Female "Pastors" and Orthodox Theology
I have a theory: one who holds to the position that a female "pastor" is biblically acceptable will have an "non-orthodox" view of both Holy Scripture and of Christ. I have yet to hear a female "pastor" articulate an orthodox view of the Faith.
Since I have had very limited interaction with female "pastors", I am wondering if my observation is correct.
Since I have had very limited interaction with female "pastors", I am wondering if my observation is correct.
Views: 50
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn K on -
It has been my observation that those churches that accept female pastors invariably go down the road toward accepting homosexual pastors - after all, if one can deny the clear teaching against the former, then what's to stop someone from denying the clear teaching against the latter? It's a slippery slope of going against the authority of God's Word.
-
Permalink Reply by Linda D. Traylor on -
Now I know why I've just sat through 30 minutes watching this Wittenberg Video: The Ministry http://wittenbergtrail.ning.com/video/1453099:Video:47362
Educational video by Concordia Theological Seminary - St. Louis
After about 20 min. the teacher shares his view on this topic , it's a video I learned a lot from as I listened to what he was saying.
I have known two females who have been put into Pastoral office by congregations who allowed the devil to help them interpret the Holy Scriptures as recorded in the New Testament of the Holy Bible. The amazing part is that these congregations clamed to see when actually they were blind.
-
Permalink Reply by Rick on -
Nearly every denomination that has opened the door for women pastors has also embraced a paradigm that is opposed to historic Christianity and an orthodox understanding of the Bible. Christianity to those churches is no longer about forgiveness of sin and the gospel but about social issues and their view of morality. All you have to do is visit the ELCA or Presby USA websites to see what they emphasize. Sad to say my retiring Missouri pastor supports women as pastors and I think his view was clearly connected to his sermons where the gospel of forgiveness of sins was rarely mentioned. However he was concerned about making sure women and children at least participated in the service as readers of Scripture. Sorry if I strayed too far from your theory but I think its a given that female pastors and those who agree with females as pastors do not have an orthodox view of Scripture or of the role of the pastor as standing in the stead of Christ because if they did they could not possibly accept their own ordination.
-
Permalink Reply by Didymus20X6 on -
I know of an Anglican couple, a man and his wife, both of whom are pastors. In fact, she was elected a bishop in the Anglican community. It's that break-away communion that no longer acknowledges the Episcopal Church in America on account of theological liberalism and moral apostasy. So, on that level, they appear to be orthodox, in that they hold to many of the historic teachings of the Christian faith, including the authority of God's Word and the Holy Trinity.
However, both of them are highly influenced by charismatic theology (in fact, that's how I met them - some members of my former congregation wanted me to get involved in some faith healing ministry). And I never did hear their explanation as to how they get around the whole discussion about the order of creation and the pastoral office. So I'm not so sure you can really call this "orthodoxy" in any but the broadest sense.
The way I see it, by making that one allowance, they opened up the door to heterodoxy, even as they were trying to avoid the outright apostasy of the American church. So, I suspect they'll be facing the same problems within a few decades.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Mercer on -
'Taint so. Cite all the instances of "liberal" denominations you want. IMHO, there is no necessary correlation between women pastors and unorthodox views. In fact, I think rejecting the possibility shows much more commitment to patriarchal tradition than it does to the actual Biblical evidence.
Thought someone should stand up for the other side of the argument from a conservative, yet egalitarian perspective.
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Grombirik on
-
I think one must distinguish between church bodies and indiviudal persons. Concerning church bodies you may be right - in our country (Czechia) have female pastors mostly liberal churches (e.g. Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren), some of them in state of deep spiritual, koinonical and moral decadence (Czechoslovak "Hussite" Church). On the other side, female pastors has relatively conservative Evangelical Church of Augsburg Confession in Slovakia too. Concerning individual persons, I know many liberal female pastors, but also many orthodox female pastors, and similary many male liberal pastors and many orthodox male pastors.
BTW, specify, pls, what you mean by "orthodox view of the Faith (Scripture, Christ)". Is it Holy Trinity and Chalcednonian Christology? Theistic belief? Young-Earth creationism? "boss/secretary" biblical fundamentalism? It can have many different means for various people...
(sorry for my massa bob English :))
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Newell on -
Let's look at a comparison between two Lutheran church bodies: LCMS and ELCA. The LCMS does not accept female "pastors" while the ELCA allows for it. How would one compare the two church bodies in the terms of remaining faithful to orthodox Christianity and in particular the Lutheran Confessions?
-
Permalink Reply by Linda D. Traylor on
-
Is it possible for us to agree that the orthodox Christian faith includes " salvation " as in Holy Baptism and " Life " as in the Holy Eucharist ? My Pastor Stark read us a devotion yesterday at our Wednesday noon prayer service that was written by one of the founding fathers ( I forget his name now ) but I could ask him, if it would be helpful.
Being children at heart, it's good to first agree as to what the word " Orthodox " means to us here, as Martin illustrated by his list of possibilities.
Function: adjective
Etymology: from early French orthodoxe or Latin orthodoxus, both meaning "orthodox," from Greek orthodoxos (same meaning), from orthodoxein "to have the right or true opinion," derived from orthos "right, true" and doxa "opinion"
1 : holding established beliefs especially in religion
2 : approved as measuring up to some standard : USUAL, CONVENTIONAL
3 capitalized a : EASTERN ORTHODOX b : of or relating to Orthodox Judaism
I looked it up in the dictionary for us to look at together : When someone has the same opinions and beliefs as those held by most other people, these opinions are usually considered the "right" opinions to have. In English such opinions might be called "orthodox." The English word orthodox comes originally from the Greek words orthos, meaning "right, true" and doxa, meaning "opinion." These two words were combined to form the Greek verb orthodoxein, meaning "to have the right opinion." From orthodoxein came the Greek adjective orthodoxos, which was borrowed into Latin as orthodoxus. The English adjective orthodox comes from this Latin adjective.
It seems to me everyone has their own personal " Opinion " about everything these days it just the way things are for us on planet earth. Jesus really is our only way of escape from it , thus the need for salvation and life in heaven with Him.
-
Permalink Reply by Didymus20X6 on
-
Except that the Scriptures actually do forbid women to teach or have authority over men. As such, it seems to me that far from this position being "commitment to patriarchal tradition", instead promotion of women's ordination is commitment to modern social norms over and above the teachings of Scripture. We've discussed this before, and the arguments you posed remain unconvincing.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Mercer on
-
Except that you misquote the Scripture you are depending on and ignore the epistolary context of why Paul wrote it.
Paul, by the inspiration of the Spirit, did not permit untaught women who were being influenced by false teachers (1.3-4, 4.14-15, 2Tim 3.5-6) to teach or usurp (seize) authority over men in the church. In the passage, that which Paul "forbade" (as you say) is not even a command, but a statement of Paul's policy. His primary command in 1Tim 2 for women is that they should "learn," which in the ancient world would have been extremely controversial and a huge step forward for women.
Where women are well taught and hold sound doctrine and are capable of teaching, they should be allowed to do so, and welcomed by the church as gifts from God.
An even more fundamental point of New Testament teaching that you and most "complementarians" ignore is the change brought under the New Covenant, when Jesus, having finished his redeeming work, ascended into heaven and poured out the Spirit, so that,
"In the last days it will be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams.
Even upon my slaves, both men and women,
in those days I will pour out my Spirit;
and they shall prophesy." (Acts 2.17-18)
-
Permalink Reply by Pr. Mark Schroeder on -
Michael,
Even to say, that rejecting ordination, "...shows much more commitment to patriarchal tradition" is itself a neo-feminist argument that has been used for the rejection of the Name of the Holy Trinity, inclusive language and the whole-sale rewriting of the Psalms in Evangelical Lutheran Worship and even the right of a woman to an abortion. I don't buy into it Biblically at all. It's results have been catastrophic.
A month or so ago I was at my pastors' conference meeting (ELCA) and the discussion was on the third (or is it the 4th or 5th) sexuality study to be voted on next month. During the heated discussion, two of the women pastors, directing some ire towards me, stated, "But we allowed ordination of women and divorce and remarriage back in the '70s." And I said, and yes, and we will have re-visit those issues as well. I thought the air was being sucked out of the room. They could only sputter. Back in the 70s it seems that when ordination of women was passed by the ELCA's predecessor church bodies, yes, some attention was given to Scripture...but key passages were skirted (sorry for the pun…nah, I am not sorry!). Even less today is Scripture regarded…if not out right denied in the ELCA. I call what was done in the 70s as the Bob Dylan principal of theology: “The times they are a’changing” and we better change too. Still is. We are still in the 60s Captivity of the Church. I have had colleagues intone that the ‘Spirit’ is showing us new things from ordination to blessing of “recognized relationships”. But what Spirit? The Holy Spirit or the zeitgeist? The Holy Spirit only works through the Word, as in Holy Scripture. Those who bought into the spirit of the age have had a necessary correlation with the resultant moral and Biblical decline of those congregations and church bodies.
But of course, orthodox church bodies like the LCMS have also bought into the spirit of the age. Divorce and remarriage became the reality of many an orthodox Protestant church body without a shot being fired. And look at the results! And I have read of the pain of LCMS brothers and sisters who do not want to be Ablaze and the charismagic theology and practice of many LCMS. That is as clear a break from the Confessions as I can see.
BTW: on this issue, I direct you to CPH’s book, Women Pastor? And the last essay from a dear colleague, now of blessed memory, Lou Smith, entitled, “Why I Changed My Mind”. This is how I understand this central Biblical dogma.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Mercer on
-
With all due respect, you have simply dismissed me by putting what I am saying in the "neo-feminist argument" box, which disallows any opportunity for us to discuss the actual Scriptures. And even if your observation that ordaining women pastors in the ELCA correlated with other evidences of "decline" in orthodoxy and orthopraxy is correct (which I don't deny), that still does not approach dealing with my argument or with the Biblical evidence.
Isn't it possible that there are many reasons (some legitimate, some not) why church bodies ordain women? I am simply saying that there is a arguable Biblical basis for ordaining orthodox and gifted women to ministry. I am not for ordaining unorthodox or unqualified women, nor am I interested in neofeminist agendas.
© 2012 Created by Norm Fisher.
Powered by 
.
