads covered.'" Very good. But how do you prove that prophesying in any of these places means preaching?

The argument frequently goes, “God does not contradict Himself; therefore, women cannot lead.” But the problem is that on the surface God has appeared to contradict Himself, and we need to make sense of it in a way that shows His abundant soundness of mind. We cannot arbitrarily choose a couple of limiting passages as the guide by which we read the rest of New Testament teaching unless the rest of New Testament teaching really bolsters the limitation of women. We need to look for themes and see how or if all the rest of the passages can make sense in light of those themes.

The basic tenor of the New Testament is one of the increasing release of women both in Jesus’ ministry and beyond. The twelve intimate disciples were indeed men, and this selection arguably served a number of practical, prophetic, and figurative purposes. But then we don’t expect all leaders today to be Jews as they were. Paul declares the distinction between male and female torn down in the sight of Christ and declares them all heirs of the promise (Galatians 3:26-29). He assumes that women are prophesying and praying ( 1 Corinthians 11:5) not far from apparently shutting them up (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). How do we make sense of such a discrepancy within the same letter? He lists female leaders (e.g., Romans 16) and doesn’t apologize for their appearance as though no man were available. Indeed, the most frequently mentioned female leader in the New Testament, Priscilla, is given preference in mention to her husband who is also a teacher. The answers to the contradictions, therefore, must lie in the situations. And there are very compelling looks at the language and historical context of all “difficult” passages in books such as Craig Keener’s Paul, Women & Wives. A somewhat less studious read is Why Not Women? by Youth With a Mission founder, Loren Cunningham, and David Joel Hamilton with Janice Rodgers.

No and YES from me!

Allow me to also highlight some of the female learners and leaders of the New Testament. It is not that we see an equal participation of women in ministry in the Bible; indeed, given the conflicting demands on women’s lives and the obstacles to their entrance into leadership, I do not particularly expect to see their numbers equal that of men in the near future either, although, “The women who proclaim the good tidings are a great host” (Psalm 68:11, NASB). But we do see their suitability for leadership, their calling, and their commendation in leadership:

Mary is approved for presuming to be a disciple, as sitting at Jesus’ feet would signify culturally, even to the neglect of her womanly chores (Luke 10:39). The women at the tomb were quite arguably the first commissioned evangelists for the greatest, freshest news in history despite the fact that their testimony would hold no weight in the courts of the day (Matthew 28:5-9; John 20:17; Luke 24:5-10). Likewise, Jesus didn’t exactly chastise the woman at the well for becoming an evangelist to the men in her village (John 4). It would seem to be precisely what He had in mind as He supped on the “food” of the Father’s will.

Philip the evangelist had four unmarried daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:8-9). Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, called Philip’s four daughters “great luminaries” of the ancient Church, suggesting considerable impact beyond that of the general gift of prophecy used by body-members one to another. Based on his testimony and their scriptural mention, we might assume that these were considered to hold the “office” of responsibility of prophet. Regardless, Deborah (Judges 4-5) and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22) of the Old Testament are already examples of that. Huldah was notably sought out by the priests (whom one might expect to know something themselves) to explain the scriptures despite the fact that Jeremiah would have been nearby.

Nympha is frequently regarded to be the pastor of the church meeting in her house as would have made cultural sense (Colossians 4:15). Although not mentioned in scripture, “Within the lifetime of the Apostle John, Governor Pliny tortured two women ministers as the leaders of a congregation in Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor, during the reign of Emperor Trajan (A.D. 98-117),” whether these were pastors or apostles. Priscilla, along with her husband, was a teacher of substantial ability. Her name typically appears first, suggesting a greater grace on her life that Paul and the church of his day did not hesitate to recognize (Acts 18: 2, 18-19, 26; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 16:19; 2 Timothy 4:19). We also specifically see her teaching a man who would later become an apostle, Apollos (Acts 18:24-26). Presumably, Paul had sat under her teaching as well before offering such commendations, for he co-labored with them. Priscilla and her husband were not only teachers but pastors, again with Priscilla’s name receiving counter-cultural emphasis in the relevant passage (Romans 16:5, following the same historical-cultural understanding of what it would have meant to host a church as we see for Nympha).

Phoebe was a deacon (Romans 16:1). This is a term which Paul actually uses for himself and for Apollos in 1 Corinthians 3:5. On a point like this some might argue that a deacon is supposed to be a husband of one wife, therefore disqualifying her from this title and yielding a different translation. However, for qualifications to be written in the normative gender need not be an impediment, particularly if we are given an example of a female fulfilling the role. Furthermore, see the similarities in the qualifications listed for “deacons” and for “women” in 1 Timothy 3:8-11, quite possibly referencing female deacons, not deacon’s wives (the Greek does not specify “wives”). Additionally, my friend Eric points out that the masculine term for deacon is used in Romans 16:1, not the feminine, which strengthens the notion that a title was intended. The feminine would suffice as a title, even as female prophets were called by the feminine of “prophet,” but it seems incredible that the feminine would not be used in accord with her gender if she was simply a “servant” of the church. A title makes some sense of the application of the masculine normative to a woman. Eric also reminds me not to neglect some of the untitled but commended women of Romans 16: Tryphaena and Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus’ mother (who, if this is the same Rufus who was the son of Simon the Cyrene, was likely a black woman; Paul is claiming her to be like a mother to him), Julia, and Nerea’s sister.

An apostle named Junia(s) appears in Romans 16:7. There is some debate over whether Junia(s) is a woman and, if so, if she is an apostle or is simply of repute to those who are apostles. It would seem that after awhile translators and copiers of the New Testament began to masculinize the feminine name by changing the ending. As for her description, there may be room for more than one reading of the phrase’s intent. I will not claim to have heard every last word on this and to know which ones are most authoritative. I will say, however, that the one time I heard her mentioned in a church where they see a need to limit the women’s roles, the pastor freely acknowledged that the best scholarship makes her both a woman and an apostle. However, he is among those who consider “apostle” to only mean a missionary evangelist, and so there was little at stake for him in acknowledging her. But such a respected resource on five-fold understanding (according to charismatic ideologies) and the authority that the office would, therefore, entail, as Bill Hamon lists her as a woman apostle. John Chrysostom and early Church fathers also took the Greek to mean she was an apostle.

The only leadership role in which I have not yet listed a woman is elder. It is possible that there are no examples of female elders in the New Testament. However, some would point to 1 Timothy for a likelihood.

This one takes a little explaining and is not a plain text reading according to our day and age although it arguably would have been a plain text reading in both the ancient Greek and Hebrew world. One of the elementary principles of reading the epistles (the letters to churches and individuals) which scholars employ—one which I claim to have no real ease of recognizing, having not yet trained my mind that way—is a common literary technique of the day called a chiasm or inverted parallelism. Track with me for just a minute. In this technique, which is so widely used in the New Testament as to seem to be everywhere, subjects are introduced and discussed in the shape of an archway with corresponding related points on each side of the archway across from one another. The order of the writing itself follows the one base of the arch up to the top and around down to the other side.

In other words, the related points are not exactly in order as we define order, for in contemporary speech we would go from one point to the point directly across from it that interacts with it on the other side of the archway. Rather, “This particular rhetorical device presents a series of ideas, comes to a climax and then repeats the series backwards.” Through recognition of this technique, scholars routinely find a greater clarity on authorial intent. This is not some obscure way of teasing out meanings that are not there but, rather, a recognition and application of a reading (and listening) device that was very natural to people of the time.

The short of its application for 1 Timothy is that some would say that “The two topics of ‘helpful elders’ and ‘difficult elders’ appear in both [5:17-20 and 4:12-5:2]” which are set up as points opposite one another in the middle of a chiasmic archway.

In each case the good elders are mentioned first and the difficult elders second. Thus [these two paragraphs] can be seen as parallel discussions of ministry. If this is true, then the presbuteras in 5:2 are women elders ordained and engaged in ministry in Timothy’s congregation.

Presbuteras is the feminine form of the word utilized for elders, in some denominations called “presbyters.” Like so many of the “titled” positions, this one has a more mundane meaning, depending on context. So it could also just mean old women, but if any word were to appear in the New Testament for female elders, this would be it. If this chiasm holds true, then the writer of the letter is discussing some male (5:1) and female (5:2) elders among the elders who had released Timothy in a particular ministry call (4:14).

References:
Aida Besancon Spencer, “A Cloud of Female Witnesses: Women Leaders in the New Testament” pg. 24, Priscilla Papers, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn 2009

pg 4-5 “Women in the New Testament:
A Middle Eastern Cultural View” Kenneth E. Bailey from Theology Matters Vol 6/No1 Jan/Feb 2000

And since the topic of women needing to be "covered" by a husband is coming up in this thread, I will add a post on that:

(As a lead-in, I hasten to add that the Hebrew for "help meet" is far from suggesting any degree of inferiority or of secondary service. This word "helper" is never used that way in scripture and, in fact, is usually used of God. Specifically, it is used of God when He comes as the military assistant of Israel. Indeed, the "helper" is so strong in all of these other scriptural uses as to seem the dominant partner with the helped one as the weak. This is where the "meet" of Genesis is so useful in pointing us to intent--it means "face to face like unto Him" referring to the intimacy and equality of being "face to face." That is, kenegedo, where “ke” means “like as,” the “o” means “him,” and the “neged” means “face to face” or vis a vis.)

Among conservative evangelicals who hold the Word as inerrant, there are actually two radically different ways of approaching the marriage partnership, each a careful interpretation of scripture’s intent in the bearer’s eyes. All of you are probably familiar with the scenario where the husband is necessarily considered the leader. Typically, the language of this camp is such that the wife serves to fulfill her husband’s calling. Nonetheless, some in this camp consider his position a very strong rule, while others think he should not give her commands or make all decisions solo but only pull out his trump card after listening carefully to his wife and debating.

What might surprise some is that even the male-leadership perspective on marriage can yield wives in powerful leadership positions in the Church or society without undermining the nature of the relationship envisioned, provided the husband approaches his leadership from a “soft” angle with a humble servant heart and a desire to see her active in the fullness of her calling. No doubt, it would take a secure man, moreover, one who is willing to put up with some of the scorn she will experience as a woman entering a field many question. But it can be done. Prophets Cindy Jacobs and Jane Hamon are examples of women who believe their husbands have the final authority in the sphere of the home. However, even in the instance where Cindy Jacob’s husband works with her in the ministry they have co-founded, he has agreed that she has final say in ministry decisions as the primary authority in that arena. You see, it is possible to use leadership to empower another. Beth Moore would be a popular example of a teacher operating in the same dynamic (she additionally nuances her teachings to humbly apologize to any men who might be listening, saying her teaching is geared to the women, though she is thankful for their ear--at least she did in her Breaking Free videos).

On the other hand, some leaders rejoice to exercise a framework of mutual leadership in marriage. The legendary T.L. and Daisy Osborn are an example of a prominent charismatic couple who fully support a home and church life without gender-based hierarchy. T.L. Osborn serves on the board of reference for an organization which works to promote this understanding, Christians for Biblical Equality International. When couples practice mutual leadership in the home, however, that does not necessarily mean they will mutually lead in other spheres. If one partner in such a couple is the principal leader in the ministry organization on the basis of spiritual gifting and calling, he or she may make the final decisions there. Other better known names who endorse CBE include Richard Foster, J. Lee Grady, Stanley Grenz (though deceased), Gordon Fee, Greg Boyd, David Joel Hamilton (of YWAM) Ron Pierce, etc.

The second understanding, then, aims at mutual exaltation, mutual leadership, and mutual self-denial in marriage. It is lesser known, in part because our own English idiom and the Hebrew Old Testament idiom of “head” both suggest leadership (making us prone to read that into the Greek) and in part because hierarchy has long been the dominant tradition. In this camp, the Ephesians 5:21 context of mutual submission is typically viewed as important to the Ephesians 5 passage on marriage which follows, and they tend to take a more careful look at the Greek meaning of “head.” Certain theologians within the camp dispute which aspects of the Ephesians 5-6 passage are transcultural, regardless of the meaning of “head,” pointing, for example, to how the slavery it mentions is something we no longer support, while others find the language of headship key to God’s intent for marriage. (Christ’s headship to the Church involves unique authoritative and mediatorial qualities as her Savior, Lord, and King, not only head. For instance, these will not apply to the Father’s headship of the Son as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:3. And in the Greek Christ is head "over" principalities, while a husband is a head "of" a wife.) All of them note that the husband’s call to “give himself up for her” is just another form of submission or self-denial but from a position of advantage versus her position of physical and (in the fall) social vulnerability. As Richard J. Foster notes in his classic Celebration of Discipline,

The first-century wife… would not need to change one whit to follow Paul’s command. If anything the sting of the teaching falls upon the dominant partner. …The epistles did not consecrate the existing hierarchical social structure. …They relativized and undercut it. (p. 104)

That the sting of the teaching falls on the dominant partner is underscored by the only Bible teaching on marriage that mentions “authority,” this in relation to sex,
The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Corinthians 7:3-4, NASB)

Here the authority is reciprocal. Galatians 3:28-29 further indicates our essential equality in Christ and His Body, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise” (NASB). We are all heirs of the promise through which He distributes our mutual gifts.

A prime concern for many in this debate is the implications hierarchy in marriage may (and increasingly does) have for our understanding of the Trinity. It is becoming common for hierarchalists to indicate that the Father, as the head (1 Corinthians 11:3), is eternally over the Son even as the husband is over the wife. If true, this would strengthen their argument. Those who believe in mutual leadership agree that the Son was temporarily subordinated to the Father in His time on earth but point out that classical western orthodoxy has never supported an eternal subordination (Ephesians 1:20-21) and has, indeed, been very concerned with eliminating such beliefs as an error. Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity by Kevin Giles is an appropriate read for the scholarly-minded.

Dr. Sarah Sumner is a theologian who does not count herself in either camp but tries to take a critical look at both. Although I believe in full mutuality and do not find her issues with my camp (that for some there might be more of a power than a service focus) to be common (except perhaps in some of the most wounded and unhealed), I think she is a very useful theologian for those trying to parse through both camps for the first time. The primary volume is Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus about Christian Leadership. Moreover, the way she reads the Ephesians 5 scripture is very close to what I'd felt God had shown me, even if our conclusions differ ever so slightly (she sets up a paradigm wherein optional degrees of mutuality are administered by the partner who is advantaged by physical strength and by society--the husband--although it is clear, and clearer yet in her subsequent marriage book that she envisions full mutuality as God's ideal and intent) and she is exceedingly gentle about progressing change in the church structure. She doesn't want to campaign for it but to wait.

@ Zach--I wasn't the one who brought up Wesley, but allow me to contribute a little to the debate.

As you've pointed out, Wesley was not comfortable with a scriptural precedent for women preaching--thanks for sharing the interesting confirmation of that--yet he found that in his day of "extraordinary dispensation" somehow they did "not fall under the ordinary rules of discipline." Therefore, he was an unequivocal supporter, for instance, of the preaching of Mary Bosanquet Fletcher. She sometimes spoke to crowds as large as 3,000. Moreover, these crowds were male-heavy and leader-heavy, for she spoke at a facility that drew large numbers of the methodist's itinerant minisers who considered her as a pastor to pastors. Even after the age of 70 (and after Wesley had died) she continued to preach as many as 6 mtgs per week. So although he was personally unable to settle his experience in an affirmative way theologically, his leadership practically supported a powerful and vocal influence from women. Sarah Crosby, Sarah Mallet and others all preached to large crowds in those early Methodist days, though not always from the pulpit and taking other precautions (such as with the pitch of their voice) to prove that they were not strident women, and doors continued to open up more widely for women later on in the 1800s in many evangelical circles both in and out of Methodism.

Yes! We have a staff with three women pastors, including me. Yes!

Yes, I attend a church with women pastors on staff. I believe it is absolutely biblical for women to be in pastoral and leadership positions.

Yes! Yes! Ideally, I'll always go to a church where there are male and female leaders, reflecting God's glory and the whole of the church together!

Some thoughts: Jesus didn't have any women in "the 12" because of modesty issues. To travel around, eat, bathe, sleep together, it needed to be men only. Also, women being under men is a by-product of the curse. Jesus came to set us free from the curse of sin and death. I am a woman, and I am a pastor. But these issues plague me from time to time, as well. I don't want to be going against God by preaching the word. But do you see how silly that sounds? Disobey by obeying? There a women mentioned in Acts as co-laborers in the work, so we know that women can be in ministry. As far as Paul telling Timothy that he doesn't permit a woman to speak in the church, we take this in a way that shows we completely forget that the church is a worldwide organization of people, not a building or a meeting. So, to answer a weak argument with a weak argument, if you are going to hold tight to this verse, maybe you should stop singing hymns written by women (there are a LOT) you should stop reading books by women (though, you probably don't) and you should bring all single women off of the mission field. Let's be consistent. This verse is a difficult one to understand, but we have to look at the bigger picture. Stop fighting. Start spreading love. Start being holy. Kill sin in your own life, and stop worrying right now about that of others. Because, most of us are trying to obey the Lord. And we don't have it right.

While I do not attend a church led by a woman, I also have no problem doing so, IF she knows God and the word well. As I have studied the issue of women in ministry lately, I have found some very disturbing things. For the most part, the idea that women cannot preach or be pastors stems from mainly two passages: 1 Cor. 14:34,35 and 1 Tim. 2:11,12. Yet there is good evidence showing that the passages have been widely mistranslated, which does not show us the fact that Paul was mainly concerned with husbands and wives, NOT men and women in general.

The pastoral office argument always comes out of 1 Tim. 3, where it says in English "if a man desire the office...," and yet few take the time to look into the fact that the Greek of the passage does not have ANY Greek word for "man" there, but a pronoun in the masculine that can be either masculine or feminine! Another argument that is used to support exclusively male leadership in the church is to point out that the language in exclusively masculine in passages like 1 Tim. 3. However, the weakness of that argument is easily seen when we also look at the fact that the language in John 3:3 "Except a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" is ALSO exclusively masculine. Are we now going to argue that only males can be "born again"? Nonsense.

Then, of course, most come up with the seemingly logical argument that since a woman cannot be the "husband of one wife," that this prohibits women by default. But that's an irrational non sequitur argument that does not address the fact that the Bible never says "women cannot be pastors." So it ends up being an illogical inference that ignores other facts, like the female deacon (Phoebe) in Romans 16:1. She's normally called a "servant" in most translations, but the Greek uses the exact same word we find of male deacons in 1 Tim. 3.

So once I studied the main passages and looked into some details in the Greek text, I could not follow the arguments of people who do not use sound reasoning from the Scriptures. I have started a website article on the topic of women preachers, and I hope it is enlightening and informative, and perhaps empowering, to most of you. God bless!

My parents were married by a woman Presbyterian pastor when I was 8.
I graduate in April from SAGU with a degree in Youth Ministry and I am interviewing for positions. I am currently looking up information about the amount of women in an a/g position, specifically youth ministers, especially those in my area. I would like to form a network with these women pastors. I am married and we have a 2 yr old daughter. My husband is attending SAGU for a degree in Youth Ministries and business. He supports me and we will make it work. I could not do this without him. I am excited to increase that number and help other young women seek the calling God has for them.

As a lay person, and a Christian, I have considered this question, and yes, I do believe that women can be pastors, and yes, I would (and have) attend a church with a female minister. Although there a few lines in the bible (such as Timothy) that make the case against it, I look at the ways that Jesus Christ treated women. He advocated on their behalf, treated them with respect, appeared to women first after his Resurrection, and by his actions, considered them equals, not second class citizens. If I look at Jesus' actions, I do believe He would NOT have denied a women the opportunity to preach if that is what she felt God had called her to do. Jesus did not discriminate, neither did we. WE are called first to be an expression of God's love. That is the overriding theme in the Bible, and not the creation of strict boundaries in gender roles.

No, and No. I do not understand how a woman can be pastor. Who are we to change the word of God. Is it not enough to be a servant. I know that women can be called to to witness, to feed the hungry, to dress the naked, to help those in need. However, when a women takes on the role of a man she is saying,"lord, I do not want the role you have given me. I will not be submissive to a man. I will change your words to conform to what I want."

I guess if you are sexist, racist and/or elitist than you can find a rationalization for it.

Can Anybody, ANYBODY please explain what exactly it is about being created female that makes a person by the nature and plan of god subservient? Can you show, where it is in God's plan of salvation that he says something like 'its true you are all created equal and are heirs to the same kingdom, but some of you are more equal than others'. I am not asking for the scriptual references for and against, I am asking for your rationale - your view of the person of God and his plan for humanity. The men of God that worked tirelessly to bring an end to the slave trade in England and The US, were constantly faced with all of the biblical support for slavery. Paul in his writings assumes that Slavery is the norm and explains how christians need to live respectfully with this cultural norm. However how many of us today would use those same references to ensure that we are able to have slaves working in our households ? So again I ask - do you think that as a woman I am disqualified based on my biology? Or more to the point, do you think I am lesser than a man? How far do we go in applying these scriptures? Would anyone say I am living in disobedience to God's word because as a (school ) teacher of high school students I am teaching young men? The school I currently teach at is a secular high school, and you may say no on the grounds that I am teaching subjects like history & geography. Ok- how about if i end up working in a Christian school and I start teaching bible classes there? Where do you draw the line? More importantly what is the ultimate implication of your rationale - that women are more inherently evil than men are? Or that women have a second place in God's kingdom? Perhaps they are simply less intelligent, and they need men to teach them because of this? Did God created humanity in a hierarchical order? What implications can be made as a result of this injunction?

Hello Laura,

Try equal in essence or being (humans), but different in roles.
Are you equal as a human to your boss? to your state senator? to the President? Yes. Do you each have different roles? Yes. Do some of these roles have more authority than others? Yes. Does this make you their slave or less than equal with them in your being? No. To me that is perfectly rational. This is not something to waste your anger on. Different denominations draw the line at different spots. There are many denominations that will allow females as pastors. So stop shaking your fist and pursue one of those denominations if it really matters to you. But before you become a minister, pastor or a Bible teacher to high-schoolers, I'd advise you to utilize Scripture with more authority than "give me a good rationale other than the Bible" approach. You cast doubt on the rationality of Scripture when you say don't give me verses give me rationale. That is like saying to your boss at work, don't give me the company guidelines, just tell me why you get to be the boss and I don't. Sometimes it appears that we women don't actually want rationale, we just want what we think we cannot have. We just want to be our own god. You want to be a minister (start by defining "minister"), there are plenty of opportunities out there to be one. This is such an old worn out issue. I'd lay it down and pursue real issues like female trafficking or why women abuse themselves just to get a man, or if domestic abuse runs both ways (female to male as well as male to female). What are some equality issues for men these days?

Your sister in Christ,
Lisa

Here's the thing. God doesn't take a pole. God (a spirit, John 4:24) just calls women. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees. Yes, most of the churches led by women pastors will be small, but the can be powerful. "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free, male or female, but we are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

I find it sad that priesthood remains male centric in the modern church. It doesn't quite make sense to me, either- women weren't exactly shunned from being active in the early church (see this Christianity Today article - http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/january/19.71.html). Women like Phoebe were revered deacons and advisors (Rom 16:1-2).

Actually, I find Phoebe to be one of the most intriguing people mentioned by Paul. He doesn't go into detail about her, but I've read a couple of books that theorized on her life- particularly "The Lost Moonflower" by Isaac Karoor - http://thelostmoonflower.com
It's a novel, but I think it paints a fairly realistic picture of what Phoebe's life may have looked like. She was a leader in the church back in 60 AD, so why are there so few today? Why don't women have a larger role?

I also believe that women can be pastors. The main issue is God's people being able to get God's word. If a woman delivers it and it's right then it's still God's word.

No I don't, yes I would. My mother, grandmother and aunt were/are all ministers with the A/G.

"Again, Jesus chose 12 DUDES, even though He had many female followers and disciples. None of the women were ever chosen as apostles nor as any of their successors (see Acts for the continuing of the succession, the "ordaining", etc."

12 Jewish men. One who was a traitor.
Ordination didn't start until the church institutionalized.

If Jesus had intended that men should solely lead the church, then perhaps he would have shown himself to Peter after the resurrection rather than Mary?

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Women Pastors Remain Scarce

Comments

recent posts

Archives

February 2012
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Women Pastors Remain Scarce

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives