Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors

John L., exactly. I’ve been teaching for 35+ years and this belief is not in the whole of Scripture. This can only be found by inserting assumptions into Paul’s few words about women. These assumptions do not pan out elsewhere.

Here is a new post on 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 that I put up at my blog.

John L. and TL:

Agreed. Paul says that a woman can’t teach or authentein a man because:

1. Adam, not Eve, was formed first;
2. The woman [Eve as representative woman?], rather than Adam, was deceived; and
3. The woman [Eve as representive woman?] is in transgresssion.

AFAIK, nowhere does he discuss the combative nature of confronting false doctrine as being a masculine (versus feminine) prerogative or a task best or only suited for men.

And trying to argue for male-only head pastors based on 2. or 3. or even 1. above is fraught with a minefield of difficulties, IMO, when other Scriptures are considered.

Really, it seems like we’re fuzzing the line between natural theology and Scripture in this. How can we keep those two things clear and distinct? Also: how should those two things intersect?

I kind of agree with CMP’s reasoning. It isn’t the conveying of truth that’s the issue; it’s the confrontation of false teachers and the exercise of church discipline.

I don’t think the apostle Paul had any problems with a woman conveying spiritual truths to a man. After all, isn’t the Great Commission exactly that, to convey the spiritual truth that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose again? Rather, Paul does not want women to be the ones ultimately responsible dealing with those savage wolves who infiltrated the church and seek to devour the flock.

But here’s the $64,000 question: there are some discerning educated Christian women who are confrontational when dealing with false teachers. Does that mean some of them are called to be head pastors?

Michael Patton you made these remarks to Rebecca:

“Rebecca, I too am troubled by the lack of male leaders. Frankly, think that there are many reasons, but one that is very important, in my opinion, is that men are not taught to be men anymore. They don’t know what it means. They are taught that they don’t have too many essential differences between them and women. They are taught that they don’t have a particular role. They are taught to supress their masculinity and embrass their “feminine side.” It is confusing. In the end, I think we need more people who are complementarian leading the church and expressing this value with greater confidence and boldness.

Men will still be wimps because we are still sinners. Adam still followed Eve.”

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are right on the money! Finally someone is telling it like it is. I am a man – a born again Jesus-lover. I am not ashamed to be a man. I am not ashamed that He endowed me as a man with authority over His creation. I am not asahmed to be the head of my wife and household. I am unwilling to yielsd that position of authority. As men we need to stop being apologetic about the position God has given us because of political correctness in the Church. The passage from Timothy in my opinion speaks very clearly. I think many simply don’t like what it says. You know what Romans 8 says about the carnal mind – it’s hostile towards God. There is much more I could say, but thanks for saying what you said.

[…] Michael Patton writes to explain "Why Women Cannot Be Head Pastors". The crux of his argument is that women lack the combative nature to sufficiently oppose false […]

Edavis,

Perhaps you are not aware that Scripture says a wife is also ruler of her home, in 1 Tim 5:14, as some translations obscure this.

The word is oikodespoteo, literally home despot/ruler.

I would hope you would relinquish your usurpation.

eDavis,

Authority lovers do not make good leaders in any paradigm.

60 – Don,
My wife and I have been married for 27 years and she is a liberated woman. I understand what it means to be head of my wife, and so does she. Real men do not dominate their wives! She does some things better than I. I am not in the least bit uncomfortable with that. We work in harmony. When a man and a woman understand their role in marriage, and abide in that role, it make for a much better marriage. I know my strengths and weaknesses. She knows her strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes we have our conflicts, but if I love my wife, who is the weaker vessel, I am going to be considerate of her – which I am. Having said all of that the old folks had a saying ” anything with 2 heads is a freak”. Someone has to be the head, and God has appointed that position to the man. It’s a tough role to fill and one I refuse to relinguish.
61 – TL,
It is not so much that I am an “authority lover” in the way you imply it- although a healthy love for authority is good. Perhaps this is what is at the heart of the issue with women wanting to be pastors. Could it be that once again Satan has inticed them to question God’s command and thus His authority? I have always placed myself under the authority of those who have authority over me – even (as hard as it is for me to admit) a woman – but not in the Church. I happen to be one of those people who believes there is difference between a man and women and not just physical. Men should be men, just as Christ was a man – not a woman. He is called the Son (not daughter) of Man (not woman). Women should be women. Why in the world does a woman want to take on a man’s role, especially in the Church? There are specific instructions in scripture for women teaching women. That’s a full time minstry! It is completely out of order for women to be pastors. Scripture does allow women to assist in the pastorial ministry – I think they are invaluable! The passge from Timothy is very clear – let’s just agree with it.

Edavis,

I would agree with what I understand by assumption to be your interpretaion of 1 Tim 2, if and only if you can Prove that Paul was stopping more than 1 woman from teaching. But there is no way to do this. There is no way to prove that Paul wrote about women (pl) in the passage. That is the sad reality of the complementarian interpretaion of 1 Tim 2- it doesn’t withstand the test. I sure would like to see any complementarian meet this impossible challenge 🙂

Edavis,

So you are willing to accept the “hard role” of ruling over another adult? Sorry, I do not buy that. Both a husband and a wife are to love the other. Both a husband and a wife are to submit to one another. Both a husband and a wife are to respect one another. The use of a head/body metaphor by Paul in Eph 5 is a metaphor of unity, not a metaphor of leadership. One can see this by seeing what Jesus as head of the church does, which is serve the body of Christ, without a hint of leadership in the Eph 5 text. That is, the non-egals are taking the metaphor too far, and seeking power, which should be repented from.

”It is not so much that I am an “authority lover” in the way you imply it- although a healthy love for authority is good.” ….. “Someone has to be the head, and God has appointed that position to the man. It’s a tough role to fill and one I refuse to relinguish.”

Why is a love for personal authority a good thing. Where is that written in Scripture? Jesus never even inferred such an idea. In fact Jesus spoke directly against wielding authority over another human being.

Matt. 20:25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Notice that Jesus said that exercising authority over them was to not be the way they were to operate. Rather we are to serve one another in a dedicated manner.

And this is what Paul was attempting to reveal to us in Ephesians. Even though the local laws at that time upheld male dominance in marriage, Paul sought to paint a picture of serving one another. Wives are to honor their husbands by their submissive support and respect. Husbands are to honor their wives by their dedicated care and support. Both are to love (Ephe. 5:1-2), both are to submit (Ephe. 5:18-21). By adding in a metaphor of head of and body of we see a unity of mutual need. For the two to become as one they need to stay attached to each other. Peter even furthered this thought by showing the believing husband’s need to respect the unbelieving wife or his prayers would be hindered.

eDavis, some of your words in 1262 were difficult to read, they portrayed so much prejudicial negativity.

”He is called the Son (not daughter) of Man (not woman).

Actually, he is called the Son of humans, not male humans. And this fact is in no way denigrating to women, because women are human also.

You will find that in Romans 12, Ephesians 4, and in 1 Cor. 12 all the grace effects of the Holy Spirit are distributed solely at the perfect judgment of the Holy Spirit, without any physical differentiations. Women who are called and gifted with any of the spiritual grace effects are individuals chosen by God just like Miriam, Huldah, Deborah, Esther, Ruth, Anna, Mary, Phoebe, Priscilla, Lydia, Chloe and many others. When anyone is called and ‘gifted’ by God, God intends for them to follow through and minister in what He has equipped them. Scripture is quite clear that when God calls an individual, God wants them to obey and trust Him.

We actually know from the virgin birth that Jesus was NOT the son of a male human. So Edavis is doubly wrong on his claim.

So many supposed partners of the new covenant and participants in the new creation and body-members of the new (hu)man continue to see and approach things through the old covenant and the old creation and the old (hu)man.

EricW, Romans 1 says that the invisible attributes of God are made quite perceptible in the natural world. While using nature to give guidelines for theology is not infallible, the Bible seems to assume we should look to nature — carefully — and we can walk away with something about theology. The Psalms also look to creation as evidence of who God is.

But we cannot look to the “old creation” or “old covenant” to see who we are at all?

We are a sexually dimorphic species, you know. If you look at a snake as it crawls on the ground, you cannot automatically tell if it’s male or female. If you look at a cat, you cannot tell unless you lift its tail. Same with most other creatures. For tarantulas, even scientists cannot determine their gender until they reach a certain age.

But the differences in physical characteristics of humans are extremely obvious. Our lack of a fur coat compared to other mammals makes it very easy to tell the sexes apart. There is a clear physical difference in facial features, hair, body shape, etc. Our psychology naturally picks up on this fact and applies it. There have been plenty of misapplications of the fact that women and men are different, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the fact.

Yes, the differences are “just” biology. But God sure went out of his way to give a distinction between the sexes that extends beyond just which set of reproductive organs one has.

Of course there is sexual dimorphism; only a woman can bear or nurse kids and only a man can impregnate a woman. Having more testosterone and similar usually leads to males being larger than females. In fetal development, there is a massive die off of the connecting cells between the 2 halves of the brain in a male that does not happen in a female. I accept that all of these were designed by God.

How does any of this apply to leadership in church or home? Both genders have advantages and disadvantages over the other, a mutual effort seems to offer the best of both, including access to insights the other may not have.

Michael et al,

I find your argument to be exceptionally weak and not well thought out. Is Christian Apologetic just that as you stated. J.P. Moreland did an excellent job on what a Christian Apologist is in his brief article on Developing an Apologetic Character . The argument in this blog miss out the difference between power and authority. As Christian we have the authority to put forth our case for Christ and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. Has nothing to do with power.

There is another view point which should be taken seriously.
Kroeger and Kroeger got it right in their book : I suffer not a woman: Rethinking 1 Tim 2:11-15.
In their book they pointed out that this whole passage probably has nothing to do with the role of women in the church, rather a REFUTATION OF A SPECIFIC POSITION being advanced by false teachers in Ephesus.
Their reasons are:
1) Gnostic teaching was rampant during those times.

2) Obsession with mother-goddess worship in Asia minor especially Ephesus and that Gnostic teachers had blended many of Old Testament teachings into their system.

3) Original earth mother (mother-goddess) gave life to all including men. This is established fact. Eve was attributed the role of earth-mother by Gnostics. That Eve gave life to Adam. Take a moment and phase– make sense why Paul states ” For it was Adam who was first created then Eve!” These teachings were done by women in the church.

Notice also that Gnostics taught that Eve ate the forbidden fruit, she was not in error, but actually brought Adam liberation from oppression from God in Old Testament. Again it make sense why Paul stated that ” Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

Notice also the strange verse 15: but women will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. If we understood that in light of Gnostics believe that sex was all right, but not if pregnancy is…

mess up. Here is the rest

the result. To them children are bad because they are material beings. Paul however, is reassuring them that there is nothing wrong with having children. Women will be saved regardless of having children or not.

Gary Simmons:

I am not discounting male/female differences, or even their complementariness. If you read all my posts in this thread and other threads on the same subject, you’ll see that my position is that in the church there should be no gender requirements or restrictions for offices, roles, giftings, functions, positions, etc.

The church is a new creation, the body of a New Man, in which all the members relate to the head as both members of the body and as a bride to the bridegroom. In Christ there is not “male and female.” All are children of God. And as such, all can be placed in, and function in, the body as the Spirit wills and does.

If God gifts a woman to lead and teach, let her lead and teach, whether the flock or students consist of men or women. Jesus is the head of the church, His body.

Greetings to you all! Years ago, regarding 1 Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:11-15, I was in church one day and the literalness of these passages bothered me so much, I wondered why I was in church. If a woman had to be silent, violating the command to pray without ceasing, I began to wonder if I should be in church at all. So, as you can imagine, I began to study this out. And in due time I realized that people have interpreted these Scriptures anyway they felt led, being in the literal it says what it says. But in studying it, I found some interesting things. First women and wives are one Greek word. Regarding “teach” there are about 8 Greek words for our one English word. In Thayers I found that in the ancient Greek, usurping authority meant to kill someone with their own hands. And I realized that 1 Tim 2:11-15 does not necessarily mean in the church. I believe these passages refer to marriage. (I could say more on that.) It is just like even in the ESV, Eph 4:8 is translated “men” but it really means “human beings”.
But I have come across plenty of people online in forums that do believe women have no place really in the church. And I remember well in one place, I was asking if this is so about women, when will Acts 2:17-19 ever happen, in their opinion? As a result, I was told to be like the Proverbs 31 woman. But I told them, my husband would be highly offended if “I considered a field and bought it”. It says to do that after all. And in fact if women in your congregation lived in New York City and all considered a field and bought it, there might be a bit of bankruptcy going on. But it says to do it after all. It does. Should women all be considering a field and buying it?

TL,
I went back and read what I said @ line 62 and I see how my words “healthy love for authority” could be view. When I made that statement, I was thinking of authority in the general sense and only because authority is ordained of God. Everything God ordained is good. Authority is not only good, but necessary and when it is excercised in the spirit of love as its Creator intended, its existense is fundamental in building a healthy home and ultimately a healthy society. I should have developed my point better – please forgive me.

To the others,
Jesus referred to Himself as “Son of man”. This seems to be His favorite name. I know about His birth. You must read what I say as well as others in the context we are writing. Go back to the beginning of this blog from time to time and read its title. This blog has to do with authority in the Church as it relates to women. Women play as vital of a role in the body as men in as much as no member of the body is without importance – they serve a different function. The ultimate goal is unity in the body of Christ. We need to understand first that there is a distinction between a man and a woman in the Church. Positionally in Christ “there is neither male nor female”, but in the Church we read the apostles instructions to men and women. Finally we need to abide in our roles or calling.

I hope this clarifies my position. I’m not an authority freak.

The term in Greek is “huis anthropos” which means “son of a human” or idiomatically, a human. Anthropos is the Greek for a human.

You can choose to take off your masculinist lenses if you want to and God can help you.

I greatly enjoy the deep study that I have been seeing lately on “the Son of Man” referring to Jesus.
I find that the deep understanding of Son of Man or Son of a Human is all wonderful.
I believe that it gives us a deeper understanding of what it is all about. For one, I believe that Jesus was constantly referring to Himself as The Son of Man or the Son of a Human, is because He is the Promise. Go back to Abraham and Isaac and circumcision and the covenant and it becomes very obvious that Jesus did not want anyone to miss the fact that He was that promise to come.
Isaac of course was a miracle child due to a barren woman, but Jesus was Begotten of the Father and Conceived by the Holy Spirit, yet still He is from the King of David per lineage and promises to come. I truly believe that Jesus made it quite clear that He was that Promise and called Himself Son of Man or Son of a Human.

#1275 eadavis,

“Positionally in Christ “there is neither male nor female”, but in the Church we read the apostles instructions to men and women. Finally we need to abide in our roles or calling.”

Thanks for responding e.a. However, I disagree with this. IN Christ there is neither social class, working nor wealthy, male nor female. IN Christ we are all sons and full inheritors of God’s riches. IN Christ we are all warriors fighting the great battle of good and evil, truth and lies and the spreading of God’s Will. IN Christ we are all athletes running the race with diligence and perseverence. IN Christ we are all the Bride of Christ united as One, working in harmony for the Father’s goals, trusting in Christ’s provisions, nurturing, rescuing and great love for us. Even the apostles, leaders and church workers are the same.

What we need to do is abide in is Christ who is our strength, our sustenance — Lord of Lords, as well as The Messiah fully human and fully Divine, He is the the healer, the Truth Giver, the Life Giver. What you presented is lifeless and unfulfilling compared to what Christ offers.

Karen,

” For one, I believe that Jesus was constantly referring to Himself as The Son of Man or the Son of a Human, is because He is the Promise.”

It’s too bad that there are not more Bibles that say Son of a Human instead of Son of Man. It would take away the confusion and tendency to worship man as male.

Three “isms” the church of Jesus Christ could very well do without (or do very well without):
* Clericalism
* Sacerdotalism
* Patriarchalism

I see these Scriptures per women/wives being silent in church (1 Cor 14:34) and why it is translated continually that way, is simply that if Marriage is a picture or a figurative or a parallel of the Body of Christ (Man is the Head of a Woman, Christ is Head of the Body)…
Then I believe that these translators really have a purpose for its translation, for it speaks of persecution, the Persecuted Church. The Body of Christ is a persecuted church.
I do believe it had to be that way because of what the Lord showed me pertaining to it all some years ago.

Popycock of the first order. How could someone who comes across as fairly intelligent come up with such pure, unmitigated conjecture on such an important issues. Things like this set back the cause of Christianity in the minds of thinking people. Shame. shame.

TL,
Your response to what I wrote about Jesus being called “Son of Man” truly amazes me. Political correctness has really done a number on you. To further develop my argument, let me say you must make the distinction between Christ and his Church. Though we are baptised into His body through the Holy Spirit, we are not Christ Himself, nor is He us. There is spiritual reality amd there is earthly reality and we live in them both simultaneously. The regenarate believer in Christ experiences something the unregenerate does not – the reality of the presence (or life) of God thru the redemptive work of Christ, in the power of the ever-present indwelling Holy Spirit as well as the reality of this world. For example, scripture speaks of us as “saved” in a perfected or completed sense, and yet we are “being” saved. How can this be? I think this can be best understood when we read passages like those in Col 3 where we are “dead and your life is hid with Christ in God”. Then we have Phil 2 where are to “work out our salvation”. Christ left order in the Church. When He returns that order will not be necessary. While we are in the body that order is necessary. If a wife is to submit to her husband, how then can a man then submit to a woman pastor. This is problematic and completely out of order. Political correctness has so influenced the Church.

eadavis, what you present is still lifeless and unfulfilling compared to what Christ offers.

”If a wife is to submit to her husband, how then can a man then submit to a woman pastor. This is problematic and completely out of order. Political correctness has so influenced the Church.”

Pastors are not husbands to the laity, the comparison is ludicrous. A husband is not the bringer of order between he and his wife. Husband and wife are to become as one entity, not the order bringer and the follower. Wives do not marry so that they can be brought into some sort of order by a man and follow him.

Also, pastors are not order bringers in the church. All leaders help to influence the believers into godly behavior. They do this not as authority figures held above the laity, but as gifted brethren as they are inspired by God to serve the needs of the believers they live around.

It is unfortunate that some people bring into the church their world concepts that all of life is about authority, who has it and who follows it. Thankfully, that is not the picture Christ brings. Christ brings real life, healing, deliverance, inspiration and true love and bids us all to come sit beside Him

TL,

It bothers me that you equate what I have been writing with “world concepts”. I am quoting to you from the scripture not from some popular secular book. At least acknowledge scripture even if you do not agree with my interpretation of it.

Eadavis,

Quoting pieces of Scripture is not really quoting Scripture IMO. It is using Scripture in a cut and paste manner. By doing that one can make a few words out of the Bible say anything they want. In order to properly use and interpret Scripture one needs to read it in context so as to be better able to see where the author was going in his thinking.

Just taking the few words out of a whole section (vs. 21-33), a wife is to submit to her husband, and running with them to apply them however seems good, is not handling Scripture properly. What you have done IMO is then apply the world’s concepts of hierarchical corporate structures of leadership to the equation and come up with an idea that if a wife is to submit to a husband a husband cannot submit to a wife because that would be backward in the hierarchy. And that is actually the opposite of what Paul was saying in that section.

The role of a believer is to follow Christ. The idea of gender roles in spiritual things does not make sense. Yes, there are a few things that only females can do, but these are physical, not spiritual. And there is something only a male can do, but these are physical, not spiritual.

All the text of Scripture is in teaching units or pericopes, to extract verses from their teaching units risks damage to the intended meaning, this is what satan did when tempting Jesus and believers should not do this. This is especially true when extracted verses are chained together, then one might end up anywhere in their eisegesis. For example, one teaching unit is Eph 5:15-6:9, starting a teaching with Eph 5:22 does damage to the intended meaning.

Exactly right, Don.

eadavis, what you did by extracting only the words about the wife submitting to her husband and using them as a stand alone admonishment, was then to add in your concept that husbands aren’t to submit to wives. Truth is that everyone is to submit to everyone in reverence to the Lord, as it says in Ephe. 5:21. And by omitting the verb in vs. 22, Paul is extending that attitude of mutuality into the marriage relationship, saying wives to husbands as well.

In not understanding that the attitude of submission is a mutual submission as shown in verse 21, you then have changed Paul’s admonishment and changed the meaning of the word as it was used into a hierarchal governing, which is contrary to what Paul was saying. This is the problem we have in the body of Christ with people not understanding how to properly read Scripture.l

TL and Don,

I give up! No further discussion! It amazes me how you guys (oops I guess I also better say gals so as not to offend) miss what I am trying to say. FYI I took nothing out of context.

Be blessed.

eadavis,

” If a wife is to submit to her husband, how then can a man then submit to a woman pastor. This is problematic and completely out of order.”

This statement is taking parts of Scripture out of context. It is making a wrong assumption that a man cannot submit to either his wife or a woman pastor. We are all to submit to one another in the fear of God.

Some think that the Greek hupotasso/submit can only be from a lower to a higher in a hierarchy. But Paul carefully refines the work in Eph 5:21 making it reflexive so it becomes mutual submission. So there is no contradiction. Every believer is to be in submission to other believers and this obviously cannot mean obedience in every case, altho it does in some, as a child is to obey a parent. But a parent is to be in submission to their own kids in not having free reign, per Paul and contra what the pagan culture taught.

8 months and 1291 comments later….

Those who think the egal-comp debate will be only a minor issue among Evangelicals in the next decade or two, or those who think that they and groups like Acts 29 and persons like Piper and Mohler and others have settled the issue once and for all in their own denominations, are probably mistaken. 😮

Here is a link to a recent article on 1 Corinthians 11:3 that I posted this past week to continue my series on the role of women. I’d love any comments.

Beginning in Gen 2:19 God brought to Adam every living creature to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called them that was there name. In Gen 2:23 Eve was brought to Adam and he named her woman. Ladies that is how you got your name, man named you. God named man, man named woman. Men and women name their children and they all carry the husbands surname. In Gen 3:16 we are told your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” And so the battle of the sexes began. Moving on in Gen 3:17 Adam is told the following paraphrased “Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife….”Cursed is the ground for your sake. Whoa!!! Lesson learned. Men are just making sure we don’t repeat that mistake again. Ladies your fight is with what God has said, not man. So to that I say deal with it.

“So to that I say deal with it.”

Dealt with. At the cross. Christ is the New Creation. The curse is undone, removed, nullified. In Christ there is not “male and female.” Old things have passed away. Christ is the One New (Hu)Man. All the rest of us, men, women, Jews, Gentiles, slaves, freemen, circumcised, uncircumcised, are members of His Body and are one in Him.

Move out of the old creation, whether pre-Fall or post-Fall, and move into Christ. You have been translated into the Kingdom of God’s Son. Set your mind on things above. Enter the New Creation. It’s not Eden restored, but Christ is all and in all.

I haven’t read all of the comments, but it seems to me that this issue has fallen into the same two road ditches that it always falls into.

Michael, I appreciate your efforts to try and understand why this command was given in Timothy, however, a crucial point has been neglected by most or all of those commenting and even the author himself: Because God said so!

There is an important aspect of sinfulness that correlates; we want to be gods. Remember what the serpent said to Eve? “You will be like God, knowing good and evil…” Our sinful actions are more or less our efforts to act godlike in controlling our circumstances, etc. WE hate it when we are not in control.

Having said that, any woman in her rebelliousness who rejects what Paul has said in Timothy concerning women teaching in the church is sinning against God because “all Scripture is God breathed,” thus, God has not changed or placed something different in that section of Scripture that has nothing to do with this issue, so it’s as though God himself has said that women are not to teach in the church, combative nature or otherwise.

We as human beings are quite rebellious, just look at the children of Israel, “stubborn, stiff-necked”, etc. We are no different.

We guys sin when we try to frame the issue whee we are in authority over women based on this passage when that is not the point. God said women cannot teach, so why are we in our desire to be as gods, trying to usurp God’s authority and commandment?

For women to fight against this commandment is sin and rebelliousness, and for men to tell women that we are in authority because we are better equipped is sin and rebelliousness. Our vain efforts to derive some sort of better equippedness should be seen for what it is, rebellion against a biblical command. God did not choose us, or the Israelites, because we brought anything to the table, He chose us because He wanted to. We are special because He chose us; we were not chosen…

…because we were special.

Children will whine when they do not get what they want, in the same way women whine because they don’t like God’s command and try to find loopholes; and men whine when women don’t submit to them as they try to argue time and time again. This issue has nothing to do with our giftedness, abilities, or inherent bent (natural inclination), it has everything to do with God said and we obey whether we like it or not. Capiche?

blah blah blah

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

The Bible is the BIBLE folks. God is the ultimate author of the Bible. If we say we follow God, we follow what HE says. The Bible says what it says, it does NOT matter if you agree or disagree. YOUR PERSONAL OPINION does not matter. All that matters is what GOD says.

Knowing scripture requires a complete knowledge of all scripture rather than swallowing a camel and straining a gnat. What you should be asking is ” is a woman considered a woman in God’s eyes after salvation?”

Gal 3:26
¶ For ye are all the children 5207 of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
The Proper definition of “CHILDREN” is huios a masculine greek noun.

a son
a) rarely used for the young of animals
b) generally used of the offspring of men
c) in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)
d) in a wider sense, a descendant, one of the posterity of any one,
1) the children of Israel
2) sons of Abraham
e)) used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower
1) a pupil
2) son of man
a) term describing man, carrying the connotation of weakness and mortality
b) son of man, symbolically denotes the fifth kingdom in Daniel 7:13 and by this term its humanity is indicated in contrast with the barbarity and ferocity of the four preceding kingdoms (the Babylonian, the Median and the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman) typified by the four beasts. In the book of Enoch (2nd Century) it is used of Christ.
c) used by Christ himself, doubtless in order that he might intimate his Messiahship and also that he might designate himself as the head of the human family, the man, the one who both furnished the pattern of the perfect man and acted on behalf of all mankind. Christ seems to have preferred this to the other Messianic titles, because by its lowliness it was least suited to foster the expectation of an earthly Messiah in royal splendour.
3) son of God
a) used to describe Adam (Lk. 3:38)
b) used to describe those who are born again (Lk…

Because a pastor is like the alpha dog, and women are drawn to that. It’s a very natural social and biological set-up that works well to keep the religion going.

It’s been very successful for churches. Do you see any mega-churches pastored by women? No.