Should I go to a Church that labels a woman as a pastor ?

[QuestionQuest74]

Should I attend a church that has a woman preacher ? Or even a woman labeled as a preacher even though she doesn’t preach.

 

[PloverWing]

Should I attend a church that has a woman preacher ? Or even a woman labeled as a preacher even though she doesn’t preach.

You must know that this is a question about which Christians disagree. What is your own viewpoint on the question?

 

[sandman]

I have known some absolutely fantastic women of God who were Ministers….

Unfortunately the records in 1 Timmy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are taken out of their perspective context by many denominations to paint all women with the same brush….when it is not referring to all women.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Should I attend a church that has a woman preacher ? Or even a woman labeled as a preacher even though she doesn’t preach.

1 Timothy 2 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

So a church that allows female pastors and/or females to preach and teach men, that chuch lives in disobedience.
I would personally avoid such church.

 

[RDKirk]

Let's look at 1 Timothy 2:

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

First, I'd look at the general attitude about the role of women in the Church as seen across the writings of Paul and his disciple Luke. Both of them mention women far more than would be expected in the writings of men in that time period (or any other period, right up to the 20th century). There are 28 New Testament women named in scripture, and 23 of them are named by Paul and Luke. If not for the mention of those women by Paul and Luke, we would know only of Mary, Mary, Mary, Martha, and Saleme.

It can't be discounted that Paul outright called Phoebe a deacon (i.e., "minister"). It can't be discounted that Paul cited Euodia and Syntyche as "fellow soldiers" who strove beside him in forwarding the gospel. It can't be discounted that of the six times that Priscilla and Aquilla are mentioned, Priscilla is listed first three of those times.

It would be unfair to assert that Paul was a "woman hater," based on what he and his disciple Luke have written about the importance of women in Paul's missionary work.

So, we must ask: What could actually have been in Paul's mind when he wrote that statement (and I'm of the belief that 1 Timothy is actually a Pauline epistle)?

I think the answer lies in what the word "teach" meant to Paul. In Paul's parlance, a "teacher" was a "master" from the Greek
didaskalos. We know that Paul had been a disciple of the didaskalos Gamaliel. We also know that Jesus was didaskalos to His disciples.

We can get a sense of what the didaskalos/disciple relationship was by observing how Jesus related to His disciples. A didaskalos essentally ruled the lives of his disciples. He not only created the doctrine they studied (because different didaskalos had different doctrines), but they actually acted as his personal servants. A didaskalos could say to his disciples, "I'm going to sit at this well and speak to this woman. The rest of you, all of you, go into town, get some food, and bring it back here to me." Or a didaskalos could say to his disciples, "I'm tired of walking. All of you go into town and get me a donkey to ride. Walk the donkey back here to me, and I'll ride it into town while the rest of you walk behind me." A didaskalos could say, "Your father named you Frank, but I'm going to name you George. You're George from now on." That was a relationship with an extreme level of power and authority.

A didaskalos had that level of power and authority over his disciples. We don't even have that kind of thing anymore. Maybe the closest idea is the sensei of Eastern martial arts. But that's what was in Paul's mind when he thought of a "teacher," and I believe that his real intention was to prohibit men from being under a woman in that kind of didaskalos/disciple relationship.

At the same time, Paul instructed that older women should be the teachers of younger women (except if a woman was married, in which case that authoritative role customarily moved to her husband).

In Paul's parlance, didaskalos was firmly linked to a high level of interpersonal authority and power. I believe that what Paul was actually prohibiting was "co-ed" teaching. A young male disciple should be under the authority of a male didaskalos, a young female disciple should be under the authority of a female didaskalos. We only have to think through how that would work in the real world to see why that makes sense.

I think that was also the concept in motion as Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 14:33–35. Remember that "asking questions" was a didaskalos/disciple activity, as we see displayed by Jesus in Luke 2:46:

After three days, they found Him in the temple complex sitting among the didaskalos, listening to them and asking them questions.

I think what was happening in the Corinthian congregation was that by asking questions in the general congregational meeting, some women were insinuating themselves as disciples of male didaskalos, which Paul prohibited.

In other words, I believe both passages actually refer to the same thing: That men should be under a male didaskalos, women should be under a female didaskalos.

I'd also assert that there is a real distinction in Paul's mind between "teaching" and "expounding." If we understand that didaskalos, involved significant authority over the disciple, then to "expound" information--which Priscilla did with Apollos--did not carry that concept of authority. Apollos was not Pricilla's disciple, she had no authority over him, she merely relayed information to him.

As I said, our churches today, particular Protestant churches, don't even have that role. What we commonly call a "teacher" is someone standing in the front of the room reading from a prepared text...an "expounder." And that might be true even of a "preacher." Say, for instance, the pastor (which I'll get to in a moment) invites a guest speaker one Sunday. That guest speaker has no authority over anyone in the congregation. That guest speaker is perhaps in the role of a prophet (which Paul affirms is open to women) or in the role of an "expounder."

Now, talking about a pastor...we have to pause. Now, we're getting into the realm of people under the authority of other people, and that's where IMO each congregation has to look at the power and authority conferred to that role, regardless of the title. For instance, I would say that it's a mistake for a congregation to assign young women to be taught by a male "youth pastor."

 

[DragonFox91]

I've seen churches completely destroyed by hiring women pastors. Goes from sound theology to universalim, everything-goes, no hell, God is only love, it's mostly just a metaphor anyways, can't know what's true, in a flash.

It just doesn't work. It's just not how God set up the church. No different than a bird being able to swim like a fish, or a fish being able to fly like a bird.

I'm open to them serving as deacons & elders, or serving as associate pastors: but head of the church is not right, it just isn't. A man must be the head. & if the women deacons & elders want a woman to be the head, they shouldn't be a deacon, elder, or associate pastor. Period

 

[Paidiske]

Christ is the head of the Church; none of us, man or woman, can take that on.

There are bad pastors who are women, sure. There are also bad pastors who are men. The common thread there is poor selection, formation and training. So look for a pastor who is called, gifted, has the right character, and is a good fit. That's not about gender.

OP, I'd suggest that on the list of things you take into consideration, the gender of the pastor is probably fairly low down beneath other issues. How healthy is the church generally? What does it believe and teach? Will you have opportunities to get involved, and to serve? Look for those things first.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Firstly I'd want to point out that women have been preaching since the time of the Apostles. St. Felicitas of Rome was a widow who, with her seven sons, whom she raised to fear the Lord devoted themselves to good works and the proclamation of the Gospel. They were eventually arrested for disturbing the social order, and Felicitas was forced to watch as each of her sons suffered a martyr's death--with her persecutors using the lives of her children to try and get her to renounce her faith. When she refused to renounce Christ, in spite of these horrors and afflictions forced upon her, she too would go on to receive her martyr's crown.

Her memory is honored and observed today on the 23rd of November.

Women engaged in teaching and preaching has never really been controversial in the history of Christianity. Look at the women whom St. Paul calls his "fellow workers" in Romans ch. 16 as just an example. Women engaged in preaching, evangelism, and other works of ministry have been part of the historic Christian tradition since the time of the Apostles.

The real question isn't whether women can preach. Because of course they can. But whether ordained ministry is limited only to men. And that's a much more complicated and divisive issue. Historically we only see men being ordained to the sacred office.

This question becomes more complicated because not all theological traditions and denominations have the same views pertaining to ordination, holy orders, and sacred ministry.

In Catholicism and Orthodoxy, for example, Holy Orders is a Holy Sacrament, and ordination conveys grace. On the other hand, in a lot of contemporary Protestant traditions there may not even be anything like a formal ordination of any kind, and instead there's something akin to having a lay-preacher as pastor. And then there's a lot of things in-between and the like.

So not only is this a question that divides Christian opinion, it also is rendered more complicated depending on any given tradition's theology of leadership, or theology of ordination, etc.

Speaking personally, I've never seen any good arguments which bar women from being ordained pastors. Appeals to Scripture are usually based on flimsy readings at best (in my estimation), appeals to tradition would only really work if one can accept the idea of an infallible tradition (which isn't something I believe in), appeals to Jesus' and the Apostles' gender--they were male, so only males can be ordained--fall apart if we also take note that Jesus and His Apostles were all Jewish but we don't limit ordination to Jewish Christians. Beyond that it usually ends up just being really cringey misogynistic arguments about how women are incompetent or incapable which is demonstrably and obviously untrue.

But as far as women preaching? There have always been preachers of both sexes. As lay-preaching has always existed in Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

1 Timothy 2 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

So a church that allows female pastors and/or females to preach and teach men, that chuch lives in disobedience.
I would personally avoid such church.

Someone should really let Paul know that, because he seemed to be quite okay with women preaching and teaching.

E.g. Romans 16:1-16

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

Someone should really let Paul know that, because he seemed to be quite okay with women preaching and teaching.

E.g. Romans 16:1-16

-CryptoLutheran

I don't think that verse speaks directly to Phoebe being a teacher or preacher...the role of "deacon" doesn't necessarily include those tasks. A deacon can as well be engaged wholly in "backstage" service.

However, it does appear that Phoebe was the leader of the delegation that carried Paul's epistle to Rome. We can presume that was not a delegation of only women, and we can presume Phoebe didn't travel alone, which means she was in charge of some men. Further, Paul clearly implied that Phoebe had continued business to handle in Rome, and requested the Roman congregation to assist her in that business.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't think that verse speaks directly to Phoebe being a teacher or preacher...the role of "deacon" doesn't necessarily include those tasks. A deacon can as well be engaged wholly in "backstage" service.

However, it does appear that Phoebe was the leader of the delegation that carried Paul's epistle to Rome. We can presume that was not a delegation of only women, and we can presume Phoebe didn't travel alone, which means she was in charge of some men. Further, Paul clearly implied that Phoebe had continued business to handle in Rome, and requested the Roman congregation to assist her in that business.

I was thinking more in terms of the other women in the passage who Paul includes among His fellow workers, including Priscilla and Aquila, who also in the Acts of the Apostles were instrumental in catechizing Apollos the Apostle (Acts 18:26) and who were partners with St. Paul in his missionary work (Acts 18:18). Along with the Apostle Junia (Romans 16:7).

While not mentioned in Scripture, St. Thekla is a highly visible example of a missionary companion of Paul's and who engaged in preaching. In fact she was so active in ministry that it was regarded as scandalous by the Pagan world. Traditionally it is attributed to her that she encouraged women to commit themselves to lives of chaste celibacy in service to Christ, this was scandalous because in Pagan society women were supposed to be the property of their fathers until given away to a husband--to therefore not get married and bear children in accordance with societal expectations was highly scandalous and even offensive. There are a number of cases in the ancient Christian world where women who converted to Christianity, in defiance of what their fathers or husbands or bethrothed demanded of them, faced martyrdom for choosing the way of Christ over the will of the men in their lives.

Many, many of our spiritual mothers in the Church down through the ages were far from docile and quiet "little women"; but were strong, independent, and bold preachers of the Gospel. Who faced unique challenges and who attained a martyr's crown because they would not back down when men told them to shut up and sit down.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

While not mentioned in Scripture, St. Thekla is a highly visible example of a missionary companion of Paul's and who engaged in preaching. In fact she was so active in ministry that it was regarded as scandalous by the Pagan world. Traditionally it is attributed to her that she encouraged women to commit themselves to lives of chaste celibacy in service to Christ, this was scandalous because in Pagan society women were supposed to be the property of their fathers until given away to a husband--to therefore not get married and bear children in accordance with societal expectations was highly scandalous and even offensive. There are a number of cases in the ancient Christian world where women who converted to Christianity, in defiance of what their fathers or husbands or bethrothed demanded of them, faced martyrdom for choosing the way of Christ over the will of the men in their lives.

I think Paul was speaking to this in 1 Corinthians 7.

But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband.

 

[concretecamper]

Should I attend a church that has a woman preacher ? Or even a woman labeled as a preacher even though she doesn’t preach.

What is the issue with protestant women pastors?

 

[The Liturgist]

I've seen churches completely destroyed by hiring women pastors. Goes from sound theology to universalim, everything-goes, no hell, God is only love, it's mostly just a metaphor anyways, can't know what's true, in a flash.

It just doesn't work. It's just not how God set up the church. No different than a bird being able to swim like a fish, or a fish being able to fly like a bird.

I'm open to them serving as deacons & elders, or serving as associate pastors: but head of the church is not right, it just isn't. A man must be the head. & if the women deacons & elders want a woman to be the head, they shouldn't be a deacon, elder, or associate pastor. Period

What you’re talking about are the mainline Protestant churches, but actually a minority of them were ordaining women since the 19th century while remaining doctrinally stable.

Now, in some cases, the ordination of women did cause disastrous schisms, but on the whole, if we look at all of the mainline Protestant churches, the main error has embracing the absurdities of liberal postmodern theology which have, since the 1960s, lead to the alienation of most of their members, which has been a disaster, as it has allowed for the flourishing of non-denominational, aliturgical churches which promulgate various false doctrines such as the prosperity gospel and which have caused many people to believe that worship is synonymous with attending a Christian rock music.

This liberal postmodern theology postdates the early ordination of women in some denominations, so we have to draw a distinction. And the easy way to do that is to see whether or not it caused a schism, and also when it happened and who instituted the change. The existence of denominations that are both conservative and have female clergy should also be considered. Finally, the importance of avoiding schism must not be ignored.

Lastly I would note that while we have no evidence of female presbyters or bishops in tne early church, we do have several women venerated by the Orthodox as equal to tne Apostles, such as St. Theclas, St. Mary Magdalene, and St. Nino the Illuminator of the Georgians, who was an Armenian princess (Nino looks like the Spanish word for boy, causing some people to spell it Nina, but this is due to Georgian being a different language from those we are used to, in which words that we end with “a” they terminate with an “o”, thus Hallelujah, Hellenized to Alleluia, becomes Alilo in Georgian).

The early church also had the order of Deaconesses, who were ministers of the font, who would assist in the baptism of females.

 

[RDKirk]

Now, in some cases, the ordination of women did cause disastrous schisms, but on the whole, if we look at all of the mainline Protestant churches, the main error has embracing the absurdities of liberal postmodern theology which have, since the 1960s, lead to the alienation of most of their members, which has been a disaster, as it has allowed for the flourishing of non-denominational, aliturgical churches which promulgate various false doctrines such as the prosperity gospel and which have caused many people to believe that worship is synonymous with attending a Christian rock music.

This liberal postmodern theology postdates the early ordination of women in some denominations, so we have to draw a distinction. And the easy way to do that is to see whether or not it caused a schism, and also when it happened and who instituted the change. The existence of denominations that are both conservative and have female clergy should also be considered. Finally, the importance of avoiding schism must not be ignored.

But here, though, you skim a conundrum. The ordination of women where it predates liberal postmodern theology may not have resulted in denominational schism, but when the ordination of women in a denomination is because of liberal postmodern theology...will that have the same result?

 

[RileyG]

Should I attend a church that has a woman preacher ? Or even a woman labeled as a preacher even though she doesn’t preach.

What's your theology? I know Non-Denominational is a bit broad, and I'm sure there are some Non-Denominational Churches that do not ordain women, and some that do.

 

[The Liturgist]

But here, though, you skim a conundrum. The ordination of women where it predates liberal postmodern theology may not have resulted in denominational schism, but when the ordination of women in a denomination is because of liberal postmodern theology...will that have the same result?

Well, where it is because of postmodern liberal theology it will do damage as part of the overall effect of that process, although not as much as capitulation on issues like abortion, euthanasia and homosexual marriage or the inappropriate involvement of the church in the political process. Also it must be noted that women ordained in such a scenario might adhere to “Womanist Theology” and other varieties of postmodern theology which are beyond mere egalitarianism and which tend to attack the use of masculine language to refer to the persons of the Trinity, and other theologically problematic sentiments, which we see expressed in some recent scriptural translations which are intentionally inaccurate in the interests of political correctness, but the degree to which this is a problem varies dramatically between denominations and even between dioceses and parishes. There are parishes in the C of E Diocese of London which are as traditional and conservative as a typical Orthodox or Catholic TLM community, for example, St. Magnus the Martyr (which some might say is a TLM community, and not entirely in jest) and others which are on a par with anything you might find in the UCC, although the C of E is unusual in that people tolerate great divergences so long as they do not impact their particular parish, since membership in the C of E is regarded by some, even now, as being patriotic.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Today, Ladies are more educated than Biblical times.

 

[RDKirk]

Today, Ladies are more educated than Biblical times.

Are you talking about secular education or Biblical education?

 

[QueenOfTheUnknown]

It doesn't matter if their a man or woman. (In my eyes) Only if they are teaching the correct Word.