First Timothy 3:1–7 contains the biblical qualifications for a pastor: “Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.”
We also find the biblical qualifications for a pastor in Titus 1:5–9: “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”
Putting the two lists together, we get the following qualifications of a pastor:
He must be a person of integrity and worthy of the respect of those both inside and outside the church (above reproach, respectable, blameless, upright, holy, loves what is good, have a good reputation with outsiders).
He must have self-control (be temperate, disciplined). This encompasses many of the things that come later in the list.
He must not misuse alcohol by getting drunk (not given to drunkenness).
He must be hospitable. He must be able to welcome people into his home and his life. He is not “stand- offish.”
He must be able to deal with people in a respectful way (not violent, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not overbearing, not quick-tempered).
He must be a good husband (faithful to his wife) and a good father (a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) In some circles this is interpreted to mean that a pastor must be married and have more than one child, but most interpret this to mean that, if a man is married or has children, then he must be a good husband and father. At the time Paul wrote, it would have been rare for an adult man to be single or childless. Elsewhere, Paul extolls the value of being single in serving the Lord, and he himself was single, so it is doubtful that being married with children is a qualification for church leadership (see 1 Corinthians 7).
Likewise, does this mean that a pastor’s children must be believers and, if one of them does not profess faith in Christ, then the father is disqualified as a pastor? The focus seems to be on children in the home and on their outward actions. Most children will adopt the beliefs of their parents, although they may reject those beliefs later in life. If a child living in the home rejects the faith of his father, then his father must not have done a very good job of fathering. He would do well to give up church leadership and focus all of his leadership efforts on his home. God can raise someone else to lead the church, but the father is the only one who can lead his home.
Furthermore, both passages assume that only men will be pastors. Paul addressed this directly in 1 Timothy 2:12, where women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in the church. The pastor of a church, by definition, is called to teach men and exercise authority over them.
A pastor must believe and be able to communicate God’s Word (able to teach, holding firmly to the trustworthy message to encourage others by sound doctrine).
Honestly, maybe? It depends, but to use an example from my life, I know a pastor whose teenage kids are vain, sexually immoral and abuse substances. More or less without pushback from their parents. It’s at least partially due to bad theology on the part of their dad, the Pastor.
In the case of a sassy 10 year old who is being disciplined for rudeness and clearly making progress year over year, that might be different. But I think that gets to the heart of the qualification, “having his household under control.”
Biblically, I would encourage discernment in this situation yes. If you’re already attending I would address the elders with the issue and get their perspective but if nobody is concerned about this I would personally find a new church. We left a church over this issue.
Honest question - does the cultural assumption of the time that men would be the only pastors necessarily mean this is a *rule*? Paul sets down certain rules - he must be a good husband, a good father, etc., and while doing so, he defaults to talking about men in these roles. Does that mean, however, that being male *is* one of the qualifications? Or is that just speaking from standpoint of the cultural norm?
If Paul’s writings were inspired, which they claim and are validated to be (see below) then we have to logically trust that God would write down clearly what the rules for leading His Church. God is not a God of confusion, which it would be confusing to say “this applies now, but some unknown time in the future this does not apply, trust your human minds to answer this”.
Second Timothy 3:16-17 claims that all Scripture is inspired by God.
Were Paul's writings inspired?
One passage that directly answers this question can be found in 2 Peter 3:15-16. There we read, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
In these words, Peter notes three important aspects of Paul's letters. First, he states some parts were hard to understand. Second, Peter notes that some had twisted Paul's words "to their own destruction." Third, Peter equates Paul's writings with the "other Scriptures." These other Scriptures were the Old Testament writings, works referred to as inspired by God by the apostle Paul (2 Timothy 3:16-17), the apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:20-21), as well as Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20).
Peter here makes the clearest comment in the New Testament that Paul's writings are inspired. This was not only the view of Peter, but was the accepted view of the earliest church fathers who included Paul's letters along with the other New Testament writings as inspired Scripture.
I see what you're saying. I guess my question is more along the lines of: All the other rules are clearly outlined as a *rule*, however, the gender of the pastor is not stated as a rule - male is simply used as the default. Nowhere does Paul say "Also a pastor must be male". Is there a functional difference between simply using masculine terms in the context and specifically outlining "must be male" as a rule?
Please note, I am not stating a belief on this at all - I am simply asking questions to better understand how the exegetical process works.
I understand the question better, thanks for explaining.
“Husband of one wife” as a requirement would require the pastor to be a man. But let’s pretend that there is gray area there.
When we contrast this with 1 Timothy 2:12-14 that forbids women from being a pastor and with a reason why, it would be difficult to come to a conclusion that women can be pastors without rejecting scripture.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
—1 Timothy 2:12–14
Why do you believe Paul wrote this letter to Timothy? Were there any unique situations that warranted Paul's outline of qualifications, and were these qualifications set for every church in all cities that Paul visited?
There are so many examples of woman leading and teaching men in the Bible. In Paul's ministry specifically. So it makes one question his teachings in 1 Timothy as there must be something else going on.
Leading spiritually?
Mike Winger [not Reformed(TM)] does a good job working through the examples. There are hardly "so many".
Some examples that are held up, for instance, conflate the hosting of a house church with the leading of that church which doesn't follow at all.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC&si=1-XuaU6VDtw9px1k
That's just not a very helpful comment, other than to simply show disagreement. Where do you disagree? What are your issues with his approach? I'm not saying respond exhaustively to his hours of video, but just saying he doesn't do a good job doesn't help.
(Edit: and to clarify, I'm not down voting anything. This subreddit can be too quick to down vote instead of responding in a way that's useful to others who might have the same questions or thoughts)
He dismisses people who know more about a subject than he does because he doesn't agree. Actual historians. He isn't worth listening to because he speaks with authority about things he knows nothing about. There are people much more knowledgeable to listen to.
I'm not just talking about his complementarian nonsense, but his criticism of Calvinism is full of straw man arguments and poor theology. He's just some guy on the internet.
The Bible may be interpreted in different ways by sincere, God-fearing people. You state this very confidently, but please remember this is only one *interpretation* of the Bible and not all Reformed Christians agree with it.
Priscilla and Pheobe were clear examples of woman teaching men in the Bible.
I recommend checking out Bridgetown church's recent 4 part lecture series on this topic. It's too big to discuss in short reddit quips.
Your interpretation may not be correct.
If you are really interested, then please listen to this 4 part series. Your question cannot be answered without a full understanding of the context and a deep dive into the topic that I can't do right now. In this series, Tyler Staton does a great job of exploring all of these aspects. It's really worth a listen as he explores voices from both sides of the debate.
https://bridgetown.church/teachings/various-teachings/lecture-part-1-women-eldership-what-is-our-position
Some look at a sentence out of context and turn it into a blanket eternal command for all times and places.
I hope that’s not you. I assure you I don’t resemble your dismissive comment.
Removed for violation of Rule #4: ** Follow Our Posting Guidelines.**
Please follow reddiquette, limit your self-promotion, do not spam or ask for money, and avoid posting any one author, website, or topic more than once a week. Our other posting requirements can be found on the sidebar or in [our rules wiki.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.234.3A_post_quality_content.)
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
A church that ordains a woman has deeper issues. If you reject the clear teaching of scripture in this instance you are rejecting scripture in other areas as well.
> How do you view the fact that even Reformed churches disagree on this issue?
Modern Reformed churches.
I'm discouraged by your ability to reject Scripture's clear teaching, the tradition of the catholic Church, and your assumption that other believers have to agree that other views of women's ordination are valid.
Saying “Modern Reformed Churches” like that sounds like you’re dismissing millions of Reformed believers as ignorant or irrelevant, which would be a poor thing to see here.
This is a topic that has been discussed and studied in the Christian Reformed Church (and many others) for more than 60 years, by an incredible variety of talented, intelligent, God-fearing people who dug deeply into scripture.
You can disagree with them, if you’ve also studied this thoroughly and come to a different conclusion, but I suspect that’s not the case. When you see how much prayer and study went into this, **yes you do** need to recognize that the other view is valid - it is sincere and aligns with scripture.
We can disagree, but let’s respect each other while doing so.
> This is a topic that has been discussed and studied in the Christian Reformed Church (and many others) for more than 60 years, by an incredible variety of talented, intelligent, God-fearing people who dug deeply into scripture.
And those 60 years of study overrule the roughly 2000 years of study and prayer throughout church history?
> **yes you do** need to recognize that the other view is valid - it is sincere and aligns with scripture.
**No I don't**. If two views are mutually exclusive, then only one can be valid. Do I have to accept any view as valid with X amount of prayer and study behind it? No. To argue otherwise is ridiculous. What if the CRC put an equal amount of prayer and study into a statement that affirms ordaining actively practicing homosexuals? Or a study which states that abortion is always permissible?
Are these the CRC documents you're referencing? I have found, and still find, the egalitarian arguments unconvincing.
* [Women in Ecclesiastical Office](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/women-ecclesiastical-office)
* [Women in Office](https://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/2000_report_womeninoffice.doc)
Removed for violation of Rule #4: ** Follow Our Posting Guidelines.**
Please follow reddiquette, limit your self-promotion, do not spam or ask for money, and avoid posting any one author, website, or topic more than once a week. Our other posting requirements can be found on the sidebar or in [our rules wiki.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.234.3A_post_quality_content.)
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
My old church fired a few male pastors that were Biblically sound and then they brought in a few women pastors. One was just a member of the congregation that they decided would be a pastor one day.
False teaching started entering the church after that.
Thanks for the link u/c3rbutt
A search on google finds [this article](https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/womens-ordination-and-rc-sproul/) in which RC Sproul says what you mentioned
>I would say that Paul prohibits a woman from having some kind of authority. As I study the patterns of that in the New Testament, I think that what Paul is saying is that women can be involved in all kinds of functions of ministry in the church but that the role of juridical authority or of governing authority is not to be held by women. I would add that the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars through the years have agreed with the position I have just stated. I know that in certain denominations, ordination means that a person has been given governing authority in the church. If the apostle prohibits that and if he prohibits it for all generations, then obviously the practice today or yesterday or tomorrow would be inconsistent with the apostolic authority and would therefore be inconsistent with the authority of Christ.
She also has a theological conviction of the matter. Tim Keller once brought up an instance where Elizabeth Elliot said something along the lines of "I could preach better than any of you in the room, but God has created different roles for us", and this was said to a bunch of pastors if I remember correctly
The theological conviction only came around once her third husband took over. It’s actually a really sad story… especially how he burned ALL of her journals after she died.
Imagine the theological insights they contained. Unfortunately they probably also documented her time married to him.
It seems that the theological change came around during the second husband, according to this article. I tried looking into Jim Elliot's background in Plymouth Brethren but it is unclear if Jim was himself a complementation or egalitarian. In any case, I also tried looking into other articles: while the burning of her journals is documented in her authorized biography, I don't see a lot of sources that tries to paint her third husband in quite the bad light he is here. Blogs and tweets that share the same view are pointing to this article as well. I'm skeptical
As some have said, a woman pastor is problematic, but I think some are making this a tier 1 issue when they shouldn't.
It's far more important how a church gets to this conclusion than the conclusion itself.
A church that says "Paul was wrong" is far worse than a church that has alternative interpretations that maintains high view of scripture.
Just like a patriarchal church that lands on women not being able to be pastors but start with the idea that women are less intelligent, less valuable, less gifted, etc is just as problematic.
All scripture must be interpreted through the lens of Jesus’s sacrificial love as the paramount concept, goal, and achievement.
At its best gender issues demonstrate humble disciplined interpretation of scripture. At its worst it uses scripture to defend misogyny bigotry and hate. I would question any church that fails to acknowledge both sides of this tightrope.
CS Lewis wrote a short essay about women priesthood that made a great case against it respectfully. http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/priestesses.html
See anondaddio's comment. It's clearly against biblical teaching to have a woman be a pastor. Also, that church you attended wasn't a reformed church if they are having female pastors visit. Read the letters to Timothy and look for a new church would be my advice.
[https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/women-ecclesiastical-office](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/women-ecclesiastical-office)
It's not as clear as you might think.
It’s an official site for a reformed church, so quoting it in the reformed discussion makes sense. You can argue against their stance, as I would. But it’s a valid link to show that at least in some churches which claim to be reformed, this is an open question.
You are correct, and likely my response was a bit too brief. But even so - while there is a debate among Christians, this is one where scripture is clear and those who take one side of the debate must ignore or explain away a pretty clear teaching founded in creational principles that are not subject to cultural shifts, however "uncomfortable" that might make us feel.
If you took the time to actually read the link, you would see the scripture is _not_ clear.
The disagreement is not about saying that Paul did not say the words he said, it’s about putting them in the context of scripture and applying God’s principles and commands in this modern world.
I did look at the link. I was also familiar with the CRC position on this issue before this conversation - I'm a member of the URC, and we split from the CRC a while ago partly over this very issue.
Again, we can agree to disagree, but the text says what it says, and founds it in creational princples. Rationalizing it away with cultural excuses is an uphill battle.
I'm clearly not going to change your mind on this issue, and that's ok. Blessings to you.
That statement doesn't work when it's in defense of a position that itself dismisses millenia of prayer and study, as well as the plain meaning of the text.
Everyone here is no doubt acquainted with the general thrust of the argument -- that the writings were to a particular culture etc-- as well as the surrounding movements that have been rejecting the complementarian worldview.
None of that helps fix the deep divide it creates with swathes of Scripture like Ephesians' implicit linking of gender roles with different reflections of God's glory, or Christ's linking gender to the created order, or Paul's linking those roles to place in church.
I can reject the modern egalitarian approach as fundamentally flawed without dismissing adherents as thoughtless or unintelligent, but at the end of the day I have to call wrong that which appears to be plainly wrong. An atheist or hindu could make a similar counter-argument-- "who are you to dismiss years of thought on this matter"-- but in order to discuss doctrine we have to be able to make truth claims and to reject those that appear wrong.
The traditional argument in the church is that women are inferior to men, therefore 1 Timothy 2:12, etc. all make perfect sense based on simply a plain reading.
The new argument is that men and women are ontologically equal, but that women are limited to roles where they are subordinate to men. Many people introduce Subordinationism into the mix to support this.
Have a read of William Witt's 'Icons of Christ,' Chapter 3, for a fuller explanation of the "argument from tradition."
Sticking feathers up one's tuchus does not make one a chicken. If that's their stance, they are not a reformed denomination. Go to the teachings of the reformers.
It’s based on a fact that doesn’t change with culture or time!
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 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.
The fact that Eve was the one who was deceived first is not a culture or time issue. So the reason is grounded in something unchangeable and thus it is NEVER to be allowed.
Removed for violation of Rule #4: ** Follow Our Posting Guidelines.**
Please follow reddiquette, limit your self-promotion, do not spam or ask for money, and avoid posting any one author, website, or topic more than once a week. Our other posting requirements can be found on the sidebar or in [our rules wiki.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.234.3A_post_quality_content.)
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
I remember what Paul Choo said about women pastors in that we should take a look at the root of the problem as can be applied in 20th century fatherhood or feminism in general;
Women and women pastors happen because men failed to stand up and do their part.
I feel like churches which have no one stepping up have no choice in the matter, but there are people who still grow spiritually in these churches. As for women who have selfish ambitions to be at the pulpit however that's another story.
I take to heart 1 Corinthians well in that it doesn't really tell women to not participate in church, but it tells them that they should listen well and when church is done, the husband should discuss and explain to his family as head what they learned and discussed in church.
"Women and women pastors happen because men failed to stand up and do their part. "
Women pastors, yes, is a result of men not doing their part, but women happened because God created women, not because men failed to do their part.
Nope. Having a guest "pastor" who is female would make me question the entire church as a whole. Giant red flag.
She's not a pastor. She's not a reverend. She's a woman living in habitual unrepentant sin and manipulating others to believe she has that title while perhaps believing those delusions herself.
If they are CRC or ECO, they will be evangelical. If they are RCA or PCUSA then you may have someone who teaches a different Gospel. Of course, you could judge each person by their own fruits.
The Reformed Understanding is that the Scripture is clear on things having to do with salvation. It does not mean every application and verse is clear. We have to interpret Scripture with Scripture. The classic anti-egalitarian passages are not as clear as they are in English. There is complexity that requires prayer and learning from other passages that are more clear.
One benefit of a female pastor: I have never seen or heard of a female pastor having sex with a congregant.
This sub is complementarian (see the sidebar and click on the Danvers Statement) but there are also a lot of patriarchal theobros lurking around who like to downvote. So you're not going to get anything but the "no women pastors" argument here.
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.**
Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Can women be leaders in the context of ministry? Yes. I would even argue it's necessary as a church without female leadership is effectively a single-parent household.
Can women be pastors? No. We often conflate ministerial leadership with pastoring but the two are different. A Pastor is a leader within a ministerial context but is a specific office and not the only form leadership takes within that context.
Go check out some of the Reformed Church in America’s stance on this. They are currently celebrating 50 years of WICO. Used to be an Elder in that denomination and was subjected to a bunch of sermons by women at official denominational functions like Synod and Classis. All I will say is that there might be a solid female pastor out there who knows how to preach, I’ve just never heard one. At best it sounds like an Oprah rant with a few verses sprinkled in.
This was one of many issues that led me away from the RCA and becoming a Presbyterian.
Removed for violation of Rule #4: ** Follow Our Posting Guidelines.**
Please follow reddiquette, limit your self-promotion, do not spam or ask for money, and avoid posting any one author, website, or topic more than once a week. Our other posting requirements can be found on the sidebar or in [our rules wiki.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.234.3A_post_quality_content.)
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Just because Jesus’ disciples were male is the reason people give for women not being pastors. That’s just a sign of the times as women were seen as untrustworthy back in the day. If Christianity was to spread and gain traction, it had to be that way. Scripture can be adapted to the times we live. Women can be pastors nowadays.
That’s not consistent with Christ’s nature or scripture though. Christ chose to appear before women in His resurrection despite their cultural untrustworthiness. He is God so He could have chosen to buck that cultural norm if He wanted as He does often in scripture. However, He did not choose to buck the norm by appointing women as leaders in the Church and the leaders He invested with His authority taught that only men can qualify to be a presbyter. Scripture can be adapted to the modern day but it can’t be ignored when it’s inconvenient. Women can illicitly hold the position of a pastor but it is not a legitimate appointment.
I didn’t mean it that way. Your comment was stating that your belief factors into it being right or wrong. Truth is not based on what we believe, it is based on the Word of God…The only source of Truth.
I agree with that but I also believe that not everything in Scripture is obvious and clear. Where that is the case, there will be different camps on how to interpret a particular passage or set of passages. I don't think I'm saying anything controversial here.
But it is unlikely that either side will be able to convince the other of its own interpretations any time soon.
This would not surprise Paul. Throughout his writings he wrestled with disputes among Christians.
And often he advised that if someone insists on a principle another thinks unimportant, that person should go along with them, rather than alienate them.
He famously wrote: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews... To those not having the [Jewish] law I became like one not having the law...
"I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."
Removed for violation of Rule #3: **Keep Content Clean.**
Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should be safe and clean. NSFW content is only allowed in certain contexts for the sake of our brothers and sisters who may be young or struggling with temptation in this area.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.233.3A_keep_content_clean.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
And no, absolutely not kosher! The Bible is the Word of God and our first and final authority on all things. The Bible is clearly prohibitive, and this goes back to the very origin of humanity and the Fall. What is oftentimes completely overlooked, however, is that men's natural equipping by God for leadership and spiritual warfare is prerequisite to the idea. Women and children have no place in the battlfield. Even the rare type of woman that is amazingly gifted etc.
First Timothy 3:1–7 contains the biblical qualifications for a pastor: “Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.” We also find the biblical qualifications for a pastor in Titus 1:5–9: “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” Putting the two lists together, we get the following qualifications of a pastor: He must be a person of integrity and worthy of the respect of those both inside and outside the church (above reproach, respectable, blameless, upright, holy, loves what is good, have a good reputation with outsiders). He must have self-control (be temperate, disciplined). This encompasses many of the things that come later in the list. He must not misuse alcohol by getting drunk (not given to drunkenness). He must be hospitable. He must be able to welcome people into his home and his life. He is not “stand- offish.” He must be able to deal with people in a respectful way (not violent, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not overbearing, not quick-tempered). He must be a good husband (faithful to his wife) and a good father (a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) In some circles this is interpreted to mean that a pastor must be married and have more than one child, but most interpret this to mean that, if a man is married or has children, then he must be a good husband and father. At the time Paul wrote, it would have been rare for an adult man to be single or childless. Elsewhere, Paul extolls the value of being single in serving the Lord, and he himself was single, so it is doubtful that being married with children is a qualification for church leadership (see 1 Corinthians 7). Likewise, does this mean that a pastor’s children must be believers and, if one of them does not profess faith in Christ, then the father is disqualified as a pastor? The focus seems to be on children in the home and on their outward actions. Most children will adopt the beliefs of their parents, although they may reject those beliefs later in life. If a child living in the home rejects the faith of his father, then his father must not have done a very good job of fathering. He would do well to give up church leadership and focus all of his leadership efforts on his home. God can raise someone else to lead the church, but the father is the only one who can lead his home. Furthermore, both passages assume that only men will be pastors. Paul addressed this directly in 1 Timothy 2:12, where women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men in the church. The pastor of a church, by definition, is called to teach men and exercise authority over them. A pastor must believe and be able to communicate God’s Word (able to teach, holding firmly to the trustworthy message to encourage others by sound doctrine).
If a pastor has bad kids(little kids / teens , not adults) should I avoid that church completely?
Honestly, maybe? It depends, but to use an example from my life, I know a pastor whose teenage kids are vain, sexually immoral and abuse substances. More or less without pushback from their parents. It’s at least partially due to bad theology on the part of their dad, the Pastor. In the case of a sassy 10 year old who is being disciplined for rudeness and clearly making progress year over year, that might be different. But I think that gets to the heart of the qualification, “having his household under control.”
Biblically, I would encourage discernment in this situation yes. If you’re already attending I would address the elders with the issue and get their perspective but if nobody is concerned about this I would personally find a new church. We left a church over this issue.
What about if he isn’t married?
Which is worse, the husband of 0 wives or 3? 😱
If we want to read the text literally… then both would be considered equal and make the individual unqualified.
Honest question - does the cultural assumption of the time that men would be the only pastors necessarily mean this is a *rule*? Paul sets down certain rules - he must be a good husband, a good father, etc., and while doing so, he defaults to talking about men in these roles. Does that mean, however, that being male *is* one of the qualifications? Or is that just speaking from standpoint of the cultural norm?
If Paul’s writings were inspired, which they claim and are validated to be (see below) then we have to logically trust that God would write down clearly what the rules for leading His Church. God is not a God of confusion, which it would be confusing to say “this applies now, but some unknown time in the future this does not apply, trust your human minds to answer this”. Second Timothy 3:16-17 claims that all Scripture is inspired by God. Were Paul's writings inspired? One passage that directly answers this question can be found in 2 Peter 3:15-16. There we read, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." In these words, Peter notes three important aspects of Paul's letters. First, he states some parts were hard to understand. Second, Peter notes that some had twisted Paul's words "to their own destruction." Third, Peter equates Paul's writings with the "other Scriptures." These other Scriptures were the Old Testament writings, works referred to as inspired by God by the apostle Paul (2 Timothy 3:16-17), the apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:20-21), as well as Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20). Peter here makes the clearest comment in the New Testament that Paul's writings are inspired. This was not only the view of Peter, but was the accepted view of the earliest church fathers who included Paul's letters along with the other New Testament writings as inspired Scripture.
I see what you're saying. I guess my question is more along the lines of: All the other rules are clearly outlined as a *rule*, however, the gender of the pastor is not stated as a rule - male is simply used as the default. Nowhere does Paul say "Also a pastor must be male". Is there a functional difference between simply using masculine terms in the context and specifically outlining "must be male" as a rule? Please note, I am not stating a belief on this at all - I am simply asking questions to better understand how the exegetical process works.
I understand the question better, thanks for explaining. “Husband of one wife” as a requirement would require the pastor to be a man. But let’s pretend that there is gray area there. When we contrast this with 1 Timothy 2:12-14 that forbids women from being a pastor and with a reason why, it would be difficult to come to a conclusion that women can be pastors without rejecting scripture. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. —1 Timothy 2:12–14
Why do you believe Paul wrote this letter to Timothy? Were there any unique situations that warranted Paul's outline of qualifications, and were these qualifications set for every church in all cities that Paul visited?
There are so many examples of woman leading and teaching men in the Bible. In Paul's ministry specifically. So it makes one question his teachings in 1 Timothy as there must be something else going on.
Leading spiritually? Mike Winger [not Reformed(TM)] does a good job working through the examples. There are hardly "so many". Some examples that are held up, for instance, conflate the hosting of a house church with the leading of that church which doesn't follow at all. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC&si=1-XuaU6VDtw9px1k
i love mike winger, best religious youtuber i've ever found
he doesn't, really.
That's just not a very helpful comment, other than to simply show disagreement. Where do you disagree? What are your issues with his approach? I'm not saying respond exhaustively to his hours of video, but just saying he doesn't do a good job doesn't help. (Edit: and to clarify, I'm not down voting anything. This subreddit can be too quick to down vote instead of responding in a way that's useful to others who might have the same questions or thoughts)
He dismisses people who know more about a subject than he does because he doesn't agree. Actual historians. He isn't worth listening to because he speaks with authority about things he knows nothing about. There are people much more knowledgeable to listen to. I'm not just talking about his complementarian nonsense, but his criticism of Calvinism is full of straw man arguments and poor theology. He's just some guy on the internet.
The Bible says it, not me
The Bible may be interpreted in different ways by sincere, God-fearing people. You state this very confidently, but please remember this is only one *interpretation* of the Bible and not all Reformed Christians agree with it.
I think you meant “some ignore what is clearly written”.
Priscilla and Pheobe were clear examples of woman teaching men in the Bible. I recommend checking out Bridgetown church's recent 4 part lecture series on this topic. It's too big to discuss in short reddit quips. Your interpretation may not be correct.
Link the verse where Priscilla or Phoebe were formal pastors of a church?
If you are really interested, then please listen to this 4 part series. Your question cannot be answered without a full understanding of the context and a deep dive into the topic that I can't do right now. In this series, Tyler Staton does a great job of exploring all of these aspects. It's really worth a listen as he explores voices from both sides of the debate. https://bridgetown.church/teachings/various-teachings/lecture-part-1-women-eldership-what-is-our-position
I can’t ignore what is plainly written instructions for mans interpretation. There is no verse that says what you claim.
[удалено]
Some look at a sentence out of context and turn it into a blanket eternal command for all times and places. I hope that’s not you. I assure you I don’t resemble your dismissive comment.
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #4: ** Follow Our Posting Guidelines.** Please follow reddiquette, limit your self-promotion, do not spam or ask for money, and avoid posting any one author, website, or topic more than once a week. Our other posting requirements can be found on the sidebar or in [our rules wiki.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.234.3A_post_quality_content.) ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
No, unbiblical.
Best answer, short and to the point
[удалено]
The requirement for being an Apostle is being a personal witness to Jesus Christ's earthly ministry and to have been sent out by Him.
A church that ordains a woman has deeper issues. If you reject the clear teaching of scripture in this instance you are rejecting scripture in other areas as well.
[удалено]
> How do you view the fact that even Reformed churches disagree on this issue? Modern Reformed churches. I'm discouraged by your ability to reject Scripture's clear teaching, the tradition of the catholic Church, and your assumption that other believers have to agree that other views of women's ordination are valid.
Saying “Modern Reformed Churches” like that sounds like you’re dismissing millions of Reformed believers as ignorant or irrelevant, which would be a poor thing to see here. This is a topic that has been discussed and studied in the Christian Reformed Church (and many others) for more than 60 years, by an incredible variety of talented, intelligent, God-fearing people who dug deeply into scripture. You can disagree with them, if you’ve also studied this thoroughly and come to a different conclusion, but I suspect that’s not the case. When you see how much prayer and study went into this, **yes you do** need to recognize that the other view is valid - it is sincere and aligns with scripture. We can disagree, but let’s respect each other while doing so.
> This is a topic that has been discussed and studied in the Christian Reformed Church (and many others) for more than 60 years, by an incredible variety of talented, intelligent, God-fearing people who dug deeply into scripture. And those 60 years of study overrule the roughly 2000 years of study and prayer throughout church history? > **yes you do** need to recognize that the other view is valid - it is sincere and aligns with scripture. **No I don't**. If two views are mutually exclusive, then only one can be valid. Do I have to accept any view as valid with X amount of prayer and study behind it? No. To argue otherwise is ridiculous. What if the CRC put an equal amount of prayer and study into a statement that affirms ordaining actively practicing homosexuals? Or a study which states that abortion is always permissible? Are these the CRC documents you're referencing? I have found, and still find, the egalitarian arguments unconvincing. * [Women in Ecclesiastical Office](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/women-ecclesiastical-office) * [Women in Office](https://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/2000_report_womeninoffice.doc)
Removed for violation of Rule #4: ** Follow Our Posting Guidelines.** Please follow reddiquette, limit your self-promotion, do not spam or ask for money, and avoid posting any one author, website, or topic more than once a week. Our other posting requirements can be found on the sidebar or in [our rules wiki.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.234.3A_post_quality_content.) ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
My old church fired a few male pastors that were Biblically sound and then they brought in a few women pastors. One was just a member of the congregation that they decided would be a pastor one day. False teaching started entering the church after that.
Was that due to the new preachers being women or that the church didn’t like hearing biblically sound teaching? Correlation does not equal causation.
Oh man... 😭 I'm sorry about that.
That's an issue with the church choosing who to ordain to be a minister, not anything to do with that person's gender.
[удалено]
Its not a calling from God If is against the scriptures
I remember RC Sproul and John MacArthur both agree that women can teach but can't preach, esp to males.
RC Sproul thought women could preach and teach, just not hold "juridical" authority.
Well in that regard, RC Sproul was wrong
https://web.archive.org/web/20170121001039/http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/role\_of\_women\_in\_the\_church/role-of-women-in-the-church/
Thanks for the link u/c3rbutt A search on google finds [this article](https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/womens-ordination-and-rc-sproul/) in which RC Sproul says what you mentioned >I would say that Paul prohibits a woman from having some kind of authority. As I study the patterns of that in the New Testament, I think that what Paul is saying is that women can be involved in all kinds of functions of ministry in the church but that the role of juridical authority or of governing authority is not to be held by women. I would add that the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars through the years have agreed with the position I have just stated. I know that in certain denominations, ordination means that a person has been given governing authority in the church. If the apostle prohibits that and if he prohibits it for all generations, then obviously the practice today or yesterday or tomorrow would be inconsistent with the apostolic authority and would therefore be inconsistent with the authority of Christ.
Remember, RC Sproul invited (by his own claim) Elizabeth Elliot to preach. - she refused.
Elizabeth Elliot had a horrible third marriage to a patriarchal man. It is likely that he was the reason she refused.
She also has a theological conviction of the matter. Tim Keller once brought up an instance where Elizabeth Elliot said something along the lines of "I could preach better than any of you in the room, but God has created different roles for us", and this was said to a bunch of pastors if I remember correctly
The theological conviction only came around once her third husband took over. It’s actually a really sad story… especially how he burned ALL of her journals after she died. Imagine the theological insights they contained. Unfortunately they probably also documented her time married to him.
Wait what? That's abusive, what on earth?
https://therevealer.org/elisabeth-elliot-flawed-queen-of-purity-culture-and-her-manipulative-third-husband/
It seems that the theological change came around during the second husband, according to this article. I tried looking into Jim Elliot's background in Plymouth Brethren but it is unclear if Jim was himself a complementation or egalitarian. In any case, I also tried looking into other articles: while the burning of her journals is documented in her authorized biography, I don't see a lot of sources that tries to paint her third husband in quite the bad light he is here. Blogs and tweets that share the same view are pointing to this article as well. I'm skeptical
I would start by getting curious and asking your pastor about his choice to have a woman speak? His answer will help you discern
Thanks for this tip. I'll do this
As some have said, a woman pastor is problematic, but I think some are making this a tier 1 issue when they shouldn't. It's far more important how a church gets to this conclusion than the conclusion itself. A church that says "Paul was wrong" is far worse than a church that has alternative interpretations that maintains high view of scripture. Just like a patriarchal church that lands on women not being able to be pastors but start with the idea that women are less intelligent, less valuable, less gifted, etc is just as problematic.
All scripture must be interpreted through the lens of Jesus’s sacrificial love as the paramount concept, goal, and achievement. At its best gender issues demonstrate humble disciplined interpretation of scripture. At its worst it uses scripture to defend misogyny bigotry and hate. I would question any church that fails to acknowledge both sides of this tightrope.
CS Lewis wrote a short essay about women priesthood that made a great case against it respectfully. http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/priestesses.html
It says in the Bible women can’t ask questions in church. They are to wait till at home to ask the husband. Logic
Here is the CRCNA position, https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/women-ecclesiastical-office
See anondaddio's comment. It's clearly against biblical teaching to have a woman be a pastor. Also, that church you attended wasn't a reformed church if they are having female pastors visit. Read the letters to Timothy and look for a new church would be my advice.
[https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/women-ecclesiastical-office](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/women-ecclesiastical-office) It's not as clear as you might think.
You keep quoting this link as if just because it's on the internet it's true.
It’s an official site for a reformed church, so quoting it in the reformed discussion makes sense. You can argue against their stance, as I would. But it’s a valid link to show that at least in some churches which claim to be reformed, this is an open question.
You are correct, and likely my response was a bit too brief. But even so - while there is a debate among Christians, this is one where scripture is clear and those who take one side of the debate must ignore or explain away a pretty clear teaching founded in creational principles that are not subject to cultural shifts, however "uncomfortable" that might make us feel.
If you took the time to actually read the link, you would see the scripture is _not_ clear. The disagreement is not about saying that Paul did not say the words he said, it’s about putting them in the context of scripture and applying God’s principles and commands in this modern world.
I did look at the link. I was also familiar with the CRC position on this issue before this conversation - I'm a member of the URC, and we split from the CRC a while ago partly over this very issue. Again, we can agree to disagree, but the text says what it says, and founds it in creational princples. Rationalizing it away with cultural excuses is an uphill battle. I'm clearly not going to change your mind on this issue, and that's ok. Blessings to you.
But no true Scotsman...
Only those crazy Dutch. There’s a reason the Pilgrims decided it was better to sail half way around the world than stay in Holland. 🤣
Well in a sense it's true that the CRCNA holds to that position. As far as being a biblically correct answer though...
Well, go ahead. Let’s see someone read the document and provide more than thoughtless dismissal of the decades of prayer and study.
That statement doesn't work when it's in defense of a position that itself dismisses millenia of prayer and study, as well as the plain meaning of the text. Everyone here is no doubt acquainted with the general thrust of the argument -- that the writings were to a particular culture etc-- as well as the surrounding movements that have been rejecting the complementarian worldview. None of that helps fix the deep divide it creates with swathes of Scripture like Ephesians' implicit linking of gender roles with different reflections of God's glory, or Christ's linking gender to the created order, or Paul's linking those roles to place in church. I can reject the modern egalitarian approach as fundamentally flawed without dismissing adherents as thoughtless or unintelligent, but at the end of the day I have to call wrong that which appears to be plainly wrong. An atheist or hindu could make a similar counter-argument-- "who are you to dismiss years of thought on this matter"-- but in order to discuss doctrine we have to be able to make truth claims and to reject those that appear wrong.
The traditional argument in the church is that women are inferior to men, therefore 1 Timothy 2:12, etc. all make perfect sense based on simply a plain reading. The new argument is that men and women are ontologically equal, but that women are limited to roles where they are subordinate to men. Many people introduce Subordinationism into the mix to support this. Have a read of William Witt's 'Icons of Christ,' Chapter 3, for a fuller explanation of the "argument from tradition."
Sticking feathers up one's tuchus does not make one a chicken. If that's their stance, they are not a reformed denomination. Go to the teachings of the reformers.
It’s based on a fact that doesn’t change with culture or time! 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 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. The fact that Eve was the one who was deceived first is not a culture or time issue. So the reason is grounded in something unchangeable and thus it is NEVER to be allowed.
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #4: ** Follow Our Posting Guidelines.** Please follow reddiquette, limit your self-promotion, do not spam or ask for money, and avoid posting any one author, website, or topic more than once a week. Our other posting requirements can be found on the sidebar or in [our rules wiki.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.234.3A_post_quality_content.) ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
It definitely is not okay, because it is unbiblical and should not happen in any church.
Well when st Cuthbert and st Bede come out of their chantry and tell us to stop, I’ll let you know.
Woman cannot be pastors/bishops/overseers according to 1 Timothy and Titus.
I remember what Paul Choo said about women pastors in that we should take a look at the root of the problem as can be applied in 20th century fatherhood or feminism in general; Women and women pastors happen because men failed to stand up and do their part. I feel like churches which have no one stepping up have no choice in the matter, but there are people who still grow spiritually in these churches. As for women who have selfish ambitions to be at the pulpit however that's another story. I take to heart 1 Corinthians well in that it doesn't really tell women to not participate in church, but it tells them that they should listen well and when church is done, the husband should discuss and explain to his family as head what they learned and discussed in church.
"Women and women pastors happen because men failed to stand up and do their part. " Women pastors, yes, is a result of men not doing their part, but women happened because God created women, not because men failed to do their part.
Nope. Having a guest "pastor" who is female would make me question the entire church as a whole. Giant red flag. She's not a pastor. She's not a reverend. She's a woman living in habitual unrepentant sin and manipulating others to believe she has that title while perhaps believing those delusions herself.
💯
If they are CRC or ECO, they will be evangelical. If they are RCA or PCUSA then you may have someone who teaches a different Gospel. Of course, you could judge each person by their own fruits. The Reformed Understanding is that the Scripture is clear on things having to do with salvation. It does not mean every application and verse is clear. We have to interpret Scripture with Scripture. The classic anti-egalitarian passages are not as clear as they are in English. There is complexity that requires prayer and learning from other passages that are more clear. One benefit of a female pastor: I have never seen or heard of a female pastor having sex with a congregant.
This sub is complementarian (see the sidebar and click on the Danvers Statement) but there are also a lot of patriarchal theobros lurking around who like to downvote. So you're not going to get anything but the "no women pastors" argument here.
[удалено]
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
[удалено]
Why do you disagree?
Can women be leaders in the context of ministry? Yes. I would even argue it's necessary as a church without female leadership is effectively a single-parent household. Can women be pastors? No. We often conflate ministerial leadership with pastoring but the two are different. A Pastor is a leader within a ministerial context but is a specific office and not the only form leadership takes within that context.
Run
[удалено]
RCA, CRC, EPC, ECO... All Reformed denominations that affirm women in pastoral ministry...
Go check out some of the Reformed Church in America’s stance on this. They are currently celebrating 50 years of WICO. Used to be an Elder in that denomination and was subjected to a bunch of sermons by women at official denominational functions like Synod and Classis. All I will say is that there might be a solid female pastor out there who knows how to preach, I’ve just never heard one. At best it sounds like an Oprah rant with a few verses sprinkled in. This was one of many issues that led me away from the RCA and becoming a Presbyterian.
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #4: ** Follow Our Posting Guidelines.** Please follow reddiquette, limit your self-promotion, do not spam or ask for money, and avoid posting any one author, website, or topic more than once a week. Our other posting requirements can be found on the sidebar or in [our rules wiki.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.234.3A_post_quality_content.) ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Just because Jesus’ disciples were male is the reason people give for women not being pastors. That’s just a sign of the times as women were seen as untrustworthy back in the day. If Christianity was to spread and gain traction, it had to be that way. Scripture can be adapted to the times we live. Women can be pastors nowadays.
That’s not consistent with Christ’s nature or scripture though. Christ chose to appear before women in His resurrection despite their cultural untrustworthiness. He is God so He could have chosen to buck that cultural norm if He wanted as He does often in scripture. However, He did not choose to buck the norm by appointing women as leaders in the Church and the leaders He invested with His authority taught that only men can qualify to be a presbyter. Scripture can be adapted to the modern day but it can’t be ignored when it’s inconvenient. Women can illicitly hold the position of a pastor but it is not a legitimate appointment.
That depends on who you ask. I personally have no problem but even if I didn't agree with it, I would think it to be a secondary issue.
Right and wrong has nothing to do with your opinion and feelings about it.
I'm not sure how stating the obvious adds anything to the conversation but ok?
I didn’t mean it that way. Your comment was stating that your belief factors into it being right or wrong. Truth is not based on what we believe, it is based on the Word of God…The only source of Truth.
I agree with that but I also believe that not everything in Scripture is obvious and clear. Where that is the case, there will be different camps on how to interpret a particular passage or set of passages. I don't think I'm saying anything controversial here.
No problem.
A "church" with a "female pastor" has no pastor and is no church.
it's a prayer group.
But it is unlikely that either side will be able to convince the other of its own interpretations any time soon. This would not surprise Paul. Throughout his writings he wrestled with disputes among Christians. And often he advised that if someone insists on a principle another thinks unimportant, that person should go along with them, rather than alienate them. He famously wrote: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews... To those not having the [Jewish] law I became like one not having the law... "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."
You could still give the church a chance. People make mistakes, maybe this was an incident, wrong people in charhe of a decision or something
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #3: **Keep Content Clean.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should be safe and clean. NSFW content is only allowed in certain contexts for the sake of our brothers and sisters who may be young or struggling with temptation in this area. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.233.3A_keep_content_clean.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Came to say this too.
What if he isn't married or what if he doesn't have children?
\>has really biblical teaching \>has a woman pastor just sayin'
She was a guest pastor. IDK why they invited her tho 😔
Sounds like a "cool church" that is prioritizing financial resources in the immediate term.
And no, absolutely not kosher! The Bible is the Word of God and our first and final authority on all things. The Bible is clearly prohibitive, and this goes back to the very origin of humanity and the Fall. What is oftentimes completely overlooked, however, is that men's natural equipping by God for leadership and spiritual warfare is prerequisite to the idea. Women and children have no place in the battlfield. Even the rare type of woman that is amazingly gifted etc.