Do We Also Have Bible-Based Doctrines That Are Wrong? Is There a Case for Women as Pastors?

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

Our spiritual predecessors vehemently defended Bible-based beliefs that turned out to be biblically wrong. Could it be that we are not doctrinally perfect in ours? Very often, we don't see the need for change because we find security in our church’s traditional views, especially if they’re ancient. But history has shown that God’s people have had to repent of their supposed biblically sound views. Even the ancient ones. These changes didn't always come quickly or easily because beliefs are deep-set into our biblical worldview.

Peter struggled with the idea of being told, in a vision, to eat biblically unclean food. He even went so far as to resist God, saying, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). Some Jewish believers in Christ struggled to accept gentiles didn't need to be circumcised (Acts 15:1,5; Gal. 2:4,12,13). And, only relatively recently did Christians throw off God-appointed kings and moved away from slavery.

Concerning kings, God's word says, "And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings" (Dan. 2:21). Scripture says nothing explicitly about changing from God-appointed kings to democracy. And, yet, Christians have come to understand that the Bible gives every right to do so. Throwing off slavery wasn't so straightforward, either. The following is an extract from The Gospel Coalition article, How and Why Did Some Christians Defend Slavery?

·         In 1847, [Baptist minister] Fuller and Brown University president Francis Wayland published Domestic Slavery Considered as a Scriptural Institution. The heart of the matter boiled down to a simple question: Is slavery, in principle, a sin? Wayland argued it is. Fuller disagreed.

·         Fuller raised concerns about slavery’s abuses, but he defended it nonetheless. How did he, and others like him, use Scripture to advocate for slavery?

·         Fuller argued that slavery, in principle, is not sinful. Undergirding his argument was his abiding conviction that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. The Bible alone has the right to define sin. Once sin has been identified, it is humanity’s responsibility to repent. If “slavery be a sin,” Fuller wrote, “surely it is the immediate duty of masters to abolish it, whatever be the result.” Having established the supremacy of Scripture, Fuller proceeded to interpret its view of slavery.

·         ...

·         For Fuller the matter was simple: If Old Testament saints owned slaves, and if the apostle Paul preached “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) without explicitly prohibiting slavery, then no man can rightly call slavery, in principle, a sin. In short:

·         Slavery was everywhere a part of the social organization of the earth; and slaves and their masters were members together of the churches; and minute instructions are given to each as to their duties, without even an insinuation that it was the duty of masters to emancipate. Now I ask, could this possibly be so, if slavery were “a heinous sin”? No!

·         ...

·         Wayland had great affection for Fuller, but he had no respect for his interpretation of the Bible on this issue. The holes in Fuller’s interpretation are legion, Wayland insisted, and these arguments against slavery stand the test of time.

·         ...

·         True, no prooftext dismantled Roman slavery with a single blow. Yet taken as a whole, the Bible decimated slavery with a thousand hits. As the Bible is preached and believed over time, Wayland believed, the implications of the gospel would ensure slavery’s end.

Is it possible that we, too, have changes to make? Does our current interpretation of Scripture make it impossible to see? And does our adamancy serve only to reinforce our position and stop up our ears? After all, "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble" (James 4:6).

Acts 15:1-32 gives many principles on how the believers came to agree that gentiles did not need to be circumcised. I believe the same argument Peter used of the work of the Holy Spirit in the gentiles also confirms that women can indeed teach men and be pastors. After all, many women appointed by their churches as pastors have demonstrated that the Holy Spirit is with them in their work and teaching.

To many, this flies contrary to Paul's words in 1 Timothy 2:12 and 3:1, and elsewhere. But, have they misunderstood Paul? Keep in mind that Peter speaks of "[Paul's] epistles . . . in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16).

I believe the KJV best demonstrates Paul's emphatic response to the Corinthian church's questions on this matter. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (1 Cor. 14:34-36). The Oxford Bible Church explains this well in their article, 1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35: SHOULD WOMEN BE SILENT IN CHURCH?

At the council in Acts 15, James pointed to prophecies from the Old Testament concerning the inclusion of gentiles. Similarly, the prophets spoke of female emancipation among the people of God. Earlier, in Acts 2:16-18, Peter proclaimed, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of 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: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy."

I know that some in the Baptist church are at this crossroads. Baptist (complementarian) beliefs concerning the role of women can be found in several places. Here are some links:

A Believers' Baptist Church Distinctive: the role of Family.

Baptist2Baptist article, Southern Baptists and Women Pastors.

Multiple links to the complementarian view can be found at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) - Women in Ministry

Egalitarian views have been outlined in many places too. Here are two:

Fuller Seminary article, Women in Ministry: Equally Called.

CBE International Biblical Egalitarianism and the Inerrancy of Scripture.

I have shared my thoughts. May God bless you as you seek God's face and the Scriptures concerning His.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Added: (complementarian)

[BrotherTony]

Yep.... you've indeed shared "your thoughts"..... again. Too bad it wasn't like Jim and others like me have requested.... scripture.

Edited June 4, 2023 by BrotherTony

[SureWord]

The truth is men will stop attending church with a woman pastor. If you want to lead men you need a man to do it. To change this country you will need men led by God to do it. 

It's bad enough I have a female boss at work barking at me I don't need it at a church.

[TheGloryLand]

What a coincidence that those churches that except woman pastors, are the same ones that will start excepting LGBTQAXYZ  marriages   Didn’t wanna leave any letters out.

Edited June 4, 2023 by TheGloryLand

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, TheGloryLand said:

What a coincidence that those churches that except woman pastors, are the same ones that will start excepting LGBTQAXYZ  marriages   Didn’t wanna leave any letters out.

This is just your opinion, TGL. And to be honest, you're constantly pushing this same line in nearly every subject you post in. Facts are needed to back up that assertion. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

17 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Yep.... you've indeed shared "your thoughts"..... again. Too bad it wasn't like Jim and others like me have requested.... scripture.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (1 Cor. 14:34-36).

[BrotherTony]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (1 Cor. 14:34-36).

Scripture is wonderful. When someone quotes scripture without some idea of the purpose of it's importance without being verbose is of little use to anyone. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by BrotherTony

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

15 hours ago, SureWord said:

If you want to lead men you need a man to do it. To change this country you will need men led by God to do it. 

"And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets" (Heb. 11:32). I would happily follow a woman that God uses to lead me with His word and be considered among these men, just as Barak was directed by Deborah. Though he did not follow perfectly, nevertheless, he is included in this list for his obedience to God. Here's the account:

"And [Deborah] sent and called Barak . . . and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun? And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand. And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go. And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh. And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him."

[BrotherTony]

1 minute ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

"And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets" (Heb. 11:32). I would happily follow a woman that God uses to lead me with His word and be considered among these men, just as Barak was directed by Deborah. Though he did not follow perfectly, nevertheless, he is included in this list for his obedience to God. Here's the account:

"And [Deborah] sent and called Barak . . . and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun? And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand. And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go. And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh. And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him."

Deborah was a judge, not a pastor.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Scripture is wonderful.

What does 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 mean to you?

2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Deborah was a judge, not a pastor.

True but she was still a woman leading a man with God's word and changing her nation.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Changed reference: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to 34-36

[BrotherTony]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

What does 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 mean to you?

True but she was still a woman leading a man with God's word and changing her nation.

You're not doing a great job in your hermeneutics, Doc. Sorry...it just doesn't pass muster here. So, I guess once again, you're twisting scripture to fit your ideology instead of letting scripture say what it says. Context and content, brother....context and content. 

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

You're not doing a great job in your hermeneutics, Doc. Sorry...it just doesn't pass muster here. So, I guess once again, you're twisting scripture to fit your ideology instead of letting scripture say what it says. Context and content, brother....context and content. 

If you look back, you will notice that I was responding to two different points.

1 Corinthians 1:34-36 was for your request for Scripture. It counters misunderstandings around equality in Christ and women being silent.

The example of Deborah deals with the idea that women shouldn't lead men.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
Added: If you look back, you will notice that I was responding to two different points.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

 

Speaking of context, I changed the reference I asked for your comment on from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, which is how I previously have it, because verse 36 is key to understanding Paul here.

[BrotherTony]

1 hour ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Speaking of context, I changed the reference I asked for your comment on from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, which is how I previously have it, because verse 36 is key to understanding Paul here.

These verses still are not talking about women as pastors. It's talking about the speaking in tongues and prophesying and the order of things. So, I see you are still trying to push an interpretation that simply is not there.  And as far as Deborah is concerned, again, she was a judge, not a pastor. This has in no way proven your point. God's word doesn't contradict itself, and using your interpretation of scripture would lead us to do just that.

Edited June 5, 2023 by BrotherTony

[Jim_Alaska]

5 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

You're not doing a great job in your hermeneutics, Doc. Sorry...it just doesn't pass muster here. So, I guess once again, you're twisting scripture to fit your ideology instead of letting scripture say what it says. Context and content, brother....context and content. 

I was about  to say the same when I saw that you already said it. Thanks, right on.