Females As Leaders/Pastors Of Males In Evangelical Churches.

Females As Leaders/Pastors Of Males In Evangelical Churches.
By JAG
Jan 4, 2022


"I like the freedom to be a preacher", said the Reverend. Henrietta Smartr Thangod, senior pastor of the Rebellious Saints Evangelical Mega-Church.


"What about sodomy", asked the Rev. Deal Infacts, "do you like sodomy?"


"What?"


"Well", replied the Rev. Deal Infacts, "the same reasons used to empower you to be a leader of men, women, and children in Evangelical churches, are also used to empower homosexuals to be leaders of men, women, and children in Evangelical churches."


{When she heard that, the Rev. Henrietta Smartr Thangod got her shorts in a twist and stared coldly at Rev. Deal Infacts.)


"It was not an accident", continued the Rev. Deal Infacts, "that the Women's Empowerment Movement came BEFORE the Homosexual Empowerment Movement."


"Explain?"


"The two 'freedoms' go hand in hand", replied Rev. Deal Infacts, "Your Rebellious Saints Evangelical Mega-Church does not obey the Bible when it says women are not to preach (1 Tim. 2:11-14 and 1 Cor. 14:34-3 so there is no reason for your Rebellious Saints Evangelical Mega-Church to obey the Bible when it says for members of your church not to perform homosexual sex acts (Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and 1 Tim. 1:8-11) ~~ and when it says for them not to preach or pastor Christian churches if they do perform homosexual sex acts . . .


. . . [Rev. Deal Infacts paused for a moment and then added] :


No Christian denomination will embrace homosexuals as pastors of their churches without first changing their minds about women being pastors of their churches."


The Rev. Deal Infacts continued . . .


"You becoming the pastor of the Rebellious Saints Evangelical Mega-Church makes it easy for homosexuals to become pastors of other Rebellious Saints Evangelical churches. Step one, first comes women as preachers in Evangelical Christian Churches. Step two, next comes homosexual preachers and pastors in Evangelical Christian churches.


And remember Rev. Henrietta Smartr Thangod, you helped make that become a reality."


"Not all homosexuals who are members in good standing in Evangelical churches practice sodomy", smirked the Rev. Henrietta Smartr Thangod.


"That is correct", replied Rev. Deal Infacts, "but the Evangelical LGBTQ Movement within Evangelical churches has a message for the children in those churches and their message to the children is that sodomy is normal and good moral behavior for married homosexual couples in Evangelical churches ~ that sodomy is not wrong. They never condemn sodomy as a sin."

Continued Rev. Deal Infacts . . .


"In fact that is the message the LGBTQ Movement within Evangelical churches delivers to everybody ~ to teens, to Fathers, to Mothers, to Families ~ and you Rev. Henrietta Smartr Thangod, helped along, to some extent, Evangelicalism's LGBTQ Movement within Evangelical churches to put their pro-sodomy message into the minds of everybody in those Evangelical churches."


The Rev. Icanplay Thisgamealso had been listening to the ongoing conversation, and he now spoke:


"The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clearly and boldly said that women are forbidden to preach or pastor churches." (1 Tim. 2:11-14 and 1 Cor. 14:34-34 }


"Harrumph", sneered the Rev. Henrietta Smartr Thangod, "Paul is not Jesus, and Jesus told me to preach."


"No He did not," replied the Rev. Icanplay Thisgamealso, "I talked to Jesus just this morning and Jesus told me to tell you, that you misunderstood what He told you. Jesus told me to tell you that He said for you not to preach."


"If the Rev. Henrietta Smartr Thangod can get special revelation from Jesus, so can the Rev. Icanplay Thisgamealso", observed Rev. Deal Infacts.


At this point the Rev. Deal Infacts said to Rev. Henrietta:


"In your world, according to the way you interpret the Bible, maybe Jesus did not really die for our sins. The same Bible that says Jesus died for our sins also says that a woman is not permitted to teach or assume authority over a man (1 Tim. 211-14). You're on dangerous ground here Rev. Henrietta Smartr Thangod because the way you interpret the Bible John 3:16 may not actually be true."


"Listen", said the Rev. Henrietta Smartr Thangod, "our Rebellious Saints Evangelical Mega Church is committed to Diversity and Multiculturalism."


"If all cultures", replied Rev. Deal Infacts, "are morally equivalent, as Multiculturalism affirms, then there is no moral difference in Sodom/Gomorrah and in AnyTown, USA ~ which makes glad that Old Serpent Egalitarianism. What do you think about that?"


"We", replied the Rev. Henrietta Smartr Thangod, "here at the Rebellious Saints Evangelical Mega-church, have joined the world of the 21st century. We are not extreamists, sexists, racists, xenophobes, or homophobes. We are in step with the world and we celebrate Diversity."


Rev. Deal Infacts replied:


"The Sodomites living in the ancient city of Sodom, if they could have known about Liberalism's celebration of Diversity, would have been tickled pink. The mayor of Sodom would have said, "America's liberal Rebellious Saints Evangelical Mega-Church wants to celebrate us, oh joy."


"Don't be so harsh with the good people of the ancient city of Sodom", replied the Rev. Henrietta Smartr Thangod, "they may all have been good Christian people at heart."


[]

Thoughts?
Don't hold back ~ hold forth

 

Read this one first:
Inside the Evangelical Fight Over Gay Marriage | Time
This one is the biggy
If you are an Evangelical, be prepared to be startled.

__________
Then later this one . . .
The strange decline of US evangelicalism (christiantoday.com)

JAG

 

As a Catholic, tradition holds that those who are given the "processes" to change bread and wine into Jesus' body and blood is given to men. This will never change in the Catholic Church. Women as well as men, can hold various offices in the Church but to be a priest you must be a man.

Do I agree with that? mmmmm....my faith tells me I should. Especially in our current times.

I do know that have been men from other faiths (closely resembling that of the Catholic Church who are married). They chose to become Catholic and stay married.

Why does the Church hold against men being married and a parish priest? The Churches thinking on this is.....married and with children, you not only devote your time to your parish but to your family. A priest not married can devote all his time to his parish and their responsibilities.

 

won't say things will never change, with time... everything changes

Jews used to stone people for picking up sticks on the weekend, no longer happens... times change

 

Thanks for your comments and for your contribution.
I am a strong Reformed Protestant, but I have warm feeling for my Catholic
brothers/sisters. I even have several crucifixes in my possessions and a book
of Catholic prayers.

Best Regards.

JAG


``

 

As usual the OP was spammed to multiple sites across the Internet.

But for once I agree with JAG. He is right. The Bible does claim women are inferior and therefore, Christians should believe they are inferior.

Here is a well known verse demonstrating that the Bible consider women to be inferior.

Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine (wife); let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing."

The book of Ester (Chapter 2) describes virgins being subjected to a sex contest. Another example of the Biblical attitude towards women.

 

Let's go through these passages. First, the easiest one.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 This is an early later addition to Paul's letter - like 1 John 5:7. It was scrawled into the margin of the letter and early manuscripts note this. It make no sense in the context of the letter where Paul specifically gives instruction on how women are to speak. Like 1 John 5:7, it can easily be excised from the Bible.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 When some difficult portions are translated, the influence the the translators believe come into play. Knowing that Paul has already agreed to women in positions of minor authority, this passage makes makes little sense in the way most translators translate it. Remember, a tradition in translation starts and then no one wants to buck tradition regardless of how silly a tradition might be. I think the translation by the REV is more accurate.

11 A woman must learn, and be learning without causing a disturbance, in all subjection.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to proclaim that she is the originator of man, rather she is not to cause a disturbance.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve,
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being thoroughly deceived, fell into transgression,
15 but she will be saved through the birth of the Child, if they continue in trust and love and holiness, with good judgment.

So in verse 11, the admonition by Paul is that women are to be taught and not kept ignorant of religious matter. They were not to be disruptive which is not the same as silent. In verses 12-14, Paul teaches against a belief at that time that women created men and that women should not try to teach this belief. This was a belief that Paul taught against in Corinthians and Galatians as well. In verse 15, women are saved through the birth of the child Jesus - not childbearing.

Since, you are reformed, you likely don't know who Lottie Moon was. She was embraced by the SBC for well over a Century. Yet, the SBC has yet to embrace homosexuality like the reformed churches or even the Papists have. Your belief that embracing women teaching is a slippery road to embracing homosexuality is simply not true. Now the reformed movement has started to entrench itself among the leadership of the SBC and things might change now - but that had nothing to do with women being leaders or teachers of men.

So, you have one passage which was clearly added, and another which is a mistranslation. And then you have several passages where God appoints women to do what you say is wrong. Are people sinning every time they read Mary's song? One has to discount far more scripture than these two verses in order to have the male-only church. Esther makes fun of men who believe like this.

While for homosexuality, quite the opposite is true. Usually, people discount most of the Bible except the Beatitudes in order to support homosexuality. Not one homosexual has any position of authority in the Bible and the only reason homosexual acts are mentioned are to denounce them. Paul doesn't talk about his homosexual friends, or how he wants to introduce you to his homosexual deacon, etc. There is no story about the homosexual Judge of Israel or the homosexual who gained a leader's heart to save his people.

 

My introduction to Heavenly Father came first from virtuous female missionaries. Never discount the power of women....or the wisdom of God.

 

I heard an unusual but rather compelling theory perhaps twenty years ago that
the dynamic in the first and second and third century Messianic Jewish community had the guys really, really, really scared so.......

... they resorted to drastic measures......

In the first and second and third centuries Church.... took place in the homes of Messianic Jews and Messianic Gentiles so.....
since the woman of the house has great power in that house......
that power that the women of the house had over the church scared the boys.....

... and they decided on a celibate priesthood..... with benefits of course......
as a response to this threat to male domination of Religion and Theology.......

Of course the full topic is more complex than that but I do think that there is something to this theory......


The Apostle Paul was likely married but when he began to follow Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus his wife likely left him....
somewhat perhaps like how King Saul took Michal the wife of King David and gave her to somebody else.....

 

Thanks for your comments and for, your interest in the OP.

My locked-down position on the Holy Scriptures is that the
books in the Protestant Bible (egs, the New International
Version and the King James Version, etc, have been kept free
from errors by the Sovereign God exercising His Providential
control over all things. I totally reject all "findings" of the
academic intellectual talking heads who engage in what is
called the Higher Criticism of the text of the Old and New
Testaments ~ reject in the same political sense as
locked-down Republicans reject locked-down democrats.

Also I am a realist and not an idealist. That means that I am
well aware that women preachers within Evangelicalism, are
not only here to stay, but that they will grow in numbers. One
of my major points in the OP is to point out to Evangelicals,
that when they accept females as pastors of their churches
that means they will also end up accepting practicing
homosexuals as pastors of their churches ~ first came
their acceptance of women preachers/pastors. Now the
same arguments used to justify them accepting women
as their preachers/pastors are also used to get them to
accept practicing homosexuals as their preachers/pastors.
Which they are now in the process of doing. It was not
an accident that the Women's Empowerment Movement
came BEFORE the Homosexual Empowerment Movement.
The two movements go hand in hand.


JAG

``

 

Its not the same reasons at all, but the Bible prohibits women from the job.

 

It was the same reasons, two examples:
(1) The secular concept and secular interpretation and secular application of Equality
(for women and homosexuals)
(2) The secular concept and secular interpretation and secular application of Fairness
(as applied to both women and homosexuals)


JAG

``

 

Ok, I see the argument.

The Bible allows women to teach (See Pricilla), just not publicly. However, the Bible sets certain qualifications for church leaders, and there is no way a habitual & willful sinner (as is the case with practicing homosexuals according to the Bible) can be such leader.

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,"

Being above reproach, means being nearly perfect in his ways so that no criticism can be made.

Not everyone qualifies.

 

I call it basic reading comprehension.

1 Corinthians 1:14-16 NIV
I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, [15] so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. [16] (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)

How can you read that and say "free from errors". Does error mean something different to you?

2 Timothy 3:16 NIV
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Scripture is inspired - not "free from errors".

As for 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, I have found other interpretations which keep the verses in while making sense within the rest of the letter where Paul has no problem with women speaking.

https://margmowczko.com/interpretations-applications-1-cor-14_34-35/

Personally, I'm coming to like the "quotation" interpretation better than believing it was later added. Regardless, the question is one of interpretation and translation of scripture - not of inspiration.

What's your definition of evangelicalism?

Is this only about Women leading the church? Or you ok with female deacons? Females teaching? Females prophesying?

No. This is simply untrue. The arguments made for female pastors is many times Biblical or expedient in nature. Lottie Moon was the only missionary in China where she was. According to you, was she suppose to halt her spread of the Gospel? If a man learns of the Gospel from a woman, is he damned? Reformed churches, like the Church of England, tend to accept female pastors for political reasons.

There was a female Judge of Israel. Can you name a homosexual one? This is the primary problem with your argument. I can name female leaders in the Bible, approved and appointed by God. But you can't point at a single homosexual one - not even one in a position of minor power. So, we have examples of female leaders, but we have no examples of homosexual ones.

Females are listed as Christian believers in the Bible. Homosexuals are listed as those who reject God. Day and Night difference. Can you name the openly homosexual Christian named in the Bible?

How does a Christian lead? Through service to other Christians. Are females not allowed to serve? Should they be lazy and not help out? The problem is not only that you have only two verses, the verses themselves are contradicted - sometimes within the same letter.

The SBC, which does not accept female pastors but allows them in other positions, has not turned homosexual for over a hundred years. Are you saying the reformed movement in the SBC is trying to push homosexuality?

Here's an example of the "Christian" homosexual supporting his beliefs:
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...rming+same-sex+relations+and+15+Responses.pdf

They aren't the same arguments.

First, I need to correct your revisionist history. The movements which went hand-in-hand with the women's suffrage movement movement were

1. The abolition of slavery and equality under the law for Black men.
2. The Prohibition movement.

The homosexual movement came about after the social decay of the 1960s.

Next, priests of the Roman Imperial Church, which you seem quite fond of for some reason, has approved of the thumpin' altar boys for nearly a millennium. There are not any female priests. For the RIC homosexual empowerment came before women's empowerment.

However, for some reason, the RIC conflates thumpin' an altar boy with masturbation - just as you seem to conflate homosexuals in the church with women in the church. The Papists are the biggest reason why homosexuality is being approved of in the church. As the latest pope said,

"If they [gay priests] accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency [same-sex attraction] is not the problem... they're our brothers."

Most Churches, by adopting Papist beliefs, have held open the door for homosexuals.

 

Read this article:
Inside the Evangelical Fight Over Gay Marriage | Time

Here is a quote from that article:

A well known homosexual activist, Robinson" is speaking:

Start quote:
"“It is not an accident that the women’s-liberation movement preceded the
gay-liberation movement,” Robinson says. “Discriminatory attitudes and treatment
of LGBT people is rooted in patriarchy, and in order to embrace and affirm gays,
evangelicals will have to address their own patriarchy and sexism, not just their
condemnation of LGBT people.”
Inside the Evangelical Fight Over Gay Marriage | Time
End quote

Here is the Evangelical arguments AGAINST female preachers/pastors
presented by a leading nationally known Evangelical:




JAG


``

 

So, one church - just one. A thesis built off of one example. and you didn't even get that one example right.

“I don’t care if the Bible says, ‘Gay people [crude language],'” he declared. “The Bible is pro-slavery, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. It doesn’t have a very great view of women leading and teaching. I have lots of things I disagree with about the Bible.”

That's the pastor of that Church and what he said in 2015. Misinterpretations on passages about women and slavery caused him to reject the Bible altogether. I think it's more likely that MacArthur drove him to reject the Bible. Clearly, from his speech in 2015, he didn't first accept women pastors (He's male.) and then accept homosexual church members. He rejected the Bible to accept homosexuals at his church. He still believes in the Papist Trinity, however, which says something about how Biblical that is.

He is reformed - never evangelical. I thought he was dead. Maybe there is still hope for him.

I guess his sermon was like many other Reformed sermons. Pick a verse. Repeat it 20 different times in different intonations and instead of reading the surrounding passage, jump around the Bible and don't use reading comprehension.

Genesis 3:17-19 NIV
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.
[18] It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
[19] By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food
until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken;
for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

Is Adam cursed? No. The ground is cursed. Maybe the guy misspoke. But with as many errors as he was making . . .

 

Lol, I remember my Evangelical church telling me about the evils of the NIV and how it was a distortion from superior translations, like the KJV. The truth is that both the NIV and the KJV are are the products of the "Higher Criticism" that you criticize. Every version of the Bible begins, even before translation, with textual compilers gathering copies, comparing and contrasting them, trying to find the trends in the earliest copies they can find, cutting other text, etc. The NIV, for example, includes notes about how the last verses of Mark do not appear in the earliest manuscripts. The KJV is a translation, specifically, of the 3rd edition of Erasmus's Textus Receptus compilation. Every translation of the Bible comes from a compilation of "Higher Criticism."

 

I think the main reason for celibacy in the RCC is economics. I noticed that it runs on a communist system so that bishops and priests are provided with a place to live and a car and given a minimum wage. If it wasn't so, they wouldn't be able to support as many institutions as they do.

I'm Orthodox and our Church allows married priests, but they must be married before being ordained. Since a priest is only allowed to perform one liturgy a day, a large parish like the former Catholic ones where attendance was compulsory, they would have needed a few Masses a day.

Our wealthier Orthodox parishes can afford to have more than one married priest, but the poorer parishes can't afford it.

About two decades ago, I read of a married Episcopal bishop who became a priest in the Catholic Church. He was told that he had to live on the same income as the other priests. His wife probably worked, and he might have worked two jobs. The RCC did provide him a house, car and food stamps and told him that when his children were ready to go to college, he could go to any Catholic University and ask them what they could do for him.

 

God works in mysterious ways. Perhaps someday, people can be treated for their character instead of what sex they are, orientation they are, or color they are.
And humans can coexist together and be accepted by Evangelicals.

 

God works in mysterious ways. Perhaps someday, people can be treated for their character instead of what sex they are, orientation they are, or color they are.
And humans can coexist together and be accepted by leftist Jesus-haters. Unfortunately, the Democrat party will be around for quite some time.

 

If modern Christians no longer consider women and homosexuals to be lesser beings than straight men, I see that as progress and they should be encouraged. Yes, the bible itself is explicitly sexist and homophobic, but it also includes endorsement and excusal of lots of other things most today see as immoral and most modern Christians ignore those parts. Culture changes.

 

Back handed, note dishonest, response.
And a political attack when none was warranted. Dems or Rs have nothing to do with gods mysterious way. In fact, didn't really exist for most of it.

 

Projection.

Instead of continuing the conversation, which was happening in this thread, you made a "Back handed, note dishonest, response."

I thought this site was called "Political Forum".

Your post is a repeat of the Democratic party's propaganda. Your post describing Christians as racist and sexist is silly and not based in reality.

However, the Democrat party is definitely racist and sexist. They push for discrimination in all of their activities.

 

No. Quite the opposite.

Galatians 3:28 NLT
There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Homosexual activity is nearly as dangerous and evil as murder. I and other Christians do not fear homosexuals or murderers.

If you don't agree with this, unlike the Roman Imperial Church, Christians don't force conversions. You're welcome to go your own way.

 

The site is PF, this subforum is Religion/Philosophy.
I am not a dem and don't follow their propaganda. Another dishonest post.

I didn't create the OP, it wasn't I who is afraid of the slippery slope of allowing women to be leaders of a church is a gateway to LGBTQ to becoming leaders.

I didn't post bible verses in the OP that referred to women not to be leaders in a church

If you have a problem with my hoping Evangelicals will treat people for their character and ability and not what sex or orientation they are, you need to address the OP.
Stop repeating the lies from the 2x impeached incumbent loser and leave politics out of this discussion.

I guess the truth of Evangelicals is a sore spot with you. Truth can hurt. And it makes some feel guilty, I guess.