Lifeway Stores and Female Pastors
September 25, 2008 | 36 Comments
9/25/08: Lifeway Stores, Female Pastors, and Gospel Today Magazine
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Category:
Current Events
Comments
36 Responses to “Lifeway Stores and Female Pastors”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
September 25th, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
I think the problem many have is that many have this idea that the pastor must be a covering to them, and therefore, somehow that covering must be a man.
I’ve seen too many churches where the concept of a covering has been abused- by abusive leadership – and furthermore in many cases the covering has later been exposed to be – shall we say – less than Holy.
Better to understand the priesthood of ***ALL*** believers. We do not need an intermediary between us and God, other than Jesus who is our advocate. In Chirst there is neither male nor female. And therefore we do not need to embrace the Roman Chucrh idea of a priest between us and God.
If we can look to God, rather than a pastor, then we will do much better. And if a woman can function in a pastoral capacity – teaching and caring- then what’s the problem with that?
And I can give you plenty of examples of men pastors who have not functioned well in that capacity.
So some would imply that that would be preferable to a capable woman? Huh.
One caller implied that women in ministry was fine, but not in ordained ministry. Interesting concept, but hard to back that up with scripture.
A/G has a provoking reveiw of the topic here:
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4191_women_ministry.pdf
September 26th, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
1. I was disappointed that this show did not speak more of the verses that reveal this not such a clear cut issue. Dr. Brown glossed them, but there was no depth on counter verses such as Junia and Priscilla, much less cultural and contextual issues. I hope these are responded to here or on another radio show.
I highly recommend Eldon Jay Epp’s “Junia, The First Woman Apostle.”
http://www.amazon.com/Junia-Apostle-Eldon-Jay-Epp/dp/0800637712
2. As a caller pointed out, Lifeway does not only carry books they doctrinally agree with and certainly not only Baptist authors. I have bought Gordon Fee (a charismatic) books from them. Gender issues seems to be what they focus on. They do not carry the TNIV, which Fee played a large role in, but they carry his books including those on the Spirit.
I noticed on their web site the book “They Speak with Other Tongues.” Not quite consistent.
http://www.lifewaystores.com/lwstore/product.asp?isbn=0800793595&mscssid=L2W3WQ53JCPJ8JU1CLM4DKP1050449M7
3. Personally, every time I try and use my Minister’s Discount Card at Lifeway, I get grilled. No, I am not a senior pastor. I have talked to men who have not had any difficulty with theirs.
4. Lifeway has removed Baptist from their name. They used to be the Baptist book store. When they changed their name, I had to ask if it was still Baptist. This would be unknown to shoppers who do not know they are Baptist from previous knowledge. (This was alluded to in the radio show.)
5. There seems to be a disparity with those who hold to complementarian roles as a whole. They generally do not have an issue with women fulfilling these same roles as missionaries.
6. If Pauline dictates for who can be pastors/elders/overseers were adhered to, I do not think Jesus or Paul would qualify. Neither of whom were married.
7. Bill, if you were the last caller, you were very clear. Great call. If that was not you…ooops.
September 26th, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
well I only had 30 seconds.
September 26th, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Yvette,
Actually, I was expecting more people to call and bring your perspective, hence my lack of trying to take different sides. Thanks for interacting here! I will return to the issue.
Dr. Brown
September 26th, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Can anyone show me from the O.T If there were women Priest? Where? and Why not?
September 26th, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
B^2
No woman priests.
Priests were chosen from the sons of priests. 1 Chronicles 24.
Descendants of Aaron, I believe.
Note that most of the major figures in the OT, Moses for example, were not Priests.
Note also a Pastor is not a Priest. Call an SBC pastor a priest sometime and watch the reaction!!
September 27th, 2008 @ 8:00 am
6. If Pauline dictates for who can be pastors/elders/overseers were adhered to, I do not think Jesus or Paul would qualify. Neither of whom were married.
Paul was an apostle, so the restrictions did not apply to his position. Yeshua (Jesus) is our High Priest (of the order of Melchizedek) and so also not under these restrictions. Also, I have understood that pastors/bishops/deacons need not be married, but if they are, they should have only one wife. The original deacons, Stephen, et al, were required to be men, of honest report, filled with the Holy Spirit, and full of wisdom. There’s no evidence in Acts to show whether these men were married or not, but their primary service was to widows.
I don’t know why all priests were men, though I remember a passage saying that all males that open up the womb are holy unto God… or maybe its just the firstborn males… I’ll have to look it up.
There are quite a few women of note in Scripture that seem to have roles of leadership. But I do not see their leadership roles being equated to a Pastor, Bishop, or Deacon. Most seem to be prophetesses. Miriam was a prophetess, who led other women in worship with timbrels and dancing. Deborah was also a prophetess, who was the only female judge of Israel. King Josiah sent Hilkiah the High Priest to inquire of the Lord for the king and the people… and he went to Huldah, the prophetess to hear this word. Anna, the aged widow and prophetess saw Messiah when Mary came to the Temple for her purification. Priscilla and Aquila, were discipled by Paul, and with her husband discipled Apollos. This husband and wife team are mentioned several times by Paul in thanks for their service to him and the gentile churches. Phebe is mentioned in Romans as a servant of the church at Cenchrea. The word used for servant (Greek: diakonos) is the same word used for deacon. This is no proof that she was a deacon, but she mentioned among many of Paul’s fellow servants.
The passages in 1 Timothy and Ephesians look pretty clear cut, but I am wondering if there isn’t a hidden context. Both letters are written to the church in Ephesus, the first to it’s pastor, the second to its members. Ephesus was a chief site for the worship of Diana/Artemis, which may have weighed on the mind of Paul as he wrote these letters. There may have been fear of the believers adopting “mother goddess” forms of worship or church hierarchy. If this is the context, it would be supported by the letter to Titus, who served in Crete, the center and origin of the Artemis/Diana cult.
I’m not sure if these instructions are just Paul’s suggestions for a particular set of believers, or for the body at large. I do belong to a congregation that enforces these passages. But there are no constraints in our practice of faith against speaking in tongues, as in the SBC.
I’m not bothered by the thought of a woman in leadership, as I agree with the caller who said, and I paraphrase, that God will call out whomever He will… whether it be a man (like David), a woman (like Deborah), or a child (like Samuel). If I am in error, I will try to err toward caution and accept my congregation’s interpretation until I receive revelation to the contrary.
September 27th, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Greetings everyone,
I have to give Dr. Brown heads up for a great program. I would have loved to call in to share my part had I known it was taking place.
The problem with using 2nd Timothy as the proof text for women in leadership is the problem in understanding scripture without a systematic understanding. The best example of this problem (that I’ve heard explained) is that of a car manual. When your car has problems with lights and you start searching through the manual for an answer, you will find dozens of references of lights throughout your car manual–but only a single chapter dedicated to lights. The question is: Where is the best place to go to in order to find information about fixing light problems? The answer is obviously the chapter that is dedicated to lights; since any other reference would only contain off-hand information which wasn’t intended to be used for any procedure.
So in application: Which is weightier? Paul’s clear instructions regarding church leadership (on the very subject of church leadership) or an off hand remark that could imply that a women had a role in leadership?
Dez: Paul excludes polygamists–not single people–from the ministry.
September 28th, 2008 @ 12:14 am
Dez: Paul excludes polygamists–not single people–from the ministry.
Robin: I am guessing that you are referring to “Also, I have understood that pastors/bishops/deacons need not be married, but if they are, they should have only one wife.”
Robin, thanks for your reply. I’m sure if you look at my response above, you’ll see that I am already in agreement with you. Perhaps you mistook “need not be married” for “need to be not married.” I probably should have reworded it to say “not required to be married”.
I like the analogy you present. And you are right about the focus of instruction, which is why I do not treat the “off-hand information” as revelation. It is dangerous to build theology upon a single passage. It is also dangerous to read one’s own desires or goals into the text.
That being said, I would like to hear more from Bill concerning the priesthood of all believers, and that all believers have access to God. I know this sounds like I’m accusing Bill of bad interpretation, but I’m not. I think he’s got an excellent point to share.
Yvette: I thought of something concerning the marriage issue you brought up:
6. If Pauline dictates for who can be pastors/elders/overseers were adhered to, I do not think Jesus or Paul would qualify. Neither of whom were married.
Is not Christ married to the church (the bride of Christ)? Though it can be argued that this is a future event, we (the church) are in effect betrothed to Him… and in a Hebraic cultural context (as I understand it) the conduct of bretrothed persons is to be as a husband and a wife.
It was brought up in the show that it is hypocritical for Lifeway to pull this magazine from the store since they (the SBC) forbid speaking in tongues. Also, that they may be selling other materials in their store that are contrary to Baptist doctrine. But insofar as they understand scripture, they obeyed their conviction. Are they inconsistent in their conviction? It surely seems so. Playing devil’s advocate: Is it being argued that due to the fault of inconsistency they should no longer follow any conviction? or just this one?
September 28th, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
Dez,
“Is it being argued that due to the fault of inconsistency they should no longer follow any conviction? or just this one?” Good point. Truthfully, I have to admit inconsistencies in my own life. Thanks.
Your point on Jesus…marriage is in the future. Your own rebuttal to yourself is more accurate, but that is an interesting thought. He would also not qualify because he does not have children that we can point to as obedient. Don’t get me wrong, I think Jesus and Paul qualify as elders. I am simply pointing out the difficulties we face in application when we narrowly follow some verses to the avoidance of other evidences. For example, as Dr. Brown pointed out, Paul gives instruction in 1 Cor on how a woman should pray and prophecy and turns around and forbids them to speak. As you so well pointed out above, context matters.
My overall point is that those who hold to complementarian views conveniently ignore the verses of choice or apply context when it is to their benefit but not others. Your statement earlier of elders not having to be married but IF they are married is a perfect example. Scripture says quite plainly that they should have one wife and obedient children. I agree that is referring to polygamy, but that is not what it says. It says they should have one wife. The argument to this is then: why would Paul advise the Corinthians to stay single for the Kingdom if they could? In addition, would SBC pastors be happy if their wives stopped wearing wedding rings to refrain from being adorned with gold rings? I doubt it. They would cry, “CONTEXT!”
I believe you were right on target in your Diana references, but context is avoided in this case all too often.
Overall, it is just not as simple as the callers were making it, which Bill began to make clear. He only had 30 seconds.
I am enjoying such a civil conversation on a blog. That is hard to find. I’m having some browser troubles, so I am sorry if it takes a while to reply. I also apologize if my thoughts seem incoherent. I should not post comments on Sunday nights. I’m too tired.
September 28th, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
I have no firm view either way on the women as pastors issue so I was disappointed that Dr. Brown didn’t elaborate on his own view. Perhaps the promised revisiting of the subject in a future program will cover the arguments more thoroughly.
September 30th, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Yvette said: Overall, it is just not as simple as the callers were making it, which Bill began to make clear. He only had 30 seconds.
I noticed that some of the callers were definitely in support of the Pauline restrictions on women in ministry. But I’m guessing they were Baptists (I tease) as immediately after Dr. Brown brought up the issue of speaking in tongues they began hemming and hawing (I wonder if that counts as speaking in tongues?). One caller suggested that speaking in tongues was not in order since no one would know if the truth was being spoken (If I am wrong, please correct me). 1 Cor 12:10 tells us that there is a gift of interpretation. 1 Cor 14:26-27 gives a proper order for tongues and interpretation. I’m wondering what the problem is.
October 23rd, 2008 @ 10:18 am
Dr. Brown,
Can you comment a little more about whether you agree or not with having female pastors?
October 23rd, 2008 @ 11:47 am
I think the eldership being for married males is a pretty clear issue. Paul never claims to be an elder so using him as an example doesn’t make sense. Peter however calls himself an elder and we know from the gospels and Pauls testimony that he was married. As for using Jesus as an example loads of people have pointed out that he has a bride and if you read Isaiah 53 it’s clear that we are not only his brethren but also his seed as Isaiah 53 puts it therefor he is a capable chief shepherd in every way.
Women can be pastors, so long as they teach other women. If they seek to teach a man their husband should probably present as was the case for Aquilla and priscilla. Also there is a difference between prophesying or speaking a tongue and teaching before the congregation. One is clearly sharing instruction from the scripture whereas the other is speaking forth a new word from God for the purpose of edification. Though there is no male and female in Christ we must also understand that it is God who made man first and gave us this patriarchal way of community within the church.
This does not mean women can not serve in the church there are various ministries not just pastoring, teaching and apostleship. There is evangelizing and prophesying, there is administration within the body such as being a treasurer for example, we are all expected to do good deeds etc. Better to stick to what is clear and does not cause stumbling than to divide over the unclear etc (not that we are dividing or any one is stumbling, however it is clear that many do stumble over such).
October 23rd, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Thanks mwiya. I’m still interested to hear Dr. Brown’s take.
October 23rd, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
The question is, does allowing women to take leadership postions in the church upset the natural order? is it appropriate? it wouldn’t seem to be given the history of the church, (and i’m including the OT here) ask yourselves this, is it merely coincidence that openly gay pastors are now preaching also? by upsetting the natural order are we not also undermining Gods word. I’m only suggesting male dominance as ordained by God, not male superiority. can a woman understand as fully as a man? Absolutely! but is it proper for them to be the leader of their church? previous blogs suggested ambiguity concerning Christs’ sex. (being neither male or female) clearly the bible is consistent in calling them both Father and Son when addressing the Godhead. I submit that if it were proper we would be able to observe this thru the creation, in other words, women would be the dominant mate, not men. could gender based pride be at the root of this,I wonder?
October 23rd, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Rick,
Its not pride its just the order that God has established. Adam was made first not Eve. Jesus Christ is the last Adam, I think we simply have to accept that which God has established. Look at the Bride of The Lamb, is not Christ her head? Were not the twelve apostle’s men. Are not the patriarch’s men, is not our Lord Jesus himself a man. The term there is no male or female simply shows the equality within Christ much the way Jew and Gentile are One within Christ. That said, salvation is still of the Jew as it came forth from Judea and Jesus Himself was a Jew. Likewise, men are still the heads of their wives and wives submit to their husbands. But we know that when we are glorified and sit in the kingdom of God we shall be like the angels, not marrying or married. But even then our Lord Jesus Christ will still be a male.
The issue is not gender, the issue is what does the word of God say implicitly and explicitly. What is the explicit context of the scripts?
October 23rd, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Rick,
You ask some great questions!
October 23rd, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
Good points guys. I look forward to hearing Dr. Brown’s take on this.
November 24th, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Dr. Brown,
Can you give your comments about having female pastors?
December 19th, 2009 @ 2:35 am
My dear brothers in Christ, could the inspired apostle have been any clearer on this matter? Let us listen to, and tremble before the revealed will of God (I mean Scripture), always seeking to please Him, even when doing so may offend the world. If a sister says that God has put it in her heart (or some such thing) to be a “pastor,” we must try this impulse (as all others) by the Word of God, which is “living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
Behold what how the word of God cuts the vain imagination of man in pieces: “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?” (1 Corinthians 14:33-37).
December 19th, 2009 @ 2:42 am
Tim,
Do you do your study on the context/setting of 1 Corinthians 14:33-37? Do you know why this was mentioned to women in that setting?
December 19th, 2009 @ 4:52 am
Yes Ben. John Gill’s comments on the relevant verses seem much to the point. His commentary is quite long, so here is just some of it. I hope it is helpful. “‘…for it is not permitted unto them to speak’ (v. 34); that is, in public assemblies, in the church of God, they might not speak with tongues, nor prophesy, or preach, or teach the word. All speaking is not prohibited; they might speak their experiences to the church, or give an account of the work of God upon their souls; they might speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; or speak as an evidence in any case at a church meeting; but not in such sort, as carried in it direction, instruction, government, and authority. It was not allowed by God that they should speak in any authoritative manner in the church; nor was it suffered in the churches of Christ… ‘But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law’ (v. 34). By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men.
‘…for it is a shame for women to speak in the church’ (v. 35);
it is a shame to themselves, as being contrary to the natural modesty and bashfulness of the sex, and a shame to the church, to the non-members of it, and especially to the elders, and more experienced part of it, to be taught and directed by a woman; it is a disgrace to herself and sex, as betraying uncommon pride and vanity, and an unnatural boldness and confidence; and a disgrace to the church to be under such a ministry and conduct.”
Have a blessed day in Christ
December 19th, 2009 @ 5:11 am
Timothy,
The historical background/setting of the church was when women and men sat separately when a message was being shared. Women on one side, the men on the other. The women/wives would ask questions to the men/husbands across the room which was a distraction to others that were listening and to the speaker. Thats why this passage has “let them ask their own husbands at home…”
December 19th, 2009 @ 5:15 am
“If they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home: In the ancient world, just as in some modern cultures, women and men sit in different groups at church. Among the Corinthian Christians, there seems to have been the problem of women chattering or disrupting the meetings with questions. Paul is saying, “Don’t disrupt the meeting. Ask your questions at home.””
“In the Jewish synagogues, men and women would sit apart. But if a woman chattered or called out to her husband sitting far off, she would be dealt with severely. The Corinthian church may have adopted the same kind of seating arrangement, but with many women from Gentile backgrounds, they did not know how to conduct themselves at a church meeting. Paul is teaching them how.”
December 19th, 2009 @ 11:57 am
“As in ALL the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches” (1 Corinthians 14:31).
“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away” (Luke 21:33).
December 19th, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
Ben, whom are quoting?
December 19th, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Ben, whom are you quoting?
December 19th, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
Timothy,
I am quoting David Guzik. There are mutlitple commentaries that will confirm the historical/cultural background of 1 Cor 14.
Can you explain why you just posted two verses?
December 19th, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Ben, I haven’t denied the historical context of the passage. I was just asking for citation. Thanks for providing it. In fact, the source I cited above (John Gill) affirms something quite similar in the same place of his commentary from which I’ve quoted. I do, however, agree with the rest of Gill’s comments (quoted above). Please tell me if you disagree with some or all of them, and if so, why?
My quotation of Luke 21:33 affirms the immutability of the inspired word of God alongside the mutability of the world, which I think is apt to any discussion which involves questions pertaining to the troubling phenomenon (often to be observed of late) of the world changing the church more than the church changing world (to paraphrase one of my favorite preachers, Dr. Brown). The other quotation contains the phrase “All the congregations of the saints,” and shows the universal application of the principle.
December 19th, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).
In light of the above passage, I would love to hear people’s thoughts on the question of female pastors–or perhaps it would simplify matters a bit if we framed the question in terms of “preachers” rather than “pastors.”
December 19th, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
John Gill’s commentary you posted above on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 adds a lot of his interpretive views which does not reflect the historical background and the context of the passage.
December 20th, 2009 @ 12:45 am
“… But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet”
A better translation for “exercise authority” is “usurp authority” which means “one who acts on his own authority, autocratic” or self appointed authority.
The key is not about teaching but using the teaching platform to appoint themselves.
A better translation for “quiet” is “peaceable”. Any woman who self appoints themselves will not be in peace which is why it was commanded for women to remain peaceable.
December 20th, 2009 @ 1:58 am
The sense you seem to be trying to hammer out of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is just not there Ben. Ben, I don’t mean this rudely, but am I wrong to assume that you are not trained in ancient Greek? If not, perhaps you should be a bit more cautious in speaking of “better translations,” no? The reason I ask is that I am a classicist who’s been studying classical languages (Greek and Latin) for some years. The translation I’ve provided above is quite true to the original text, as are most major translations. If I’m mistaken and you do know Greek, perhaps we can discuss the grammatical and idiomatic structures of these verses. If not, I’d be glad to instruct you on the matter, as time allows. I could take you through the vetus latina as well if you’re interested–this would give you a window into how translators from the 1st few centuries AD regarded the sense of the passage!
Let me know and I will try to respond tomorrow.
Also, am I wrong to assume that you have a postive view of the office of “female pastor,” and think it is a scripturally sound institution?
December 20th, 2009 @ 2:08 am
I know this is a busy weekend for many–especially those of us in North East who have been shoveling snow all day and night!–but I’d love to hear the views of some others on this issue tomorrow. God bless!
December 20th, 2009 @ 4:15 am
Wow. Timothy, whether you have good intentions or not, that was in a way belittling. Instead of questioning / assuming my educational background, highlighting your strengths and how you think I can be your student, it would be best for you to give your response why you differ.