Yesterday, Al Mohler blogged about the controversial subject of female pastors. He noted: "The feminization of the ministry is one of the most significant trends of this generation. Acceptance of women in the pastoral role reverses centuries of Christian conviction and practice. It also leads to a redefinition of the church and its ministry."
To which he concluded in the same paragraph:
“Once women begin to fill and represent roles of pastoral leadership men withdraw. This is true, not only in the pulpit, but in the pews. The evacuation of male worshippers from liberal churches is a noticeable phenomenon.”
Now this is something I have noticed for a long time. I remember when I first sat in a Baptist church in where a woman stood in the pulpit. To say this event in my life shattered the stereotypes and images of what a Baptist church is would be an understatement.
What really was interesting was the fact that there were only three men in the congregation, two of which included visitors, my friend and me! The congregation was far too small to be able to sustain a pastor. Yet, they seemed to trudge along.
ABPNews reported in June of 2006:
“About 28 percent of the chaplains and counselors in the CBF and ABC-USA in 2005 were women…”
American Baptist Women in Ministry states on the website:
“This year there are a total of 374 women senior/solo pastors. Last year there were 361 recognized. The information provided demonstrates a steady increase in the placement of women in ministry in ABC.”
I spoke with an American Baptist pastor a year ago (via email) as to why his church was leaving the denomination. He stated that there are more women in seminary than men. That was enough for him.
A few years later I asked a godly Christian woman (my wife’s grandmother) what she thought of female pastors. The idea of female pastors is nothing new and certainly is not restricted to Baptists. Yet I could only see churches being decimated by the trend (of course there are always exceptions). Her response validated what seemed intuitive to me. She basically said churches generally would not flourish. I asked her why she thought this to be the case. Her response again was simple. God didn’t ordain things to function with women over men. It doesn’t work in marriage. It doesn’t work for the church to think it is equal with Christ. It doesn’t work within the church membership either.
Over the years, I have grown to agree. The Scriptures are certainly not able to support the idea of female pastors. The hermeneutic is flawed and doesn’t take the Word of God at the level which conservatives generally view it. I think Mohler is right when he continues in his next paragraph:
“Relativize” seems to be the keyword. Again, hermeneutics or how we interpret the bible will certainly give away our true belief about God’s Word. Men do not want a female pastor. I certainly do not think men want mushy gushy theology. I am not sure why a denomination such as the American Baptists push for a trend they know is losing members in droves. Liberalism in general and Feminism in particular want to change men as to how they think. Odd that the church is 20 years behind in failed philosophical fads.“Furthermore, the issues of women's ordination and the normalization of homosexuality are closely linked. It is no accident that those churches that most eagerly embraced the ordination of women now either embrace the ordination of homosexuals or are seriously considering such a move.
The reason for this is quite simple. The interpretive games one must play in order to get around the Bible's proscription of women in congregational preaching and teaching roles are precisely the games one must play in order to get around the Bible's clear condemnation of homosexuality.
Put another way, once one is satisfied to relativize the biblical texts limiting the congregational teaching office to men, one can (and almost surely will) be satisfied to employ those same strategies on texts condemning homosexuality. In both cases, the texts are relativized by postmodern ideologies.”
Jer 13:23 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots?
14 comments:
I have noticed one female pastor within my denomination instructing my own church on how to be pragmatic in order to gain new members. Yet the contradiction is glaring. If we are going to base things on pragmatism, then female pastors should be rejected for exactly that!
Churches are losing members, and entire churches and ABC regions are leaving. Therefore the pragmatic thing to do is reject female pastors.
You are a discouraging influence to female believers. By your reasoning, I certainly don't think that women want to worship with someone who tells them that they can't follow God's calling for their life. And, btw, blatent sexism and ignorance is much more destructive than "mushy gusy theology."
"You are a discouraging influence to female believers."
Interesting comment. It is discouraging to me to see the Biblical witness as to how the church is to function is subjected to "sexism".
"By your reasoning, I certainly don't think that women want to worship with someone who tells them that they can't follow God's calling for their life."
Here again you make my point. You say women can't follow their calling because I say so. Yet if I were to ask how women know they are called to pastoral ministry, your reasoning would either be subjective and denying the clear teaching of Scripture or you would argue from Scripture using a hermeneutic that would subject the Text to feminism. By this hermeneutic, you could prove anything. Again, this denies the sufficiency and clarity of God's Word.
In many cases where I have discussed these things, women tend to become angry with me because I am going to the text of Scripture. I become a "Bible thumper" to them. Which again, proves my point. God's Word is not of the highest authority and by definition can't be.
"And, btw, blatent sexism and ignorance is much more destructive than "mushy gusy theology.""
Again, you make my point. Why is one better than the other? Why is sexism as you may define it wrong? I take modern feminism as being "mushy gusy theology".
To think God made males and females with no distinctive roles is to ignore the Biblical witness. Calling me ignorant without proving your position from God's Word simply doesn't even begin to convince me of my supposed error.
So of course a woman such as yourself would not want to worship with me. We define worship differently. By your definition I am ignorant because I take the Scriptures clear definition of worship seriously.
It's amazing to me how those who teach women should not preach tend to pull a few scriptures out of context and do not balance the entire Word of God. An interpretation of scripture should be done in light of other scriptures and not contradict any other scripture, in order to be validated as a proper interpretation. 1 Corinthians 14:34 -36 does say: "let your women keep silence in the churches..." but it also goes on to say "if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home". This scripture is clearly speaking about WIVES usurping their husband’s authority in the church. Women in general leading over men like the judge Deborah, in the book of Judges, is not wrong. It's the tendency for wives to dictate, dominate and usurp their husband’s authority that is condoned. If I am single, what husband will I talk to at home? Therefore, this verse applies to married women. This is not twisting scripture it's just the facts. The other scripture 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is another one about women keeping silence ...but here again it refers back to usurping authority over a man who is your authority. All men do not have authority over all women; - only specific men in that woman's life, her father when she is a minor, and her husband when she is married. This is why this scripture alludes to Adam and Eve. In addition, 1 Corinthians 11:5 talks about women praying and prophesying, how can she keep silent if she is to pray and prophesy?????? Acts 2:16 refers to the prophesy given in the book of Joel, that in the last days, God said I "will pour my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and DAUGHTERS shall prophesy...." The book of Luke talks about Anna the prophetess who dwelled in the temple. Acts talks about Priscilla who expounded on the scriptures to Apollos (a man) so that he can further understand the Holy Spirit. In light of the balanced interpretation of all scriptures on this subject, I believe it is fair to say God does not have a problem with women teaching. I don't know how you can refute the evidence other that dangling one scripture, pulled out of context and exploiting it to push a biased, closed minded agenda.
Howdy to the Woman in Ok who certainly knows her Bible. Thanks for the serious and biblically argued comment.
First, I am reading in haste and am certainly not able to seriously interact with your comment.
Second, at first glance, I am not certain if there is much I would disagree. Yet, I am not certain if your arguments make your point or if you were even trying to equate them with my own.
What I mean is that I was referring to Elder/Pastors in the role of a pastor preaching in the pulpit. Are your arguments making this case? Are your arguments making the case that women may be pastors?
I must confess I need to reread your post when I get to a place I may seriously read it again with the Scripture in hand.
Thirdly, this is just an aside, but what do think of Jesus not appointing women Apostles? Was He afraid to? The fact that he did't does make my case either. But the silence is quite deafening.
Also, the Apostles never appoint women Elders. Again, the argument from silence is deafening.
So just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on that?
God Bless
Howard
The apostles were Jewish. Judaism centered on Patriarchy. A lot of their Jewish beliefs carried over into Christian life- including women being obedient to the men in their lives. As far as Jesus, what about Mary Magdalene? Or what about the woman that John wrote to in one of his three epistles? Were they not also disciples? I think Jesus knew that in the time period and culture that he lived in, the people (especially the Jews) would be more likely to listen to men. The time period and culture MUST ALWAYS be taken into consideration when reading the Bible, or else it is not being read in context.
Thanks for the latest comment anonymous. I agree with,
"The time period and culture MUST ALWAYS be taken into consideration when reading the Bible, or else it is not being read in context."
This is certainly true. It is also true that Jesus elevated women from being basically non-citizens to true citizens of the Kingdom. It is also true that womanhood is seen by Jesus and the Apostles as something to be taken seriously.
I also agree that Jesus sees women as created in the image of God and therefore deserving the respect of men. I also see Jesus and the Apostles elevating the role of motherhood and wives.
However, none of this has to do with God-ordained roles in this life. It seems to me that what is being assumed is that after the fall is when the male-female order within creation took place. Perhaps the fact that this order was perverted to mean something which it did not doesn't mean there is not an order. I also believe that within the church the order should be restored to its proper biblical design.
If Jesus and the Apostles are the final revelation of God, then what we need to know about the restoration of the created order lies with them. They did not teach what you want them to have taught.
God is quite able to use cultural and historical contexts to teach us His truth and how they are to be applied from generation to generation and culture to culture.
I do not wish to sound like I am cut and dry on every point within this debate. I realize there will be differences from church to church. Nevertheless, Christ and His Apostles have left us with an outline of how church life is to function. Female pastors is certainly not a part of the order the Apostles designed.
So as far as I can see, you are using the cultural argument to say, "That was how they did it because God did not give us enough revelation at the time how to answer the questions we have today."
This presuppositional starting point leads down to all kinds of roads, which is why we are having the homosexual debate within churches. The exact same hermeneutic is being applied.
God Bless
"That was how they did it because God did not give us enough revelation at the time how to answer the questions we have today."
Not quite. What I was actually trying to say was that a lot of things written in the Bible, especially the epistles, were written to a specific group of people and do not necessarily apply to us today. The scripture about women learning in silence may have only applied to that church because the women of that church were unruly- but this is obviously not true of the female pastor in Second John 1:1.
I believe that God uses whomever makes him or herself available to Him- gender/sex has nothing to do with it.
We obviously have very different approaches to interpreting Scripture. I agree with the statement that the original epistles have an original intention, but you go from there in a radically different direction as can be seen in your view of 2 John.
1) Let's suppose that the woman is a pastor. I could just as easily say that the letter was originally written to a church that obviously was not important enough to write much. I could say that the original context had a powerful woman that didn't like men, and so the Apostles bent the rules just for her. I could assume all kinds of things if I didn't really think the text was relevant since it was written "to a specific group of people and do not necessarily apply to us today".
To put it in more of your own thoughts.
"The scripture about women 'pastors' may have only applied to that church because the women of that church were 'wealthy[or whatever]'."
2) I actually reject the assertion that a female Elder/Pastor is being spoken of here. Where does the text teach this. I would appreciate if you would either exegete the text or provide a link to someone that does in support of your position.
Thanks
Maybe I could reframe the question in another way. If the male/female distinctions do not really matter and all that is needed is a willing person, could God have sent a female instead of a male? If not, why not?
Great article! And I love the fact that you are willing to stand up and defend your position. I'd like to add that Paul's comments in several places about the role of women in church are argued based on universal arguments. In 1 Corinthians 14, he uses the Law to justify his reasoning. This is not site specific (not meant specifically for one group). In 1 Timothy 2, he uses the argument that women are more easily deceived. This is not site specific or sphere specific... in other words, he doesn't say "women are more easily deceived at home".
But let me also say that your argument from silence is very weak because there are many qualities that the apostles did not have, but were of no spiritual importance. I'm thinking of skin color, nationality, former religion, etc.
Thanks for the comment Charlie. I am trying to make certain I understand your second paragraph. Are you saying that my argument from silence is flawed because Jesus did not appoint non-Jewish Apostles?
Just trying to make certain I get your point.
Your blog, and more specifically this post, is such a breath of fresh air! Thank you for being such a superb example of women in Christ.
I'm a 14 year old girl growing up in rural Virginia, and you're such a role model for me. I absolutely agree that women should not be pastors or in any position of authority over men. It isn't right. God says no in the Bible, and so we listen. To me it's just that simple.
One of my friends at school goes to a church with a female youth pastor, and it's just wrong, wrong, wrong. That's not what God had intended at all!
I am a faithful girl in Christ. I am modest and humble and subservient and silent in church. I do as my father and brother command, and when I grow up I want to be a woman in Christ!
When I grow up, I want to just get married. Forget the career! A good Christian woman shouldn't have a career, because Eve was deceived and so women are redeemed through childbirth, modesty, and total submission.
I just want a husband who will take care of me. I want to look beautiful for him and have lots and lots of kids!
My church and Christ teaches me that the woman's place is in the home. When my husband comes home from a long day's work, I will just tell him to relax, feed him a healthy, hearty meal. For as my husband is a man and so serves God, I am a woman and so serve my husband and God. It's so simple, I don't get why people still don't understand.
It angers me when I see all those other girls go to school and get educated and speak their mind at church. It's evil! Just like God says in the Bible! Girls were made inferior, physically and morally, and so we should not teach! We should just look pretty (really, really pretty), make food for our husbands, have lots and lots of kids, and stay home and be submissive.
My friend who goes to that other church says she wants to go to college. SHE IS EVIL. My mom (who by the way is an office lady at our church) says that a good girl in Christ does not need an education. We just need to beautiful and marry a good Christian husband. To go to college is evil if you're a girl, because God created us to be stupider and less moral than boys. My dad's a pastor and he preaches that just like God intended!
My friend wants to become a doctor. That's just SICK! It's WRONG! It's so against what God says in the Bible.
She should be a good Christ girl like me, and submit myself to men. I should reach as high as Christ says I should - into the arms of my future husband, my father, and my future children. Higher education for girls, women in careers, that's all temptation of the devil!
I cannot believe so many of my other girl friends at school at being led astray by the devil. One of them is my age (I'm 14) and doesn't know how to cook! See, this is the work of the devil! A good Christian girl must know how to cook in order to be a good Christian. How else will we cook a delicious meal for our husbands when they get home? She says she wants to be educated and intelligent and have a career.
That's evil! Good Christian women don't need to be intelligent, because God says we'll never be smarter than men. That's the way he made us. I understand boys are better than me in every way, and I submit to this because it's the word of my heavenly Father!
Thanks for being such an inspiration! I have to tell all my friends about you, and continue to be good girls in Christ!
Satire is always good when it is based upon a truth. It is too bad yours goes into places that have no basis in what I believe.
So far, I keep getting the same responses. The only thing I am addressing here is female pastors, Not whether a girl may be educated.
Personally, my wife has more education than I do. She is a great helpmate to me. It is precisely her education that has given us abilities and freedoms that we otherwise might not have.
Post a Comment