Hello My dear people. I want us to discuse about this issue it is good for a woman to be the pastor of a church and it is Biblically

What qualifications are needed?  If she is qualified why not?  Did the bible place restrictions on what kinds of job a woman can do or what kinds of jobs are exclusively for males?

I don't get it! I am not into tha Bible quoting stuff so I will yield to those who engage in that kind of sport to cut and paste as usual.

I don't get it! I am not into tha Bible quoting stuff so I will yield to those who engage in that kind of sport to cut and paste as usual.

LOL, NLander's no go ever stop! infact na Wikipidia & google i blame.


@topic
Yes! according to the bible

ABSOLUTELY NOT. The Great apostle PAUL warned against women speaking in church. Unless this church is prepared to have a non-speaking female pastor who must always defer to her husband.

therationa:

The Great apostle PAUL warned against women speaking in church.

Do you care explicating what you understand by the above?

Is that not very obvious?

therationa:

Is that not very obvious?

Well, it is one thing to state something - quite another to explicate what is stated. If you're unwilling to do the latter, no worries. Cheers.

@topic:

Personally, I don't think it is 'good' or even Biblical for a woman to be THE Pastor of a Church.

Perhaps this topic relates to one that has been discussed sometime earlier? See: Can You Attend A Church Led By A Woman?

Stimulus,

Thank you plenty. You agree with me and with Paul that it in un-biblical for women to teach in church. That has restored my "faith" in biblical consistency.

Stimulus,

I forgot to add that you have also reaffirmed by contention that the churches are a discriminatory and sexist institutions.

Can I challenge you to replace "woman" with "Africans" or "Blacks" or "Indians" and see how your reasoning stacks up.

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

Thank you plenty. You agree with me and with Paul that it in un-biblical for women to teach in church. That has restored my "faith" in biblical consistency.

How do the answers offered in my rejoinder help your puling "faith" in Biblical consistency? Perhaps you would have had the manly boldness to take my challenge offered earlier:

stimulus:

Well, it is one thing to state something - quite another to explicate what is stated. If you're unwilling to do the latter, no worries.

Was that too hard to betake yourself to?

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

I forgot to add that you have also reaffirmed by contention that the churches are a discriminatory and sexist institutions.

The "churches" may need an important qualifier in your context; and until you explicate what you mean thereto, I don't see how such an allegation helps your cause.

On the other hand, you have not visited that link in my rejoinder - please do and you may find a better way to eat your humble pie.

therationa:

Can I challenge you to replace "woman" with "Africans" or "Blacks" or "Indians" and see how your reasoning stacks up.

My reasoning would still be upheld. May I challenge you to crawl out of such cheap and frantic allegations and enter into a discussion on what this subject is all about? If you are not man enough to do so, I don't see what your hysteria amounts to.

Well in the bible, women are consistently treated as second-class citizens at best, at worse as chattel.

Examples;

Lev 12: A woman is unclean for longer after giving birth to a girl child (66 days) than to a male child (33 days)

The possessions of multiples wives and concubines my the patriachs (Moses, Abraham etc)

Giving away of daughter to be sexually mollested, I think by Lot ( can't remember the chapter/verse, but I am sure you know the story)

Proverbs 21, 25, 27. Where it says that it is better to live in a wilderness than in a house with a contentious woman. No similar complaints is made about men.

Is the New testament any better?

1 Cor 11: 3.
1 Cor 13:5,6
1 Cor 13:7-11
1 Cor 14:34
1 Tim 2:11-15

All the above verse are equally derogatory about women. What I meant by biblical consistent (either you are consistently immoral or consistently moral) was that the same standard of the Old testament is preserved in the New Testament, and should be preserved in our modern era.

I rest my case.

@therationa,

therationa:

Well in the bible, women are consistently treated as second-class citizens at best, at worse as chattel.

It seems clever to misrepresent issues in the Bible by inferring to certain texts in a cut-and-run fashion. Women are not treated as 'second-class' citizens, nor are they regarded as chattels as you supposed - and it is easy enough to read that supposedly into those texts without carefully examining what is being treated in a collective sense.

When issues like these are presented, I've often tried to offer an invitation for a discussion on the proposer's own premise; but it so happens that so many times, such people are too insecure to discuss their own assumptions while finding it easier to slur the convictions of other people. Do you care to enter a dicussion of your own assumptions so we see where it logically leads?

therationa:

Examples;

Lev 12: A woman is unclean for longer after giving birth to a girl child (66 days) than to a male child (33 days)

The possessions of multiples wives and concubines my the patriachs (Moses, Abraham etc)

Okay - I'll also consider those 'examples' if you'd oblige my request above.

therationa:

Giving away of daughter to be sexually mollested, I think by Lot ( can't remember the chapter/verse, but I am sure you know the story)

Genesis 19:8. I'll also bear that in mind when and if you'd be willing to frankly take up my offer for a discussion.

therationa:

Proverbs 21, 25, 27. Where it says that it is better to live in a wilderness than in a house with a contentious woman.

Perhaps you may have an alternative that is directly antonymous to such a proverbial recommendations? Again, a discussion - would you?

therationa:

No similar complaints is made about men.

The verses in the verses you offered in Proverbs 21, 25, 27 are not "complaints" - perhaps if you can demonstrate it so, then I'd offer you a few verses you probably overlooked.

therationa:

Is the New testament any better?

1 Cor 11: 3.
1 Cor 13:5,6
1 Cor 13:7-11
1 Cor 14:34
1 Tim 2:11-15

Which is why I offered you a simple challenge earlier:

stimulus:

Do you care explicating what you understand by the above?

Are you able and willing to take that offer, therationa?

stimulus:

All the above verse are equally derogatory about women.

Those verses are not derogatory to anybody - you quickly reached that assumption by choice (an indefensible choice from ducking an invitation to discuss them) .

stimulus:

What I meant by biblical consistent (either you are consistently immoral or consistently moral) was that the same standard of the Old testament is preserved in the New Testament, and should be preserved in our modern era.

Oh, really? Perhaps when you take my offer, then you will see how consistent YOU tend to be. Any takes?

stimulus:

I rest my case.

Perhaps insecure about your premise already?

I have mademy case by drawing from your bible and am prepare to defend my ground anytime and anywhere. What are the questions you want me to respond to?

therationa:

I have mademy case by drawing from your bible and am prepare to defend my ground anytime and anywhere. What are the questions you want me to respond to?

I stated it much earlier (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111592.0.html#msg1938827) :

stimulus:

Do you care explicating what you understand by the above?

C'mon brother,

That thread has 15 pages. Can you summarise the main issues here, please? I can hardly be expected to trawl thru it now to pick out the points you are making.

@therationa,

therationa:

C'mon brother,

That thread has 15 pages. Can you summarise the main issues here, please?

I would, and willing to do so - that is the reason why I've severally invited you to dicuss issues.

therationa:

I can hardly be expected to trawl through it now to pick out the points you are making.

That's true, and asking you to tediously betake yourself to so many pages would be unfair.

Perhaps, for a start, I'd like you to see two things here:

(a) it'd be unfair for you to reach any inference before having reasonably listened to what others have to say;

(b) my premise earlier was this:

stimulus:

@topic:

Personally, I don't think it is 'good' or even Biblical for a woman to be THE Pastor of a Church.

By simple explanation, here's what I meant by the emphasis: the Church is not supposed to be a single-pastor leadership experience. Such idea of single-pastor leadership is what I'd tried to argue against in that thread; and I could state a few pointers to my position in that thread:

#1 (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.64.html#msg1245442)

I'm sure that when a good outline of what roles are presented in Scripture concerning church life, we shall come to the understanding that women play very important roles in church life that NO MALE can replace them in such divine roles.

#2 (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.96.html#msg1248945)

What roles do women play in Church? Women may not have been among the priesthood of the OT; but they are undeniably included in the priesthood of all Christian believers in the NT (I Pet. 2:5 & 9).

I was just thinking about this question this morning, and the thought that crossed my mind was this:

[list]I would rather be in a local church where women are appreciated for their leadership roles than be in one where women are second citizens.[/list]

#3 (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.96.html#msg1248945)

It's just about time that we should be asking the right kind of questions and seeking to appreciate the very profound roles women are called to play in the life of the Church

I could go on and on; but from the above alone, don't they demonstrate that my position is that women are not discriminated against in the way you had supposed?

That is why I have repeatedly asked only one thing of you: please, please and please, at least be willing to demonstrate an open and fair attitude to consider the views of other discussants before holding a prejudicial mindset about them based on your own indefensible ideas.

Now, therationa, I've tried to be fair by tending issues for your consideration. In like manner, do you care to enter into a discussion to consider your own assumptions?

Stimulus,

Thanks for the summaries and point well made. I also do understand you distinction. I call it church administration Vs spiritual guidance/leadership.

If I read you correctly (feel free to correct me, please), you are in favour of women in one role but not in another.

I agree that women played an important role in the new church in 1st century Israel and it was a shame that leadership roles were not readily open to them given the cultural biases of the time.

I personally think there is a huge problem of interpretation in the NT. How do you deal with the verses where Paul called upon women not to speak in churches?

By the way, I am in favour of re-interpretation of doctrine to fit a new world order, personally I would open all roles to any one who merits them irrespective of sex/race/etc.

@therationa,

therationa:

Thanks for the summaries and point well made. I also do understand you distinction. I call it church administration Vs spiritual guidance/leadership.

Okay - and I'm willing to appreciate such a distinction; although perhaps when further discussions into the subject are considered, it may lead to the understanding that they are related. In any case, my thoughts.

therationa:

If I read you correctly (feel free to correct me, please), you are in favour of women in one role but not in another.

Yes, you're correct in reading me so - as I would say the same about men (which in the quotes from that link I stated already: "women play very important roles in church life that NO MALE can replace them in such divine roles".

therationa:

I agree that women played an important role in the new church in 1st century Israel and it was a shame that leadership roles were not readily open to them given the cultural biases of the time.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the new church in 1st century Israel", but I'm willing to consider your meaning.

In any case,I understand the problem with cultural biases; although I may not be so convinced that leadership roles were not open to them (women) at the time reference you hinted at. Of course, I did not have my views quite crystalized on the subject until I read from various inputs thereto and referred again and again to the Bible for clarification - and I've come to assume the position that women were recognized in the Church in various leadership roles.

therationa:

I personally think there is a huge problem of interpretation in the NT.

I whole-heartedly agree; and I'd be first to acknowledge that I've had a few of such problems in the past (and may still have others presently).

therationa:

How do you deal with the verses where Paul called upon women not to speak in churches?

It's quite simple: look at the word used in the language of the text (Greek) and consider its context and application.

Let me use an example or two:

     (a) suffer:

     Matthew 17:12 - ". . . Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them."

     Matthew 17:17 - ". . . how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me."

     Matthew 19:14 - ". . . But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not,. ."

All verses are taken from the same version of the Bible (the KJV), from the same Gospel account (Matthew), and all are from the same Person speaking (Jesus); although I have only quoted the texts in part without editing anything - i.e., I've torn them out of their contexts!

So, if one follows the out-of-context style of reading the Bible, he or she is sure to come up with the idea that Jesus asked Christians to be wicked to chidlren (in Matt. 19:4 - "But Jesus said, Suffer little children" - can you imagine the nonsense and ingredients?

Okay, on a serious note, we should try to not read verses of the Bible out of contexts. Personally, I have found great help in using a Bible Study tool/aid (like Greek and Hebrew lexicons) to understand very difficult verses that on the surface would seem remarkably shocking to our natural persuasions. This is only one example, of course. But so is the principle that has been of great help to me.

BTW, No, Jesus never asked Christians to be "wicked" to children - for Matthew 19:14 is speaking directly to the cause of encouraging (rather than forbidding) children to come to know Him.

therationa:

By the way, I am in favour of re-interpretation of doctrine to fit a new world order,

Well, in a way, I may agree with you - in so far as such re-interpretatiosn do not prove prove themselves of infidelity to the Scriptures.

therationa:

personally I would open all roles to any one who merits them irrespective of sex/race/etc.

Hmm, I respect your views. But in practice, you would have more problems on your hands than you anticipated!

I knew it was only a matter of time for the competition of cutting and pasting to begin. Great job!

almondjoy:

I knew it was only a matter of time for the competition of cutting and pasting to begin. Great job!

Could you be more specific?