Women pastors and preachers.

Should women be able to preach?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 87.9%
  • No

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • I have no idea, lol. =P

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    33
I found what was going on in New Delhi in some of their temples that involved women very interesting. There was a lot of trade and travel going on in that area back then. It seems some of the non-Christian actions were showing up in the new Christian churches. Paul had to address this in letters til he could visit. It would make an interesting dig for one superinterested in this.
 
There are tons of churches out there with woman pastors.
I think people just need to do what they feel called to do and not worry so much about what people bogged down in antiquated religious precepts from the OT think of it.
 
I don't like hearing anyone preach - men or women - so, no.


I must say, in a sexist way, women look ridiculous in male clerical garb - even more so than men in male clerical garb.

Depends on the church. There are many branches of the Christian faith from Catholicism to Baptism.
Not every church has the same dress code. Many women wear a clerical garb.
 
Last edited:
I've actually read quite a lot on this... and it's my understanding that about 4 of the 5 major passages most often used to hold women back are complete misinterpretations, occasionally (particularly thinking of the 'women, keep silent' one) intended to mean the exact opposite of the offensive meaning.

In the case of women teaching: if it is true that they're not supposed to teach (and I really couldn't find any reason to think it allows that), I am sure of two things. 1. is that it's not because they're spiritually weaker or more likely to be deceived, and 2. it only applies in the case of teaching adult men. To be honest, I wouldn't even be surprised if the reason they're not supposed to become teachers is simply because the majority of men have enough sexist tendencies that they won't take you seriously, so out of practical concerns it's more of a "don't bother wasting your time... it's really not worth it" kind of rule.

Unfortunately, it's 2:45 AM, and I'm about to go to sleep. I'll pop back in sometime tomorrow, though, beecause there're definitely a few good points I've found which are well worth relaying.
 
I think this sums up my view pretty accurately:


While a thorough answer to your question is beyond the scope of an e-mail, it can be said that the Orthodox Church precludes the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy. It is a matter of Holy Tradition, as well as a vision of ministry as something not limited to the ordained priesthood. In my limited experience of this subject I have come across theologians who posit that, while there may be no strictly theological objection to the ordination of women, Holy Tradition has never supported it, and that theological pursuits cannot be considered in isolation from the ongoing life of God's People known as Tradition. [It is important here to understand that Holy Tradition must not be confused with traditions (small "t", and plural) or customs.]

I would like to share a story with you to help illustrate: Shortly after the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, the militantly atheistic communist regime passed laws separating Church and state and separating the schools from the Church. Other laws forbade the ordained clergy from evangelizing, teaching religion to anyone, especially to children, etc. Clergy were limited to carring out religious rites within the confines of church walls -- which had been confiscated by the state. The goal of this anti-religious stance was to wipe out all religious expression and faith, since religion was seen as "the opium of the people" and an obstacle in the creation of pure socialism. Such would be the situation until the late 20th century. There is a story which relates how a Patriarch of Moscow, shortly after the Revolution, was asked by a Soviet leader, "What will the Church do after the last grandmother dies?" The Patriarch replied, "There will be another generation of grandmothers to take their place." Very prophetic words, especially when one considers that most of today's grandmothers within the former Soviet Union were mere children or not even born when these words were first spoken.

The point of the story: In Orthodoxy the ordained priesthood is, of course, essential. Yet other ministries, including that of the grandmothers who were capable of continuing the priestly ministry of handing on the faith to the younger generations when the ordained clergy had no possibly to do so, are equally essential. Saint Paul speaks of a variety of functions which are critical to making the ministry of the Church whole, complete, and lacking in nothing. While each of these functions may be different, each is absolutely necessary. Hence, the ordained priesthood is essential, yet there are a variety of other ministries which are extensions of the priestly ministry of Our Lord -- and these other ministries, in fact, must be carried out in order to ensure the fullness of the faith and Church life.

Orthodoxy does not see the priesthood has a "right" or a "privilege." It does not see the clergy as a caste apart from the laos tou Theou, the People of God. It does not understand ordination to the priesthood as a matter of justice, equality, political correctness, or human rights. No one, not even males, has the "right" to ordination; even our seminary catalogues state that the awarding of a divinity degree in no way guarantees ordination, as this is within the competency of the hierarchy alone. And no one, not even males, "chooses" ordination; we believe that it is God Who does the choosing, even if His will in this instance seems completely contrary with the understanding of this world or this culture or this era. [God's ways are not mankind's ways.] The clergy do not stand above the People of God; they stand in their midst, just as Christ stands in the midst of His People. Those who carry out essential ministries without being ordained also stand in the midst of God's People, for the ministries they pursue in the name of Our Lord also share in His work. The image of the Church is one in which the entire "laos tou Theou" work and worship together "with one mind" in harmony, upbuilding one another and striving to achieve unity, rather than planting division or focusing undue attention on differences or alleged inequalities.

It is interesting to note that the controversy over the ordination of women is a rather recent one with roots outside the Orthodox Church. It is also interesting to note that, while the controversy rages in other confessions and has been a source of division, enmity, and schism elsewhere, it has garnered far less interest among Orthodox Christians. While the matter surely warrants thorough study, discussion, and dialogue, especially within cultures such as our own, and while there are certain related questions which indeed beg serious discussion -- such as the role of deaconesses in the early Church -- care needs to be taken not to create an artificial issue. The teaching of the Church clearly encourages all persons, women as well as men, young as well as old, to undertake essential critical ministries in the life of the Church -- the grandmothers of the Soviet era had a far greater impact on the life of the Church than the clergy of their day; had those grandmothers been ordained clergy, they would not have been able to have the same powerful effect on generations which otherwise might have been lost. Perhaps the very success of the hordes of faithful grandmothers in their priestly ministry as grass-roots evangelizers is due not only to their faith, but to their understanding of ministry as a gift and a blessing and a calling and a vocation rather than a question of justice and equality, as is heard so often in heterodox circles.

If we truly believe that all that happens within the Body of Christ is directed and inspired by the Holy Spirit, we might well question why calls for the ordination of women only surfaced some 1,950 years after Christ. In His own time we see the exemplary ministry of the myrrh-bearing women who served Our Lord while the male disciples hid in fear and denied knowledge of Him.

While it is only my opinion that the question should never be silenced, I would also propose that its discussion must be conducted within the parameters of the Church's ongoing Tradition and not in post-modern secular or humanist categories which bear little relationship to the Gospel. While Orthodoxy has not accepted the ordination of women, it does laud a woman, the Theotokos, as the one who is "more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim" and holds her up as a model for all of God's People, male and female alike. In this light, salvation, not ordination, is the goal of Christian life.

While I am not sure if this answers your question, I do hope it puts the issue in a different light while offering a different perspective with which to continue prayerful reflection of the matter.
 
Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated.
So instead of educating them... keep them ignorant to 'justify' inequality.

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function.
"Oh, ok. Thanks for clearing that up clergy guy! I won't ask any more questions!"
::brains drain out of ears::

Yeah. I was a Christian myself and struggled for a long time to reconcile my faith in God to my sense of self-worth/respect. I got to a point where I couldn't stand the cognitive dissonance any more..

Christianity is inherently, by the book, not a friendly religion to women..
 
The problem I have with the article is that it off the impression to me that women are spiritually weaker then men, now that could of been me misreading the article as I have a habit of doing that (dyslexia)

It took the devil to deceive Eve and Eve to deceive Adam.
So who is weaker? In my eyes, neither of them are because they were both deceived and both ate the fruit of knowledge.
Woman was not made in the image of man, woman was also made in the image of God.

The only logical reason that I can see here is that women are better at deceiving or lack the dominance required to lead, which could be true or not. I would have to see evidence on that. The problem though with that is that its instantly putting individuals into boxes and generalizing them which anyone with a brain knows that in reality that doesn't work.

The second problem I have is the examples of female leaders that were used, implying that women should not have any form of political leadership either. I can think of many male leaders that tripped up in the bible, church and in politics. I can also think of many fantastic women leaders in both the church and in politics.

I have personally interpreted the fall of humanity as that Eve wasn't deceived.. she chose to possess the knowledge.. Adam followed, choosing her over God's command.

The OT is full of strong, intelligent, persuasive women leading (and rescuing) men.. Blaming Eve and women for the fall is just misogynist religious propaganda for a culture structured around private property, and men's fear of woman's ability to give birth to possibly illigitimate children that he would have to provide for, with no way of really knowing if his children were his children.

Make women weak and keep them ignorant, and you don't have to worry about them standing up for themselves and upsetting the patriarchy.
 
Last edited:
My church, Unity, was the first church to ever ordain a woman minister, in 1892. 53% of our ministers are women. My husband and I are best friends with our minister and her husband. She is a gifted and inspiring speaker and walks the talk to the max, devoting almost 100 hrs. a week to the church. I cannot imagine a world where half of humanity is denied the opportunity to preach, and all that being a minister entails, which is much more than just speaking on Sunday, if that is what they feel led to do with their lives.

Having said that, I agree with 75% of what our church teaches, and disagree with the other 25%. That is okay to do in our church though, since we are anti-dogma to begin with, and want people to think and ask questions. If it were not okay, I would not be there.

I think institutions can get in the way of our spiritual growth, since they become focused on maintaining the material institution and the jobs of those who work there. The search for truth will inevitably bring change along with spiritual growth, and institutions often stifle change.

klutzo

P.S. My personal interpretation of the "fall" of humanity, is that it is referring to the devolution that takes place when a highly vibrating, low density spiritual being chooses to have an experience on a high density, low vibrational planet like earth. Coming into this negativity is a fall, a seemingly backwards move, but much can be learned from immersing oneself in duality with no memory of where you were before, and it can be learned faster because of the negativity. It takes great courage to volunteer for this gig.
 
Last edited:
I had a really long and detailed post made for this thread, but the forum ate it because I forgot to copy it before posting, and I'd been logged out already :(. I'll give it another try later, but I'm a bit depressed now.
 
I have personally interpreted the fall of humanity as that Eve wasn't deceived.. she chose to possess the knowledge.. Adam followed, choosing her over God's command.

The OT is full of strong, intelligent, persuasive women leading (and rescuing) men..
Blaming Eve and women for the fall is just misogynist religious propaganda for a culture structured around private property, and men's fear of woman's ability to give birth to possibly illigitimate children that he would have to provide for, with no way of really knowing if his children were his children.

Make women weak and keep them ignorant, and you don't have to worry about them standing up for themselves and upsetting the patriarchy.
Hmmm maybe the writers were trying to make a statement that was counter-culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
Re: Banaphone's post cited by Jack above about the male fear of providing for children who are not your own. It seems this is a very real problem.

I recently was surprised to read about a DNA study done in Southwest England on just this subject, which showed that either one out of three or one out of four (I can't remember which) kids were not fathered by the men who thought they were their fathers.

This has a lot of implications for child support and for inherited health conditions, blood and organ donations, etc. What a mess.

klutzo
 
Whatever a certain religion says should go on within the religion, should be what goes on. I dont think people outside the religion should have a say.
 
As this has to do with the Christian Religion, I am going to use Christian Scripture to answer.

1 Timothy 2
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
15 But women[a] will be saved through childbearing
 
I don't like hearing anyone preach - men or women - so, no.


I must say, in a sexist way, women look ridiculous in male clerical garb - even more so than men in male clerical garb.

I also dislike any preaching. But if women were allowed into the ministry the wardrobe have been made for women which would have been sexy:mhula:
 
Go join a cult.

If anyone wants to join a cult my youtube channel has lately been receiving a lot of Jehovah Witness solicitations.

One of them offered to come to my house and preach.


I could just, accidentally, give one of your names and addresses in place of mine....


I haven't spit them out yet.


Offer is up in the air!!
 
As this has to do with the Christian Religion, I am going to use Christian Scripture to answer.

1 Timothy 2
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
15 But women[a] will be saved through childbearing
 
Ah, interesting, so Paul was basically a first century Mark Twain? I wonder what the Hebrew or Aramaic word is for "What?!" or "Dude, seriously?"

Except that the New Testament was written in Greek as it was the common language of the time.

Oh and not all preachers wear clerical garb.

Myself, I'm a Youth and Family Ministry major at the college I attend. They offer this major to women not so that they have authority over a man (instead of Preaching class, which is required for men in the major, we have a class called Religious Speaking for Women to Women), and women in this major are expected to be seeking a husband who is a bible major as well, as they intend for women to use this major as a support role to their husbands. My husband is a Biblical Languages major.

Women can still do a lot in the church; I intend on working as a counselor in a church office with female, teen, or child clients, or perhaps a family. But under no circumstances will I see a man alone, and honestly it's the best policy that a pastor doesn't see a woman alone.

On occasion I can see myself leading a ladies' bible class. There's still use for a woman who has teaching as a spiritual gift.
 
Back
Top