For religious people only: Do you personally favor allowing female preachers?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

No. It's not an issue I think is all that important and I have nothing against Protestant denominations that allow women preachers, but the Church forbids the ordination of women and those who have rebelled over the issue are schismatic in deliberately putting their pet issue above the Church. My opposition is less about the belief that women cannot be preachers, and in many Protestant sects being a preacher doesn't in itself have deep theological connotations (like ordination, apostolic succession, etc.), but more about caring for the Church and its teachings more than pet social projects, note organizations Women Priests for an example.

"Pet issue."  That's nice...

Please elaborate on this, though.  What about Protestants who were not brought into the Catholic faith that disagree with the Church teaching on women preachers and remain Protestant for that reason?  Should that be seen as any less schismatic or rebellious simply because one was not baptized Catholic?

[TJ in Oregon]

No. It's not an issue I think is all that important and I have nothing against Protestant denominations that allow women preachers, but the Church forbids the ordination of women and those who have rebelled over the issue are schismatic in deliberately putting their pet issue above the Church. My opposition is less about the belief that women cannot be preachers, and in many Protestant sects being a preacher doesn't in itself have deep theological connotations (like ordination, apostolic succession, etc.), but more about caring for the Church and its teachings more than pet social projects, note organizations Women Priests for an example.

Because of course it makes perfect sense for men alone to preach on matters relating to women or to female sexuality or health just as much as it makes sense for celibate men to preach on matters of sex, for men who are not in personal/sexual relationships to give ordinance on the manner of those, for men who can't marry or face the prospect of divorce to preach on those matters and men who don't have children to preach on having children, raising them, the family and family planning. Obviously the Church clearly chooses the most talented and most able of their entire faith to preach the word of god and the doctrine of the Church.

And God chose a man with a speech impediment to promulgate his Covenant. Jesus chose a coward to hand the keys to his church to, and uneducated fishermen to go forth and convert the nations. I'm sure he asked for their CVs and resumes first.

Do you think a person would perhaps be a better preacher if he or she was less 'set apart' from general society and it's experiences? I say this as someone who has known a priest somewhat intimately and understand the constraints that by his own admission, lessened his ability to serve the parish to his fullest extent.

It depends on the context obviously. It certainly does help to have men who haven't always followed the Church's teachings in the past to become priests since they would have a better understanding of what leads people to sin better. An ex-marijuana user could give  a much better explanation for why it is wrong to get high than I could having never smoked it. So yes, of course world experiences are helpful since part of the job is to connect with people. However, that isn't a license to still commit the sin; the point is to help others not commit it.

A married priest likely would be easier for families with children to identify with. Priestly celibacy was not enacted until close to the year 1000 on an absolute basis, although obviously it goes back to far earlier with Paul. Unlike ordaining women, the celibacy requirement is only a discipline of the Church not an actual teaching and perhaps it will be changed someday. The Church already accepts married priests from other denominations who convert and ordains married men in the Eastern Rites. But just because it might be better in some situations to have married priests doesn't mean priests can simply ignore the rules and go get married because they think it's right. That's what the women priests have done. And the result will always be schism when that happens because they decide to put their own personal opinions of what would be better ahead of the Church.

[TJ in Oregon]

No. It's not an issue I think is all that important and I have nothing against Protestant denominations that allow women preachers, but the Church forbids the ordination of women and those who have rebelled over the issue are schismatic in deliberately putting their pet issue above the Church. My opposition is less about the belief that women cannot be preachers, and in many Protestant sects being a preacher doesn't in itself have deep theological connotations (like ordination, apostolic succession, etc.), but more about caring for the Church and its teachings more than pet social projects, note organizations Women Priests for an example.

"Pet issue."  That's nice...

Please elaborate on this, though.  What about Protestants who were not brought into the Catholic faith that disagree with the Church teaching on women preachers and remain Protestant for that reason?  Should that be seen as any less schismatic or rebellious simply because one was not baptized Catholic?

Being against female ordination is not a dogma of the Church and they should be allowed to enter into it as long as they aren't going to take part in a schism over it, seek out some excommunicated sect of women priests, or, if female, be themselves ordained knowing it goes against the Church's teachings. Since it isn't a dogma, they could believe the Church would be better if it ordained women, but still faithfully practice if they are fine with accepting that it doesn't.

[afleitch]

No. It's not an issue I think is all that important and I have nothing against Protestant denominations that allow women preachers, but the Church forbids the ordination of women and those who have rebelled over the issue are schismatic in deliberately putting their pet issue above the Church. My opposition is less about the belief that women cannot be preachers, and in many Protestant sects being a preacher doesn't in itself have deep theological connotations (like ordination, apostolic succession, etc.), but more about caring for the Church and its teachings more than pet social projects, note organizations Women Priests for an example.

"Pet issue."  That's nice...

Please elaborate on this, though.  What about Protestants who were not brought into the Catholic faith that disagree with the Church teaching on women preachers and remain Protestant for that reason?  Should that be seen as any less schismatic or rebellious simply because one was not baptized Catholic?

Being against female ordination is not a dogma of the Church and they should be allowed to enter into it as long as they aren't going to take part in a schism over it, seek out some excommunicated sect of women priests, or, if female, be themselves ordained knowing it goes against the Church's teachings. Since it isn't a dogma, they could believe the Church would be better if it ordained women, but still faithfully practice if they are fine with accepting that it doesn't.

So how can they enter into it then under those conditions?

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Afleitch, I think TJ means that Catholic converts can hold those beliefs privately, so long as they don't try to act on them or try to change the Church from within - which makes sense as long as you're not forced to be in a specific denomination.

But, if the issue is big enough for someone to cause a stir over it, I don't think they would be willing to convert to Catholicism in the first place.  That would be like a Catholic joining the Lutheran Church and criticizing it for not embracing the Pope.  (Obviously that would be a bigger disagreement than on the issue of women priests, but you get the idea.)

[7,052,770]

I'd rather Christianity abandon the idea of preachers/priests/ministers altogether rather than worrying about which genders should and shouldn't be allowed to be one...

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I'd rather Christianity abandon the idea of preachers/priests/ministers altogether rather than worrying about which genders should and shouldn't be allowed to be one...

Well, there's always this alternative...

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I'm actually more interested in what TJ thinks of the inverse of Scott's question: People who were raised Catholic but leave the church and convert because of this issue (and likely others of course, but this is often a big one.) Really I actually kind of agree with what he said about people in the church raising a fuss over this, it's silly because you don't have to be Catholic and in that church. If you don't like it, leave and be done with it. And I imagine conservative Catholics would probably agree, better to have such people leave than throw about their "pet issue" activism.

[Never]

No. While it isn't a huge issue for me, it serves as a useful litmus test. Just about every church I've attended that allowed female clergy had some other deal breaker involved.

I feel the same way.

It's not the most important issue for me either, but I feel that the Bible is pretty clear that women aren't supposed to be in the pulpit. If we start wavering on the little things, then we could end up encountering threats to foundational beliefs. That doesn't mean that I don't think women are mentally capable of preaching, but I think there is a reason why women aren't supposed to preach, and I wouldn't go to a church that permitted female preachers.

In what capacity do you suppose Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, Euodia, and Syntiche operated?

-According to Romans 16:1-2, Pheobe was a servant of the church who was commended for helping people.

Specifically, she was a deacon. As in one of the Greek words used is literally διάκονος.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's also mentioned repeatedly in Acts, always working together with her husband Aquila, without their capacities being distinguished in any obvious way. In Acts 18.26 they tactfully take aside a preacher named Apollos and give him pointers on how to preach better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm aware of the slight ambiguity over Junia's sex so okay, point taken, moving on from that. Your distinction between the roles of apostle and pastor is noted (though it's also worth noting that in a Catholic context, discussion of women functioning as apostles makes the stated reasoning for an all-male priesthood start to fray a bit around the edges; however, from the terms you're using, am I correct in assuming you're Protestant?). Denis Fortin, who's a Seventh-Day Adventist theologian--and I know he's not alone in this--has posited that 1 Timothy 3.11 may be read as referring to female ministers as well as to the wives of ministers--the Greek doesn't make it especially easy to tell since the word used is just γυναῖκας--although the fact that γυναικὸς is used to mean 'wife' in the next verse does seem to lend support to the argument that it's used in the sense of 'wife' elsewhere in the passage as well. (But recall that even so this is defining qualifications for the office that Phoebe is explicitly stated to hold in Romans anyway.) (Thank you so much for linking to the Textus Receptus, by the way. I've been trying to find that online for a while now.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The relevant part being that he describes them as 'colleagues' in the same sorts of terms that he uses to describe men who were clearly serving in ministerial roles elsewhere in the Epistles, but you're right that that isn't necessarily conclusive. William Tyndale's New Testament constantly refers to all of these people as 'ministers' without any further elaboration. Obviously translations, even ones as puissant and ancient as Tyndale's, aren't as authoritative as the Greek text, but equally, it's hard to argue that always translating διάκονος 'deacon' or 'minister' when it refers to men but translating it differently in reference to Phoebe gives us an impartial presentation of what's meant.

Sorry for not responding sooner.

Let's start with Pheobe. This is where I will agree with you, and perhaps walk back a bit. She was a deaconess, and she was referred to with the same title that Timothy (who was clearly a deacon) was given in 1 Timothy 3:12. Paul clearly thought highly of Pheobe, and personally, I do too. Some present-day churches do have the office of deaconess as a means of allowing the women to edify women, and that seems very sound.

On Priscilla, could we speculate that she had very many words of wisdom, along with her husband? She did work with her husband, likely because marriage will unite a couple in a way that they build off of each other. She was justified in advising Apollos on pastoral duties, since it seems she was very intelligent, but since she did not separate herself from her husband in advising Apollos, I do not think we can say that we should consider her a pastor. She seems like a very smart wife who was not afraid to give input, which in the context of the dominant Roman culture, was very advanced.

Yes, I do separate the position of apostle from pastor. I am indeed a Protestant and I think that the apostleship has concluded its service to the church. Sometimes the Greek can be confusing, but if we conclude that Junias not just a wife, but a deaconess in the way Phoebe was, then that lends more credence to that office being established specifically for women in churches instead of supporting female pastors. And you are welcome for the Textus Receptus. Happy reading on that!

It would seem that Euodia and Syntiche were involved in the operation of the church, but I don't know if we can read any more into their roles. I appreciate that you brought up Tyndale's translation.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

No. While it isn't a huge issue for me, it serves as a useful litmus test. Just about every church I've attended that allowed female clergy had some other deal breaker involved.

I feel the same way.

It's not the most important issue for me either, but I feel that the Bible is pretty clear that women aren't supposed to be in the pulpit. If we start wavering on the little things, then we could end up encountering threats to foundational beliefs. That doesn't mean that I don't think women are mentally capable of preaching, but I think there is a reason why women aren't supposed to preach, and I wouldn't go to a church that permitted female preachers.

In what capacity do you suppose Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, Euodia, and Syntiche operated?

-According to Romans 16:1-2, Pheobe was a servant of the church who was commended for helping people.

Specifically, she was a deacon. As in one of the Greek words used is literally διάκονος.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's also mentioned repeatedly in Acts, always working together with her husband Aquila, without their capacities being distinguished in any obvious way. In Acts 18.26 they tactfully take aside a preacher named Apollos and give him pointers on how to preach better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm aware of the slight ambiguity over Junia's sex so okay, point taken, moving on from that. Your distinction between the roles of apostle and pastor is noted (though it's also worth noting that in a Catholic context, discussion of women functioning as apostles makes the stated reasoning for an all-male priesthood start to fray a bit around the edges; however, from the terms you're using, am I correct in assuming you're Protestant?). Denis Fortin, who's a Seventh-Day Adventist theologian--and I know he's not alone in this--has posited that 1 Timothy 3.11 may be read as referring to female ministers as well as to the wives of ministers--the Greek doesn't make it especially easy to tell since the word used is just γυναῖκας--although the fact that γυναικὸς is used to mean 'wife' in the next verse does seem to lend support to the argument that it's used in the sense of 'wife' elsewhere in the passage as well. (But recall that even so this is defining qualifications for the office that Phoebe is explicitly stated to hold in Romans anyway.) (Thank you so much for linking to the Textus Receptus, by the way. I've been trying to find that online for a while now.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The relevant part being that he describes them as 'colleagues' in the same sorts of terms that he uses to describe men who were clearly serving in ministerial roles elsewhere in the Epistles, but you're right that that isn't necessarily conclusive. William Tyndale's New Testament constantly refers to all of these people as 'ministers' without any further elaboration. Obviously translations, even ones as puissant and ancient as Tyndale's, aren't as authoritative as the Greek text, but equally, it's hard to argue that always translating διάκονος 'deacon' or 'minister' when it refers to men but translating it differently in reference to Phoebe gives us an impartial presentation of what's meant.

Sorry for not responding sooner.

Let's start with Pheobe. This is where I will agree with you, and perhaps walk back a bit. She was a deaconess, and she was referred to with the same title that Timothy (who was clearly a deacon) was given in 1 Timothy 3:12. Paul clearly thought highly of Pheobe, and personally, I do too. Some present-day churches do have the office of deaconess as a means of allowing the women to edify women, and that seems very sound.

On Priscilla, could we speculate that she had very many words of wisdom, along with her husband? She did work with her husband, likely because marriage will unite a couple in a way that they build off of each other. She was justified in advising Apollos on pastoral duties, since it seems she was very intelligent, but since she did not separate herself from her husband in advising Apollos, I do not think we can say that we should consider her a pastor. She seems like a very smart wife who was not afraid to give input, which in the context of the dominant Roman culture, was very advanced.

Yes, I do separate the position of apostle from pastor. I am indeed a Protestant and I think that the apostleship has concluded its service to the church. Sometimes the Greek can be confusing, but if we conclude that Junias not just a wife, but a deaconess in the way Phoebe was, then that lends more credence to that office being established specifically for women in churches instead of supporting female pastors. And you are welcome for the Textus Receptus. Happy reading on that!

It would seem that Euodia and Syntiche were involved in the operation of the church, but I don't know if we can read any more into their roles. I appreciate that you brought up Tyndale's translation.

Thank you for getting back to me! The only thing I'd say in objection to that--which you've in general argued quite well, though I don't agree with it, partially since as an Anglo-Catholic I have a different understanding of apostleship and thus of Junia's role to you, but also because my understanding of the history of the early church just doesn't suppose all that many distinctions between these types of roles in general--is that it strikes me as a little needlessly convoluted (certainly not impossible, but not where I think our minds should really be going first, either) to posit that Phoebe and the implied women of 1 Timothy 3.11 held the diakonos role specifically and solely in relation to other women, especially given that Paul commissions Phoebe to deliver his letter to the Roman church as a whole, only even mentioning her in the first place because he's entrusting it to her.

[7,052,770]

I'm actually more interested in what TJ thinks of the inverse of Scott's question: People who were raised Catholic but leave the church and convert because of this issue (and likely others of course, but this is often a big one.) Really I actually kind of agree with what he said about people in the church raising a fuss over this, it's silly because you don't have to be Catholic and in that church. If you don't like it, leave and be done with it. And I imagine conservative Catholics would probably agree, better to have such people leave than throw about their "pet issue" activism.

Virtually no one leaves the Catholic Church over this issue. Of all of the liberal Catholics I've ever talked to, and all of the criticisms from within (from all perspectives) I've discussed and debated, I don't think I've ever met anyone, feminist or otherwise, who really cared about this. I don't think it even crosses peoples' minds.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

...and those are from Catholics. I'm talking about ex-Catholics. My church has a lot and all seem pretty happy with us having female preachers, might not be the only or even main reason they left but it's certainly something they disapprove of. And of course the woman raised Catholic who IS a pastor wouldn't be able to do what she does has she stayed Catholic.

[7,052,770]

...and those are from Catholics. I'm talking about ex-Catholics. My church has a lot and all seem pretty happy with us having female preachers, might not be the only or even main reason they left but it's certainly something they disapprove of. And of course the woman raised Catholic who IS a pastor wouldn't be able to do what she does has she stayed Catholic.

No, when I say Catholic, it's shorthand for "people raised Catholic." Perhaps we have a regional difference going on here (you don't really see female ministers in any denomination down here, so Southern liberal Catholics don't see anything weird about it), but of all the criticisms I've encountered Catholics, former Catholics, and non-Catholics, the lack of women priests is never one of them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

...and those are from Catholics. I'm talking about ex-Catholics. My church has a lot and all seem pretty happy with us having female preachers, might not be the only or even main reason they left but it's certainly something they disapprove of. And of course the woman raised Catholic who IS a pastor wouldn't be able to do what she does has she stayed Catholic.

No, when I say Catholic, it's shorthand for "people raised Catholic." Perhaps we have a regional difference going on here (you don't really see female ministers in any denomination down here, so Southern liberal Catholics don't see anything weird about it), but of all the criticisms I've encountered Catholics, former Catholics, and non-Catholics, the lack of women priests is never one of them.

We have quite a few female pastors around here who are mainly in the Episcopal, Methodist, and Lutheran churches.   While I'm not too surprised you're short on Episcopalians and Lutherans in Mississippi, I am a bit surprised that you're short on Methodists.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

...and those are from Catholics. I'm talking about ex-Catholics. My church has a lot and all seem pretty happy with us having female preachers, might not be the only or even main reason they left but it's certainly something they disapprove of. And of course the woman raised Catholic who IS a pastor wouldn't be able to do what she does has she stayed Catholic.

No, when I say Catholic, it's shorthand for "people raised Catholic." Perhaps we have a regional difference going on here (you don't really see female ministers in any denomination down here, so Southern liberal Catholics don't see anything weird about it), but of all the criticisms I've encountered Catholics, former Catholics, and non-Catholics, the lack of women priests is never one of them.

I too am surprised you don't have any Methodists. Actually you mentioned getting married in an Episcopalian church so there's that too.

Like I said above, I doubt for anyone quitting it's the main issue or anything, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that ex-Catholics in a church that does allow women to preach that they would consider that far superior and a big advantage over Catholicism. And then for people like the female pastor, leaving the Catholic church is the ONLY option to do what you want to do.

[Never]

No. While it isn't a huge issue for me, it serves as a useful litmus test. Just about every church I've attended that allowed female clergy had some other deal breaker involved.

I feel the same way.

It's not the most important issue for me either, but I feel that the Bible is pretty clear that women aren't supposed to be in the pulpit. If we start wavering on the little things, then we could end up encountering threats to foundational beliefs. That doesn't mean that I don't think women are mentally capable of preaching, but I think there is a reason why women aren't supposed to preach, and I wouldn't go to a church that permitted female preachers.

In what capacity do you suppose Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, Euodia, and Syntiche operated?

-According to Romans 16:1-2, Pheobe was a servant of the church who was commended for helping people.

Specifically, she was a deacon. As in one of the Greek words used is literally διάκονος.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's also mentioned repeatedly in Acts, always working together with her husband Aquila, without their capacities being distinguished in any obvious way. In Acts 18.26 they tactfully take aside a preacher named Apollos and give him pointers on how to preach better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm aware of the slight ambiguity over Junia's sex so okay, point taken, moving on from that. Your distinction between the roles of apostle and pastor is noted (though it's also worth noting that in a Catholic context, discussion of women functioning as apostles makes the stated reasoning for an all-male priesthood start to fray a bit around the edges; however, from the terms you're using, am I correct in assuming you're Protestant?). Denis Fortin, who's a Seventh-Day Adventist theologian--and I know he's not alone in this--has posited that 1 Timothy 3.11 may be read as referring to female ministers as well as to the wives of ministers--the Greek doesn't make it especially easy to tell since the word used is just γυναῖκας--although the fact that γυναικὸς is used to mean 'wife' in the next verse does seem to lend support to the argument that it's used in the sense of 'wife' elsewhere in the passage as well. (But recall that even so this is defining qualifications for the office that Phoebe is explicitly stated to hold in Romans anyway.) (Thank you so much for linking to the Textus Receptus, by the way. I've been trying to find that online for a while now.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The relevant part being that he describes them as 'colleagues' in the same sorts of terms that he uses to describe men who were clearly serving in ministerial roles elsewhere in the Epistles, but you're right that that isn't necessarily conclusive. William Tyndale's New Testament constantly refers to all of these people as 'ministers' without any further elaboration. Obviously translations, even ones as puissant and ancient as Tyndale's, aren't as authoritative as the Greek text, but equally, it's hard to argue that always translating διάκονος 'deacon' or 'minister' when it refers to men but translating it differently in reference to Phoebe gives us an impartial presentation of what's meant.

Sorry for not responding sooner.

Let's start with Pheobe. This is where I will agree with you, and perhaps walk back a bit. She was a deaconess, and she was referred to with the same title that Timothy (who was clearly a deacon) was given in 1 Timothy 3:12. Paul clearly thought highly of Pheobe, and personally, I do too. Some present-day churches do have the office of deaconess as a means of allowing the women to edify women, and that seems very sound.

On Priscilla, could we speculate that she had very many words of wisdom, along with her husband? She did work with her husband, likely because marriage will unite a couple in a way that they build off of each other. She was justified in advising Apollos on pastoral duties, since it seems she was very intelligent, but since she did not separate herself from her husband in advising Apollos, I do not think we can say that we should consider her a pastor. She seems like a very smart wife who was not afraid to give input, which in the context of the dominant Roman culture, was very advanced.

Yes, I do separate the position of apostle from pastor. I am indeed a Protestant and I think that the apostleship has concluded its service to the church. Sometimes the Greek can be confusing, but if we conclude that Junias not just a wife, but a deaconess in the way Phoebe was, then that lends more credence to that office being established specifically for women in churches instead of supporting female pastors. And you are welcome for the Textus Receptus. Happy reading on that!

It would seem that Euodia and Syntiche were involved in the operation of the church, but I don't know if we can read any more into their roles. I appreciate that you brought up Tyndale's translation.

Thank you for getting back to me! The only thing I'd say in objection to that--which you've in general argued quite well, though I don't agree with it, partially since as an Anglo-Catholic I have a different understanding of apostleship and thus of Junia's role to you, but also because my understanding of the history of the early church just doesn't suppose all that many distinctions between these types of roles in general--is that it strikes me as a little needlessly convoluted (certainly not impossible, but not where I think our minds should really be going first, either) to posit that Phoebe and the implied women of 1 Timothy 3.11 held the diakonos role specifically and solely in relation to other women, especially given that Paul commissions Phoebe to deliver his letter to the Roman church as a whole, only even mentioning her in the first place because he's entrusting it to her.

You have some fair points on Junia. The early church was probably better than many Protestant denominations and the Catholic church in that it was not very structured. The early church Christians probably had a very natural attitude towards church leadership, and it is evident that if they felt the New Testament made something acceptable, they would definitely have accepted it too. Also, I think it is especially important to remember that while the Roman setting in which the early church arose was very chauvinistic, hardly valuing women, the early Christians were very supportive of women and were favorable to their contributions to the church, even though that defied culture. While I think that the apostleship has ceased, and I assume that you accept the position that it still exists, I do think that we should all appreciate that Junia was an apostle, and that this shows how much God values women in the church.

Based on your comments about Pheobe, I must say you have a very good point. Often, when we read into any Bible passage too much, we can miss something, and I might be at fault with regard to Pheobe in doing that. It is possible that she interacted with men as well as women, though we don't know for sure. I think it could be legitimate to say that both men and women can be deacons. And yes, Phoebe was definitely a strong Christian woman who advanced Christianity in a way that made her very valuable to Paul.

I did some more research for this response, and I felt that Mars Hill Church up in Seattle, WA had an insightful explanation of women in church leadership. Apparently, this church considers the position of elder and pastor to be male-only, and that women can be deacons.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Ugh, Mars Hill is awful and Mark Driscoll is one of the worst people in modern day Christianity.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah.  While I wouldn't say that a particular view point is wrong because Jim Jones Mark Driscoll endorses it, I certainly wouldn't accept any advice on religious issues from someone whose entire philosophy of church leadership is directly in opposition to Mark 10:42-45 and Matthew 20:25-28.

[Never]

Yeah.  While I wouldn't say that a particular view point is wrong because Jim Jones Mark Driscoll endorses it, I certainly wouldn't accept any advice on religious issues from someone whose entire philosophy of church leadership is directly in opposition to Mark 10:42-45 and Matthew 20:25-28.

Well, I did feel that their article on women in church leadership was a diamond in the rough. Mars Hill isn't ideal by any means, but on that subject, they seemed sound. Nevertheless, I completely get your point on Driscoll.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm actually more interested in what TJ thinks of the inverse of Scott's question: People who were raised Catholic but leave the church and convert because of this issue (and likely others of course, but this is often a big one.) Really I actually kind of agree with what he said about people in the church raising a fuss over this, it's silly because you don't have to be Catholic and in that church. If you don't like it, leave and be done with it. And I imagine conservative Catholics would probably agree, better to have such people leave than throw about their "pet issue" activism.

I suppose I should finally answer this question as I keep forgetting to all day...

I would say that leaving the Church over this issue and staying in the Church and causing a fuss over it are more or less the same thing. The former is more tactful certainly, but either way you're placing some random personal insistence over the Church, and if you ever really believed in its teachings in the first place, is ridiculous.

Incidentally, I had a friend once tell me that she knows people who left the Catholic Church because her church at home got a new pastor who didn't allow female alter servers (The Church's teaching is that the bishop can decide whether or not to have female alter servers. Her bishop decided that each parish could decide whether or not to have female alter servers.). People get enraged over the weirdest things. My point again, is that these sorts of issues should never be placed above the Church and its teachings.

Now on to the question Scott actually asked rather than the one I had thought he asked and subsequently responded to:

Please elaborate on this, though.  What about Protestants who were not brought into the Catholic faith that disagree with the Church teaching on women preachers and remain Protestant for that reason?  Should that be seen as any less schismatic or rebellious simply because one was not baptized Catholic?

For Protestants who belong to denominations that allow female ordination, I don't think that's a serious problem really. Protestantism is by definition a state of schism, but I don't think female ordination does much to make it worse, maybe infinitesimally worse since its yet another issue dividing Christianity and preventing it from being reunited.

[TDAS04]

Wow, Mark Driscoll is quite a nasty, loathsome individual.

[7,052,770]

...and those are from Catholics. I'm talking about ex-Catholics. My church has a lot and all seem pretty happy with us having female preachers, might not be the only or even main reason they left but it's certainly something they disapprove of. And of course the woman raised Catholic who IS a pastor wouldn't be able to do what she does has she stayed Catholic.

No, when I say Catholic, it's shorthand for "people raised Catholic." Perhaps we have a regional difference going on here (you don't really see female ministers in any denomination down here, so Southern liberal Catholics don't see anything weird about it), but of all the criticisms I've encountered Catholics, former Catholics, and non-Catholics, the lack of women priests is never one of them.

I too am surprised you don't have any Methodists. Actually you mentioned getting married in an Episcopalian church so there's that too.

There are a few Methodists, but I don't know of any female preachers. Of course I haven't gone church to church surveying, but I've never seen any on the televised services or heard any Methodist mention having a female one.
As far as the Episcopals go, I've been to mass at 4 or 5 different churches and only saw a female priest at one of them -- the cathedral in Jackson had a female associate priest who did the homily once. Apparently Episcopal congregations just get to pick their own priests, rather than the bishop assigning them one, and the ones around here tend to pick men.
Don't know about the Lutherans. I know a couple of people who are Wisconsin Synod, so there must be one of those churches around here somewhere. I understand that branch is pretty conservative, so I'm guessing they don't ordain women?

Maybe I just haven't paid close enough attention, but from what I've seen, female ministers in the Jackson area, regardless of denomination, are practically non-existent.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Well that's Mississippi.

Worth noting the Twin Cities area is home to quite a few seminaries, and all that I know of accept women (even the fairly conservative Bethel University.)

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

No. While it isn't a huge issue for me, it serves as a useful litmus test. Just about every church I've attended that allowed female clergy had some other deal breaker involved.

I feel the same way.

It's not the most important issue for me either, but I feel that the Bible is pretty clear that women aren't supposed to be in the pulpit. If we start wavering on the little things, then we could end up encountering threats to foundational beliefs. That doesn't mean that I don't think women are mentally capable of preaching, but I think there is a reason why women aren't supposed to preach, and I wouldn't go to a church that permitted female preachers.

In what capacity do you suppose Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, Euodia, and Syntiche operated?

-According to Romans 16:1-2, Pheobe was a servant of the church who was commended for helping people.

Specifically, she was a deacon. As in one of the Greek words used is literally διάκονος.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's also mentioned repeatedly in Acts, always working together with her husband Aquila, without their capacities being distinguished in any obvious way. In Acts 18.26 they tactfully take aside a preacher named Apollos and give him pointers on how to preach better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm aware of the slight ambiguity over Junia's sex so okay, point taken, moving on from that. Your distinction between the roles of apostle and pastor is noted (though it's also worth noting that in a Catholic context, discussion of women functioning as apostles makes the stated reasoning for an all-male priesthood start to fray a bit around the edges; however, from the terms you're using, am I correct in assuming you're Protestant?). Denis Fortin, who's a Seventh-Day Adventist theologian--and I know he's not alone in this--has posited that 1 Timothy 3.11 may be read as referring to female ministers as well as to the wives of ministers--the Greek doesn't make it especially easy to tell since the word used is just γυναῖκας--although the fact that γυναικὸς is used to mean 'wife' in the next verse does seem to lend support to the argument that it's used in the sense of 'wife' elsewhere in the passage as well. (But recall that even so this is defining qualifications for the office that Phoebe is explicitly stated to hold in Romans anyway.) (Thank you so much for linking to the Textus Receptus, by the way. I've been trying to find that online for a while now.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The relevant part being that he describes them as 'colleagues' in the same sorts of terms that he uses to describe men who were clearly serving in ministerial roles elsewhere in the Epistles, but you're right that that isn't necessarily conclusive. William Tyndale's New Testament constantly refers to all of these people as 'ministers' without any further elaboration. Obviously translations, even ones as puissant and ancient as Tyndale's, aren't as authoritative as the Greek text, but equally, it's hard to argue that always translating διάκονος 'deacon' or 'minister' when it refers to men but translating it differently in reference to Phoebe gives us an impartial presentation of what's meant.

Sorry for not responding sooner.

Let's start with Pheobe. This is where I will agree with you, and perhaps walk back a bit. She was a deaconess, and she was referred to with the same title that Timothy (who was clearly a deacon) was given in 1 Timothy 3:12. Paul clearly thought highly of Pheobe, and personally, I do too. Some present-day churches do have the office of deaconess as a means of allowing the women to edify women, and that seems very sound.

On Priscilla, could we speculate that she had very many words of wisdom, along with her husband? She did work with her husband, likely because marriage will unite a couple in a way that they build off of each other. She was justified in advising Apollos on pastoral duties, since it seems she was very intelligent, but since she did not separate herself from her husband in advising Apollos, I do not think we can say that we should consider her a pastor. She seems like a very smart wife who was not afraid to give input, which in the context of the dominant Roman culture, was very advanced.

Yes, I do separate the position of apostle from pastor. I am indeed a Protestant and I think that the apostleship has concluded its service to the church. Sometimes the Greek can be confusing, but if we conclude that Junias not just a wife, but a deaconess in the way Phoebe was, then that lends more credence to that office being established specifically for women in churches instead of supporting female pastors. And you are welcome for the Textus Receptus. Happy reading on that!

It would seem that Euodia and Syntiche were involved in the operation of the church, but I don't know if we can read any more into their roles. I appreciate that you brought up Tyndale's translation.

Thank you for getting back to me! The only thing I'd say in objection to that--which you've in general argued quite well, though I don't agree with it, partially since as an Anglo-Catholic I have a different understanding of apostleship and thus of Junia's role to you, but also because my understanding of the history of the early church just doesn't suppose all that many distinctions between these types of roles in general--is that it strikes me as a little needlessly convoluted (certainly not impossible, but not where I think our minds should really be going first, either) to posit that Phoebe and the implied women of 1 Timothy 3.11 held the diakonos role specifically and solely in relation to other women, especially given that Paul commissions Phoebe to deliver his letter to the Roman church as a whole, only even mentioning her in the first place because he's entrusting it to her.

You have some fair points on Junia. The early church was probably better than many Protestant denominations and the Catholic church in that it was not very structured. The early church Christians probably had a very natural attitude towards church leadership, and it is evident that if they felt the New Testament made something acceptable, they would definitely have accepted it too. Also, I think it is especially important to remember that while the Roman setting in which the early church arose was very chauvinistic, hardly valuing women, the early Christians were very supportive of women and were favorable to their contributions to the church, even though that defied culture. While I think that the apostleship has ceased, and I assume that you accept the position that it still exists, I do think that we should all appreciate that Junia was an apostle, and that this shows how much God values women in the church.

Based on your comments about Pheobe, I must say you have a very good point. Often, when we read into any Bible passage too much, we can miss something, and I might be at fault with regard to Pheobe in doing that. It is possible that she interacted with men as well as women, though we don't know for sure. I think it could be legitimate to say that both men and women can be deacons. And yes, Phoebe was definitely a strong Christian woman who advanced Christianity in a way that made her very valuable to Paul.

I did some more research for this response, and I felt that Mars Hill Church up in Seattle, WA had an insightful explanation of women in church leadership. Apparently, this church considers the position of elder and pastor to be male-only, and that women can be deacons.

Yeah, the position that the apostleship still exists in modified form is what I was getting at. From my theological perspective saying that Junia was an apostle is tantamount to saying that Junia was a bishop, which, assuming this figure was in fact a woman, itself alone deals a pretty severe blow to the notion that there's any level of church leadership to which women can't or shouldn't be admitted.

I have an extremely low opinion of Mars Hill and its leadership and so I doubt I'll find this explanation insightful, but I'll read it and if I do find it insightful I'll edit this post to reflect that. Irrespective, I think this has been a really good discussion/debate so far and I thank you for it.

[Del Tachi]

I wasn't aware that opposition to female ministers was such as widespread belief outside of Catholicism and some conservative evangelicals.