Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors

Ah well, maybe someone else does. So for the moment, we just assume that the takeaway from the verse in question is that each party has the same capability (or lack thereof?) to contribute to the other’s salvation, or something like that?

Peter,

It is simply not possible to convince someone against their own will.

I do note that in a hierarchy, it is harder for the one on top to see any problems with it, it will often take the one on bottom to point out the flaws.

ANY statements can be dinked by saying they do not tell the whole truth.

The ironic thing is this is exactly what egals says non-egals do, they teach only part of the truth and do not accept the other parts of the truth in the Bible. Yes, a wife is to submit to her husband, everyone agrees with that, but egals say a husband is to submit to his wife and there’s the rub. This is where the non-egals quibble in various ways, either denying it outright or claiming it is a different sort of submission or similar. It is as if when something is written in the Bible only once, it does not count somehow. This baffles me, to be honest.

P.S. There is no such animal as a head pastor in the NT, what there are are elders/overseers plural along with deacons plural that lead the congregation. There can be a president type function, such as James in Acts 15, to keep things in order, but he is just one voice of many making the decision.

Also, a husband is NEVER said to be the head of a marriage; he IS said to be (as a metaphor) the head of his wife, which maps to a body. The question and debate is what this metaphor of head and body meant and mean.

Today, we KNOW the brain is in the head, we also are very well aware that for the heart transplant or lung transplant or almost any bodily organ one wants to be a recipient in an operation, but for a brain transplant, one wants to be a donor, and it would be better to call it a body transplant. This is so blindingly obvious that it can be challenging to even think of asking the question about what head meant back in the 1st century. “I am the head, therefore I lead, end of story, what is the problem? Anyone who claims different is just talking crazy talk, and can be ignored.

And then there is the matter that we do not know the whole story about brain function vs. body function. I recall once reading the story of a little girl perhaps four years old who required a heart transplant. A donor appeared, she received the transplant, and… began having horrible nightmares involving someone trying to kill her. Inquiries were made, and it turned out that the donor had been a murder victim, but it was not known who the perpetrator had been. Even further inquiries were made, and it turned out the girl was describing a scene similar to the probable scenario for the donor’s murder, and was furthermore able to describe the murderer who appeared in her dream in enough detail for someone to recognize the person and, in the end, secure a conviction. In other words, that heart she received remembered the murder, even after being severed from the brain of its original ‘owner’ and being incorporated into the body of its new ‘owner’. The handiwork of our Creator is mysterious indeed.

Cherylu,

You asked about the multiple mentions of a wife submitting and whether that means something.

Yes, it means we are not to ignore it. But Paul even tells us in 1 case why he is writing it.

Tit 2:3 Likewise, older women are to show their reverence for God by their behavior. They are not to be gossips or addicted to alcohol, but to be examples of goodness.
Tit 2:4 They should encourage the younger women to be lovers of their husbands, lovers of their children,
Tit 2:5 sensible, pure, managers of their households, and kind, and to submit themselves to their husbands, lest the word of God be discredited.

Paul is taking the (pagan) culture’s expectations into account. He wants the gospel to go forth as we all do. So he wants a young wife to be an exemplary wife as much as possible. He knows he cannot agree with the culture’s expectations of wife always obeying, so he never says that. But he gets as close as he can, within the limits of what the Bible does teach. This is also what any missionary should do, go as far as possible to make the gospel attractive and not put any stumbling blocks in the way for others to accept it, other than following God’s instructions.

On a spouse’s salvation, all one can do is one’s best; there is no way to force another to come to Jesus. I think we all recognize that.

But it turns out there is another insight when knowing the cultural context. Recall that the (pagan) husband rules his wife, kids and household slaves, if any. This meant he got to decide the household “gods” to have a shrine in the home for. Typically, a few would be selected and the idols set up, and everyone else followed along with the husband’s decision. Now imagine a husband becoming a believer. He KNOWS he cannot FORCE anyone else to become a believer in Jesus, in fact, if that would happen due to cultural convention, it would not count; it needs to be a free will choice.

So Paul is reminding the husbands of this reality, he really does NOT know if his wife will worship the same God, altho pagans expected this as a matter of course.

Of course, the wife in the reverse situation is in quite a pickle. The expectation is she WILL worship the pagan “gods” of her pagan husband, but the true God forbids that. So right there she is in opposition to her husband’s assumed mostly total rule. Yikes! Peter writes about that in 1 Pet 3 as well as the husband’s case when he is the believer and his wife is not.

“My point is that men are conditioned to handle confrontation better than women. It is not that Kristie could not have done the same thing as me, it is just that this was not her bent.” -m.patton

Patton,
While your statement here may be true concerning some men and women, it certainly isn’t true of ALL men and women. And even IF it was, then if men can be “conditioned” to handle confrontation, so can women. Handling confrontation is not an inherent biological condition. You are making some very broad generalizations based on one wife (Kristie).

“b. Got a gun and peeked around the corner.” -m.patton

This would have been the top choice in my home because by the time my husband puts on his prosthetic leg, an invader could be in the bedroom.

“The role of head pastor, I believe requires confrontation.”

Where is your scriptural backing for anything called “the role of head pastor?”
Where is your scriptural backing for aggresive confrontation? Normally, your articles are much more soundly based. I’m sorry to say, it appears to me this time you are letting personal bias, based on your own assumptions concerning male/female biology, take precedence over Scripture and context.

“I want to not only understand what it says, but to rationally understand why it says what it says.” -m.patton

What is rational about asserting that God/Paul closed the door for ALL women on certain pastoral ministries because some women you are most familiar with are not “conditioned?”

Don, Right… And there is Paul, speaking of both situations in pretty much strictly egalitarian terms. The only reason I say ‘pretty much’, from a linguistic standpoint, is that he (at least at first) uses one word for the case where the woman ‘becomes separated’ (choristhenai – v. 10) from her husband, and a different one for the case where the husband ‘puts away’ or ‘looses’ (aphienai – v. 11) his wife. But even so, later he just uses the form ‘chorizetai’/’chorizestho’ for both cases (v. 15). Quite revolutionary under the circumstances, isn’t it…

Now what I’m curious about is: I guess the converted man removes the old gods from that household shrine, once he converts, right? Or does he, if his wife has remained an unbeliever? And what about the wife?

Caraboska,

Yes the words are different, but in cultural context they mean the same, namely divorce. I discuss this more in my teaching on marriage and divorce in 1st century context.

What I was getting at in pointing out the difference in wording was whether there was a legal difference – did women have the same legal right to divorce their husbands as men had to divorce their wives? If so, were the conditions surrounding it the same in both cases? The shading of the meaning does imply that there was at least a little bit of an idea in the culture that men take wives and put them away, while women leave their household of origin to join their husband’s household, and then leave it. This shading exists in the local language where I live too, which could explain why I noticed it.

FWIW, I think a lot of patriarchalists’ arguments come from improperly, IMO, importing their understanding of the male-female marriage relationship into and onto the church in terms of offices, positions, functions, roles, giftings, etc. While one can perhaps logically make that connection, I think there are reasons to question it.

Yes, in Roman law either a husband or a wife could divorce. What happened is the house owner (almost always the husband) evicted the other spouse if he wanted to divorce, and the non-house owner (almost always the wife) left/separated if she wanted to. So Paul is using the actual terms used to divorce in Roman (pagan) law. What this means is another discussion.

@Kohlberg

#
caraboska,
How do you think this would work in a Chinese House Church with only single adult members and a woman pastor. Should the first male member to get married automatically replace the present female pastor? What if he is a new immature Christian? Any thoughts?
#

I don’t think any change should be made in the pastorship of said church unless someone appears who is actually better qualified for the job and everyone agrees to the change. And for me, gender plays no role in the considerations of who is more qualified – because my view of marriage is egalitarian and this finds its reflection in my views on church leadership. Just my observation leads me to believe that a complementarian view of marriage finds its natural reflection in a complementarian view of church leadership (i.e. that only men are to be pastors).

That having been said, because of the controversy surrounding the question of gender and church leadership, I would want to look carefully at any candidate who appeared – regardless of gender – to make sure that the person is devoid of any notion of ‘demanding rights’ – whether that be of women’s right to exercise leadership at all, or men’s more or less exclusive right to exercise leadership – since Jesus clearly teaches that such attitudes are proper to pagans/unbelievers and therefore unbecoming to a Christian. So that I would do what I could to prevent any person found to have such attitudes from assuming a position of leadership in the church.

If we take this to mean that we are to emulate Christ as He is the Head = absolute authority of the church, does this mean men are the authority of their wives in the exact same way? Do any contemporary complimentarian marriages actually work that way?
No, complimentarians have to make numerous qualifications, and so with that their view dies the death of numerous qualifications.

As I read the NT early church hierarchy through the epistles of Paul and Peter, it consisted of an apostle, who had generally established the church, and therefore was considered it’s titular father. In Paul’s case he was an unmarried man. Peter was married. So obviously the marital – church connection was not, and is not the sole determining factor.

When it was the apostle who established the church then there seems to be a pattern from Paul’s epistles at least, that there was an understanding that he was the one who had the final word in theological matters. There is no mention of a ”head’ pastor, as someone has already pointed out, but the practical every day church governance was expected to be a position of what the Bible defines as ‘overseer’, or several overseers such as deacons or elders. This position has the definition of an overseer being the husband of one wife, so that a literal interpretation would not include single men either. In fact, it would disqualify Paul himself!

That creates an entirely different gender issue regarding head pastorship, since we could also construe Paul’s words that we could serve the Lord better by remaining single as a contradiction to the marital state which he himself stated in the requirements of an overseer. So the argument in the end is circular, because Christ is still the head pastor, something I think many here are forgetting. A church pastor simply represents the interests of Christ, he does not replace Him as the head of the church. Therefore the very title ‘head’ pastor as applied to another human being’s role connotes something of an extra biblical picture of church leadership.

With respect to Christ and His Body, He is the Head and the members – whether male or female – are the Body. He is the Husband, and the Church, comprised of males and females, is the Bride. For this reason – i.e., the fact that the entire Church is “female” in relation to Christ – I find it fallacious to make gender-related or gender-based distinctions/roles/superordinations&subordinations among and between the members when it comes to positions of authority or leadership. The Holy Spirit gifts and empowers as He wills.

I think the idea that the “head pastor” can only be a male is a carryover of the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox idea that the male priest stands in the place of Christ with respect to both God the Father and the other members of the Body. It’s based on a hierology (i.e., doctrine of priesthood – hiereus = priest) and a Real Presence/Real Sacrifice Eucharistology and a sacerdotalism and sacramentalism that are foreign to what most Protestants claim to believe.

”I was not speaking of things where one person wants to do something that is right Scripturally and one person wants to do something that is sinful. I am speaking of a situation that is more on the lines of, “where is the best place to invest this money,” or some other thing which is morally neutral. “

Do you really think that a subject as important as financial investment that the wife should lose her input?

”I believe that she is called in Ephesians 5 to submit to me as the husband, meaning that she, through her unique, God-given talents and gifts, ought to help me be the most Godly husband I can be as we, together, navigate the waters of life. I think it can be done in such a way that exalts her, not tears her down, and still allow me as the man to be the leader within the marriage.”

PeterMC,
That’s very nicely said, except you don’t need to be a leader over your wife for her to help you be a good person in Christ. Furthermore, you also need to help her be all she can be in Christ as well.

”Ever seen or talked to a real-life shepherd? In all seriousness…amazing folks. For the most part are very poor, humble, simple people….they serve their flock in every way possible. They share hardships. They endure the elements. But they also lead. They spot danger and confront it. They move on to green fields. They serve the flock…but make no mistake….the shepherd leads the flock.

Are you aware that there were women shepherds as well. Laban’s daughter was the sole shepherd of his flock. It’s in Genesis. And there is no reason to believe that she was an exception.

>>>To TUAD who appears to revel in attempts to divide the Body of Christ …. most often it isn’t about differing opinions and interpretations. It’s about how to be and live the life of a humble, servant of the Lord, harmless as a dove, yet understanding the ways of serpents enough to avoid them.

”The reason this discussion has gone into the issue of marriage in such detail is that the matter of roles in the church is clearly argued in the New Testament to be in some way based on sex roles as established at Creation.” …. probably many of us here would agree that once we have established the nature of roles in marriage, roles in the church more or less follow from that and fall into place quite naturally.

That would suggest that church leaders take on the ‘role’ of husband and the members in general take on the ‘role’ of wife! Curious idea. I cannot think of anything in Scripture to support that idea. Although, it may be a Catholic concept in general, since Catholocism considers priests as the stand in for Christ to the congregation.

TL,

I just told someone that I have to stop commenting here on this this issue at this time because of time constraints for one thing.

You quoted me above and then asked the question, Do you really think that a subject as important as financial investment that the wife should lose her input?

I need to make a quick clarificatin here. I did not mean that she is not to have any input. I meant that if there is disagreement that hasn’t been resolved after discussion and input, someone has to make the final decision and that is where I believe the wife needs to submit. Hope that helps you understand better what I meant.

TL,

Why have people suddenly started writing to me as if I am a complementarian? Some kind of misunderstanding has taken place. There are indeed complementarians who view the role of a husband as a priestly one – even among Protestants. And no doubt all the more so among Catholics. I view this as idolatry.

There are also complementarians who do not subscribe to the idea of priesthood except in the sense of priesthood of all believers. These folks would disapprove of women being elders because it would involve putting them ‘over’ men – which they would view as inappropriate because women are supposed to be submissive to men, especially in marriage.

And then there are the egalitarians, who do not believe that there exists any one-way authority structure between men and women at all – or if there does, that it is evidence of sin at work in humanity. These folks do not have a problem with women being elders.

Please, people, take careful note: I am a strict egalitarian. I believe that I am basically required to obey my husband – and he is basically obligated to obey me. Maybe that’s why I’m still single at age 45 😛 I believe gender is immaterial in church leadership. I believe there is no inherent difference between men and women except their plumbing. And that is how I live.

Don,

You write some good points here in your last few posts, and I want to be clear – I’m no attacking you or anyone else. Some people here on this post in fact are, but I’m not intending to do that. I understand that this is an issue, believe me — I would add that I’ve seen several churches split apart by this very issue, as I’m sure many of us have — and that is always, always, always a very painful thing to experience and endure.

We can agree to disagree…you seem secure in your position, and I in mine. At the end of the day, that’s just the way it is, and I understand that. I live it every day, as I’m sure you do as well.

I won’t belabor any points I’ve already made…but I will sum up what I’ve been trying to say with this: in the “classic” passages everyone here has been turning to that hold the “sure” answers, whether it’s in Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2, or 1 Peter, and a host of others…I believe it is clear that in order to function properly, everything needs a head. A church. A family. A marriage. The mystery of the trinity…which is certainly not an easy thing to nail down, is even ordered within itself. In 1 Corinthians 11:3, when Paul says that “God is the head of Christ,” I don’t believe this indicates any inferiority, or ‘lesserness’ within the trinity, but I do believe that it clearly shows Christ as under the Father — and these parallel is drawn as how wives are to be with regard to husbands 1 Corinthians 11: 8-12. And, in the same manner…I don’t think this denotes any kind of inferiority, lesserness, or any degradation of value towards the wife. People who infer that are flat out wrong. But I do hold to the belief that in terms of function, role, and leadership…these passages indicate a clear difference. The husband and wife, when married, become one body with one head, under Christ….the husband is to be that head. All of the passages mentioned above repeat this in one form or another, and…

Don,

I am trying to send you a message on your forum, and it’s telling me there’s an error, that “The letters you typed don’t match the letters that were shown in the picture.” Which is very nice except that I never even saw the picture, much less typed any letters (besides those in the message itself 🙂 ). ???

I certainly think there is a general lack of balance in the church regarding the proper use and misuse of authority, both male and female. 

As far what someone said about women obeying men, as slaves obeying their masters, this was the religious excuse used to condone slavery and ownership of one human being by another in the old south.  Same with segregation. Ancestors of former slaves, because of their lineage, were still considered second class citizens, even by the church itself and still expected to obey restrictive and unfair laws a hundred years later. I know because I was born and raised there, and grew up there prior, and during the civil rights movement.

Do you think Martin Luther King, a Baptist minister himself, was disobeying scripture by trying to change the unfairness of this blatant misuse of authority?  Some religious folks still argue that the freeing of the slaves disobeyed the Lord since He never publically condemned slavery. That was their religious excuse for establishing slavery in the first place!

I do not see marriage as a boss-employee relationship at all, but a hypostatic union under God.   So is our relationship with the church, which is an example as Eric pointed out, of both and female coming together under the heading of the Bride of Christ and His authority first. Our leaders may be in control of the church workings, but Christ is in control of us first. Same with marriage. There are some things my husband does better than me, and vice versa. In that case, we simply defer to each other.

While I believe the Bible is a manual for Godly living, I also believe we can take some parts of it too literally, and if we did that we would all be literally walking around without hands or eyes, having cut them off or put them out when we sin. I think this is often the case with authority issues. Are we really so insecure as Christians that we have to lord over someone else to feel validated, instead of letting the Lord.

“Why have people suddenly started writing to me as if I am a complementarian? Some kind of misunderstanding has taken place.”

🙂 for me it was only that one statement that I just didn’t get. Perhaps, we just talked past each other in the way that humans can and often do. I really didn’t “get” what you were saying.

ultimately, that’s why I believe what I do.

How does all of this translate into the church? Well, I’m not exactly sure. As you brought up, and it is a point worth remembering, the church as it was created in a prayer meeting in Acts probably didn’t look a lot like the church’s that are out there today. And yes, there is no office of “head pastor” or associate pastor” or “Pastor of ‘fill in the blank’ ” truly laid out in Scripture. What we do have, thankfully, is a pretty comprehensive description in terms of qualifications and roles laid out for the offices of elders/deacons, which many people have alluded to above. They don’t need repeating.

The lines are not crystal clear what or who can do what…but as I get into these passages, all of them, to me….are unified. I wish, as all of us do at times, that the answers were written in the clouds to be unmistakably clear, but sometimes they just aren’t. You know that, and I think all of us do. What I do know is that IF in fact women are called to place themselves under the man within the marriage relationship, and I believe that is a true statement…and if the reason for that call is so that the marriage can mirror both the manner in which the church is under Christ, and how Christ is under the Father…then it stands to reason, to me, that women are not to be the head of a practicing Church, in the company of men. What exactly does that mean? Well…I think it means just that – they aren’t to be the head of a Church.

Should women participate in church? Should they pray? Should they sing? Should they grow in God? Absolutely!!! Should they give testimonies? Should they share good news with fellow believers? Should they share concerns when things are awry? Absolutely!!! But should they be the HEAD of a church, even if they have the ‘skills’ required to do so? I just don’t think so. Best to all — have enjoyed the discussion. Grow in God!

PeteMC: “… believe me — I would add that I’ve seen several churches split apart by this very issue, as I’m sure many of us have — and that is always, always, always a very painful thing to experience and endure.”

“But should they be the HEAD of a church, even if they have the ’skills’ required to do so? I just don’t think so.”

Neither does Alice Linsley (a former TEc priestess who had the integrity to renounce her priestess ordination).

“After years of studying the question of women priests she is persuaded that this innovation is the root cause of the schism within Anglicanism.”

“Should women participate in church? Should they pray? Should they sing?”

At this point, I just have to ask – is there something “magical” that happens to the words of psalms and other theologically accurate songs when sung…voila! it’s fine for a woman to teach men by singing the message??

But should they be the HEAD of a church, even if they have the ’skills’ required to do so? I just don’t think so.

And that’s one example of why I think that for many patriarchalists their reasoning is just that… i.e., their reasoning. They haven’t understood or grasped or had revealed to them the full implications of the New Man and the New Creation, and that there are certain aspects of the eschaton that have broken into and are even now breaking into the Church as the Kingdom of God.

As for Alice Linsley. She went from one episcopal hierarchal male-priest Eucharist sacrificial sacramental ecclesiology (Anglican) to another (Eastern Orthodox). Is it any surprise, then, that she continues to uphold the male-only clergy model of “the church”? It’s disingenuous for ProtEvangel’s to appeal to Linsley to bolster a case for patriarchalism if they reject her views on the church and the priesthood.

Ex-TEc priestess Alice Linsley simply recognized that the rotten fruits of egalitarianism are divisive church splits and that the egalitarianism of women’s ordination is the root cause of these schisms.

I find it a bit ironic that some of the strict complementarians in this discussion never take into account the fact that women DO teach in the church. Even in conservative venues like the Southern Baptists, women have always been the majority in teaching Sunday School and Children’s Church, as it is called nowadays. There seems to be nothing wrong with that picture in the eyes of an otherwise all male heirarchy. Women in churches across the board also teach mixed adult Bible studies, and have been ever since I can remember, which was long before the advent of women’s lib. Don’t recall any male objections to that one either.

729.Truth Unites… and Divides on 05 Jun 2010 at 1:34 pm #

Ex-TEc priestess Alice Linsley simply recognized that the rotten fruits of egalitarianism are divisive church splits and that the egalitarianism of women’s ordination is the root cause of these schisms.

Alice Linsley was simply wrong. She also “simply recognized” that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the True Church that Christ founded, and renounced all variant Protestant and non-EOC (including Roman Catholic and so-called “Oriental” Orthodox) teachings as being heresies when she became a catechumen or a member and received her baptism and chrismation. Those who defend something because it’s what Alice Linsley “simply recognized” should not promote one of the things she “simply recognized” as being the truth when they reject the other things she has “simply recognized” – and not only “simply recognized,” but confesses and proclaims anew each week at every Divine Liturgy.

One can affirm some things that another person/group says without having to affirm everything that that person/group says.

For example, some egalitarians affirm Scripture’s clear teaching that same-sex behavior is sin and that active homosexuals should not be ordained.

Complementarians agree with those egalitarians who declare that same-sex behavior is a sin and active homosexuals should not be ordained while simultaneously rejecting egalitarianism.

TUaD:

You ought to get this bumper sticker:

Alice Linsley said it, I believe it, that settles it!

😀

“Should women participate in church? Should they pray? Should they sing?”

According to scripture, we are to remain quiet. So a strictly literal reading would say ‘no’. But then we don’t do church entirely by the Book, then do we? Guess to be 100% correct, we’ll have to do away with women in choirs and Sunday School teachers, and church nurseries, and let women just stay home to to be absolutely biblically correct. 🙂

That means men would have to change diapers in the nursery, and serve and wash up after the potlucks. Glory be! A truly egalitarian church for a change.

Eric W (and any other egalitarians who choose to answer):

Are you one of the egalitarians who hold that same-sex behavior is a sin and that active homosexuals should not be in ordained to positions of church leadership?

Or are you one of the egalitarians who believe that same-sex behavior is not a sin?

MBaker,

Women being the majority in Sunday School teachers, children’s church, teaching classes…I say AWESOME. My mother, before she died, was a Sunday School teacher for almost 40 years. She was a godly woman who taught me a lot. To say she wasn’t a strong Christian influence on my life would be a lie.

But everything you described…is not the same as being the head Pastor.

That’s what this blog was originally about – women as head Pastors.

Every verse I’ve used to support my position, whether you agree with me or not, supports men and women each teaching, ministering, growing, etc. That’s not the debate here.

There is something fundamentally different though, about leading a church as a head Pastor, or if you don’t like that term, it’s equivalent term…whatever makes you happy.

I hope my daughters grow to be strong, Godly women…capable of teaching, learning, etc…whether it’s in Sunday School or a variety of other possibilities. I just don’t think it is within their roles to assume the head Pastor of a church.

Pete

And I don’t think the term ‘head’ pastor is a biblical one. The leader of a church is a servant of Christ, no matter what his position is called. Note that even the apostle Paul called himself that. That’s the point that at least some of us here are trying to get across, not this authoritarian, almost king like status that has come to define the ministry role of a ‘head’ pastor. Ministering is just that. It means serving others as Christ served the church. It is not about any human’s complete authority over other human being, male or female. That’s the definition of a dictatorship, not Christianity. Christ will always be Head of His church no matter who’s in the pulpit.

mbaker,

Agree with you 100%. Indeed one could pose the question of whether ‘pastor’ is an office or just a function. If it’s the latter, then this whole discussion falls apart, now that I think about it 😀

MBaker,

The role of head Pastor is not in the Bible, but I would say that the role of head Pastor is something that denotes leader, or representative, whatever you want to call it. There were only Kings in the Bible, not Presidents…but I would say that the office of President of the United States is still an office and denotes something of a leader or representative.

For practical purposes, church’s have leaders – call them what you wish. Call them Pastors, call them Ministers, call them whatever you want in today’s date and time….

They serve as functions…with distinct roles and therefore distinct purposes.

I’ve seen church’s with no practical, human leadership….where only “God” is the head….in 95% of these scenarios, these church’s fall apart within 3 years, or discover the hard way that because we are human, fallible, people…someone or some group still has to step up and be leaders.

Pete

PeteMC,

What about the Quakers? They’ve been around for several hundred years!

Jesus has waited nearly 2,000 years for the church(es) to get it right.

He’s still waiting….

Come, Lord Jesus!

Caraboska,
The little girl and the heart transplant confirms the unity of the head/body. Doctors today know that the head does not control everything all by itself. Many body functions contribute to how the brain works and what the brain puts into action. Even nerves and muscle stems dictate what the brain is to do. The body is not the puppet of the brain as has been thought by some.

”Agree with you 100%. Indeed one could pose the question of whether ‘pastor’ is an office or just a function. If it’s the latter, then this whole discussion falls apart, now that I think about it :D”

Quite true. All the five fold ministries are spiritual manifestations of the Holy Spirit working through an individual. Definitely a function, a ministry, a service and not an office as we use the term today.

”I need to make a quick clarificatin here. I did not mean that she is not to have any input. I meant that if there is disagreement that hasn’t been resolved after discussion and input, someone has to make the final decision and that is where I believe the wife needs to submit. Hope that helps you understand better what I meant.”

Cherylu,
IMO that is a very poor choice for settling disagreements. It just means that the husband always get’s his way when he doesn’t agree. A better way is to pray about it and discuss it until a decision that is acceptable to both presents itself.

directed to Ericw —”Are you one of the egalitarians who hold that same-sex behavior is a sin and that active homosexuals should not be in ordained to positions of church leadership?”

This is not only off topic but a hot potato. Even agreeing with you it’s still a hot potato and not one that should be addressed in this thread. But of course, you know that.

It’s merely to rebut EricW’s false and poor reasoning that if you affirm one part of another person/group’s statements, then you have to affirm all of them.

It’s sad that I have to point that out.

Caraboska,
Regarding the Equality Central forums, look along the links at the top and click on “My Messages”. You have a message. Answer it and maybe we can sort out the difficulties you were having.

TL,

Just tried. Had same problem. ???

EricW and TL,

Does it bother you to know that there are egalitarians who don’t believe that same-sex behavior is a sin and that they believe that active homosexuals can be ordained to church leadership?

Or it doesn’t bother you because you agree with these egalitarians and you’re one of them?

I am guessing that the problem with TUAD’s question is actually this – only maybe others are too polite to say it – namely: the problem is not who believes what about homosexuality, but that this question is being posed in a forum which is supposed to be about something very different, and with an obvious intent to provoke. Very off-topic and probably not in line with blog rules either. Caveat emptor.

“It’s sad that I have to point that out.”

I am glad you said that yourself, because it has nothing to do with anything we are discussing here, or even anything that is in the least appropriate or relevant to what so far has been a very enlightening but friendly debate on all sides. You are right, it is sad that you saw fit to bring it up. 🙁

It actually relates quite well to the topic.

And I think you know that.

Your collective avoidance of it is quite telling and quite revealing.