Can women be pastors/preachers

[krazeeboi]

Nina, thanks for providing that article. Great background information was presented there, but once again, it highlighted my main complaint: it demonstrates that the passage in question lacks context if we were to interpret authentein in that manner, since we have no context clues (remember that from elementary school? LOL) that would suggest anything of the sort--at least I'm not seeing any. I just don't see how the Holy Spirit would have not inspired Paul to include all of that pertinent information IF it is necessary for an accurate interpretation of the text.

Keita, I'll try to come back to the "usurp" comment--which I also think has been the source of unnecessary confusion concerning the text. You make the distinction between "who's" and "how's," which I also think is of great significance, though I prefer to say "subject" and "object."

Y'all stay in prayer for a brother. I need some A's this semester in graduate school.

[nina]

First things first:

Y'all stay in prayer for a brother

Will do...

I need some A's this semester in graduate school

And you'll have them! He believes in you

Ephesus... Do you think that the answer to that, absence of context and/or of extensive explaination on the part of the apostle Paul can be found through the history of the church of Ephesus?

Ephesus was not founded by Paul, he was asked to go and "help" and ended up staying three years. Still was "forced" to leave, hastily, because of a riot instigated by a silversmith who was losing business (pagan biz) due to the spread of the Gospel in Ephesus.

We know that Paul was not scared of anything, but that did it for him, as far as staying or not with the church of Ephesus. It does show how prevalent the pagan cults were all around.
Not assuming anything, in this environmental context of the times - and they had been dealing with it from day one as ministers of the Gospel, in the church itself - wisdom might not have allowed Paul to elaborate more.
If nothing else, because of the fact that there had been that insurgency, the situation left behind him was explosive and dangerous, life threatening, for the ones left behind.
Paul loved the church of Ephesus, he made sure later on to have a chance to meet and speak extensively to its leaders, which he had not have time to do when he first left...
At whatever time the epistle was written, Paul still knew what was happening in the church and, apparently, the leaders in place must have been still dealing with that very issue.

How's... Definitely... I'll wait in my corner, until Keita elaborates on how this transpires in today's church?

[krazeeboi]

Thanks for the encouragement Nina.

I really do have an open mind regarding this topic, as I will admit that much of what I see doesn't seem to mesh well with what I currently believe regarding this topic. I'm not out to win an argument, I just want to arrive at truth.

That said, let's keep the discussion rollin'!

[Jasmine]

amen.

I am thinking of the statement you made Krazeeboi, regarding how women can be pastors, but "should" they.

Now you really didn't go into full detail, you kinda left us hanging, so lets keep the discussing, but lets just expound on

Why shouldn't women be pastors.

[giantsdodie]

Im just trying to figure out when God became partial and a chauvanist

[Jasmine]

He isn't. But he is a God of Divine Order.

However questions were raised regarding how women "can" be pastors, but also stated they "shouldn't". We pretty much already have 7 pages stating why they can or can't.

my question is specifically geared to the phrase' Why they "shouldn't" pastor. I would like to know why.

[keita]

For me one of the greatest blessings of this thread has been that even in the presence of widely varying perspectives, almost no one has even suggested that Paul ever said that women cannot teach/preach/pastor, etc. In my experience, that's MAJOR progress and a cause for celebration.

But as I said earlier, and thanks in large part to bro kb's originally and long ago framing the question in this way:

krazeeboi said:

My answer:

Can they? Yes.

Should they? No.

"should she" has become a very different question for me.
I have come to consider that just because she can definitely does not necessarily, and certainly does not automatically, mean that she should. Our difference is that I would (now) answer "Should they?" with "That depends."

And that answer would have absolutely nothing to do with her gender, but everything to do with how sister is living and walking out her call.

At any rate, I believe Paul's writings regarding women congregation leaders, and especially 1Timothy 2:12, actually are very much concerned with, have a great deal to say and a whole lot of wisdom about that, as well as the space between "can she" and "should she"...

[krazeeboi]

jasmine said:

amen.

I am thinking of the statement you made Krazeeboi, regarding how women can be pastors, but "should" they.

Now you really didn't go into full detail, you kinda left us hanging, so lets keep the discussing, but lets just expound on

Why shouldn't women be pastors.

You know what, you're right, I never did. I apologize about that.

With this turn in the discussion, I know that I will have to tread lightly. I'm no chauvinist, but I'm not an egalitarian either. I don't want to fight against God, but I will not become subject to the spirit of the age either. That will preach right there, but I digress...

I think we can start with Bro. G3's post #56. He said some good stuff in there that I initially overlooked. I think I might use that for a springboard.

[keita]

krazeeboi said:

...I think we can start with Bro. G3's post #56. He said some good stuff in there that I initially overlooked. I think I might use that for a springboard.

Cool! I was thinking (and hoping) that this

krazeeboi said:

Keita, I'll try to come back to the "usurp" comment--which I also think has been the source of unnecessary confusion concerning the text. You make the distinction between "who's" and "how's," which I also think is of great significance, though I prefer to say "subject" and "object."

should and would take us back there! But if and as we go back to "as it was in the beginning" during this next leg of the journey, I also think and hope we will include consideration of this comment and question (from sis Nina's post #69):

Still, going back to the garden: what we call the "curse" of Eve also held the greatest prophecy, from God himself, about Woman's destiny and the fulfilment of God's overall plan.

That prophecy came to pass. Does the curse upon woman still stand? Or was the divine order of creation and its purpose reset at that time? And if it was, by denying it, aren't we fighting God himself?

somewhere up in that discussion. Jesus' first post resurrection appearance taking place in a garden while engaging a woman is a whole lot more than mere coincidence!

krazeeboi said:

...I'm no chauvinist, but I'm not an egalitarian either.

Fair enough! I'm not real big on labels, but I feel the need to make very clear that I am not a feminist, (which for a Christian woman, I believe represents a serious spiritual identity crisis and is, imho, a problem Paul also actually addresses a lot too...) AT ALL.

But a womanist, I surely am.

Btw, I don't think we're anywhere near done with the very major, still standing, absolutely fundamental issue of the totally erroneous mistranslation of the Greek word "authentein" as "to usurp authority" and its resulting violence to and burial of true context.

Ebonic Translation: It don't say that.

Frankly and simply put, Paul's use of the very sexual term Authentein does not mean and has absolutely nothing to do with "usurping authority"; at least not the way we tend to understand it as some overbearing or overly aggressive woman walking all over and disrespecting a male leader in church. See, first of all these women were actually way too savvy about the male psyche to ever roll on a man in that way....unless, well, you know... LOL!

Add to the mix that in the Greek, the word for both "woman" and "wife" is exactly the same and...

I'm still concerned that a large part of this discussion (both here and at large) is based upon and continues to be about arguing, debating and even attempting to "clarify" some things that, according to the original text, Paul never even said (or even implied),while still missing so much of what he actually did and all that it has to teach us.

And as a result, I think Paul continues to get a really bad and unfair rap regarding his writings and teachings about women.
I absolutely believe that this highly intelligent, deeply spiritual man of God had much love, great appreciation and a true regard for the woman of God, and offers much wisdom to her, as a woman, as well as about her, to the man with whom she co-labors.

So I'm willing to go with the flow and see where and how He leads...

Annnnd they're off...LOL!!!

[Nikkol]

keita said:

electladynb said:

KRAZEE: Good job. You've said much of what I was going to say so I'll just second what you said. :-)

It hasn't happened all that often, lol, so I didn't want to miss the opportunity to completely agree with you. Without a doubt, bro kb is "the man"! (And I mean that in every scriptural and spiritual sense of the word! )

But I would, and do give exactly that same commendation of "Good job" to ALL who are participating in this thread, or even simply following it, who are doing so from a place of loving God and His Word, believing the scriptures, knowing that we each, and only, know in part, and whose purest intention and sole agenda is the pursuit and propogation of His Truth...whether I agree with them or not.

And now, since I'm still teaching this evening... I've got to go!
Y'all pray for me!

Very true. :-)