The Narrow Path Ministries

Steve,
We are involved with a church plant in Canada, which is one year old and has a part-time music pastor. We generally bring in guest speakers each week. We are now at the stage of choosing a teaching/ preaching pastor (by the way what is the difference in your view between a teaching and preaching pastor?). We sit on the Board. Our dilemma is this. The Board is considering a female pastor. We seem to be the only Board members who are troubled by this. What is your interpretation of the Word on this topic? We appreciate your feedback with thanks.

God’s grace, G and J

Hi G and J,

On the matter of teaching pastors versus preaching pastors, any difference would simply be a matter of the meaning a given church imputes to these respective terms. There is no reference to such offices in the New Testament. That doesn't mean that it is necessary to organize the leadership exactly as the New Testament churches were organized—though I would generally think that to be preferable.

The first century churches did not have a position called "pastor." The Greek word "pastor" (poimen) is the ordinary word for "shepherd. It is used, most commonly in the New Testament for ordinary sheep-herders. Secondarily, it is used of Christ, the Good Shepherd. Only once in the New Testament does it refer to church leaders, and only in the plural (Eph.4:11).

The shepherding role in each church was carried on by a group of men referred to as elders (Gr. "presbuteroi") or overseers (Gr. "episkopoi"—traditionally, and unfortunately, rendered, in the KJV, as "bishops").

These terms are used interchangably in Scripture (compare Acts 20:17 with v.28/ Titus 1:5 with v.7/ 1 Peter 5:1 with v.2). Each congregation had a group of "elder/overseers" (Acts 14:23; 20:17/ Titus 1:5/Phil.1:1/ James 5:14).

This last reference is Paul's greeting to the officers of the Philippian church. It is significant that he does not greet "the pastor." This is because the "elders/overseers" were the "pastors/shepherds" of the congregation. We never read in Scripture of a church having an individual leader, called "the pastor." The tradition of a congregation having a single "overseer" began early in post-apostolic times, and is first mentioned in the letters of Ignatius (d.115 AD).

Whether the development of one primary leader per congregation may or may not have been a positive development, the factn remains that this arrangement was unknown in New Testament times, meaning there is no teaching in the Bible about this role.

"Preaching" and "teaching" differ from one another in Scripture, primarily, in the composition of the audience. The term "preaching" is used in the New Testament almost exclusively in connection with "preaching the gospel" to unbelievers—that is, evangelism (e.g., Acts 8:12, 25, 40; 14:21; 16:10; 18:5, etc.). In biblical times, this was usually not an activity conducted in the church services, but among unbelievers. The church gatherings were for the purpose of actual believers coming together to fellowship, worship and receive teaching (Acts 2:41-42/ 1 Cor.14:6, 19, 26). For this reason, the qualifications for elder/overseers included the ability to teach, but not necessarily to preach (1 Tim.3:1-7 / Titus 1:5-9).

Thus the "pastors" (elder/overseers) are distinguished from "evangelists" in Eph.45:11—the former being the leaders of the congregation, and the latter conducting their ministry among the unbelievers outside the church. Jesus commanded that the gospel be preached throughout the world, to "every creature" (Mark 16:15), but that the converts that are made should be "taught" to observe "all things whatsoever I have commend you" (Matt.28:19-20).

Modern churches, unlike the early church, have a lot of attendees who are not really converted, so preaching is the primary pulpit activity. Unfortunately, this limits the opportunities for the true Christians to be taught and discipled. The gatherings intended for their edification and instruction are often focused on the lowest common spiritual denominator—which usually means the unconverted visitor, whom the churches are careful to avoid offending with anything like straightforward and in-depth teaching. I believe that this has kept the churches weak and ineffective in making dynamic disciples. A new church plant has got to decide whether it will follow this pattern, or will try to recover the biblical norms. This decision will determine whether they hire a teaching pastor or a preaching pastor—or, if both, which will be seen as the main speaker at the services.

On the subject of female pastors, I would direct you to my comments to another person (a woman in seminary) who asked about this matter. It is found at our "Bible Forum," accessible from my website. The link to the relevant discussion is here:

As for the advisability of women being selected as pastors (elder/overseers), Paul advised against it in 1 Timothy 2:12ff. It is significant that this is given in the immediate context of his giving a list of qualifications for overseers, who (he said) must be husbands (3:2).

There are some who suggest that this gender requirement was based on either 1) Paul's residual prejudices from his Pharisaic past, 2) Paul's wish to accommodate the chauvinistic sensibilities of his culture, 3) Paul's concern that women, in his day, were not as educated as were men, and could not be trusted to teach, or 4) Paul's concern for a particular group of heretical female teachers in Ephesus, whom he wished to debar from pulpit ministry. These suggestions are made in order to argue for the suspension of this restriction in the modern world, because of the changed culture and circumstances.

The only problem with any of these suggestions is that Paul actually gives his rationale in the very passage itself, and it is not similar to any of the suggestions! Paul says that the propriety of the role of overseer being reserved for husbands rests upon the way in which and purpose for which God created the genders (1 Tim.2:13), and also their respective roles in the fall of mankind (1 Tim.2:14).

Obviously, modern people, conditioned by modern culture, can opt to disagree with Paul's reasoning and his conclusions—but they cannot honestly claim that Paul viewed his instructions as limited to a certain age or culture, since the creation and fall are unchanging historical facts, the implications of which have not changed from Paul's day to ours. Thus it is not Paul who is "culure-bound" in his instructions, but those who disagree with him in a modern feminist age. It is their cultural milieu that is dictating their opinions.

You can expect to hear some cat-calls against you any time you champion the positions espoused by the Apostle on this unpopular topic in this modern age. However, when Paul was writing elsewhere on the conduct of women in the churches, he anticipated the objections, and attached this rebuke to dissenters:

"If any thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor.14:37).

If I were on a committee considering going against Paul's (the Lord's) commandments, I would seriously reconsider. Even if some people in the decision-making position do not feel compelled to submit to the Scriptures in this matter, they should recognize that there are still many evangelicals who believe that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that the Church ought to be faithful to what God has said. No amount of argument will convince some of these people (since there are no biblical arguments to be made against Paul's position), and the choice of a female pastor will certainly alienate these people unnecessarily, where the choice of a man fitting Paul's qualifications for an overseer would not alienate them. It is true that a church with a woman as pastor may still attract enough congregants to keep the bills paid, but the quality of those who are alienated (that is, people committed to and knowledgable in the Word of God) would be just the type that a church ought most to covet in their membership.

I have gone on long on this subject, but am capable of going longer. In fact, I have addressed these issues in greater detail in the following lectures in the "Some Assembly Required" series, which can be heard at my website:

www.thenarrowpath.com >> link: "tape download page" >> series: "Some Assembly Required" >> lectures: "Who Will Lead Us?" and "Roles of Women in the Church"

You might also want to hear the other messages in the same series.

I hope I may have been of help to you (and not get you into trouble!). God bless you!

Steve, what about those who point to Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae

They point out that servant is diakonos, the same greek word used for deacons in 1 Timthoy 3.

And could this:

1Ti 2:10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works.
1Ti 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
1Ti 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1Ti 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Could this be referring to husband and wife?

Hi Sean,

The reference to Phoebe as a "diakonos" could be using that term in a specialized sense of an appointed "deacon"— as the word seems to be used in 1 Tim.3:8ff—or it may be intended in its generic sense of "a servant" (its usual meaning in the Greek New Testament). Timothy is also referred to by the same designation in 1 Tim.4:6, where it is usually translated "minister." Phoebe is the only woman in the Bible referred to by this label, but male and female household servants were common enough in the Roman world, and to be referred to as a diakonos would not usually mean anything more than this.

I would have no difficulty finding a female "deacon" in the church, since the appointed deacons were, as their title implies, servants, not authority figures or teachers. It is the filling of the latter position (elders) that Paul seems to be concerned to restrict to certain men. Any man woman or child might justly be a "servant" in then church, which, according to Jesus, is the highest calling available:

"...whoever desires to be great among you, let him be your servant (diakonos)...just as the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve (diakonesai), and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:26, 28)

"But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant (diakonos)." (Matt.23:11)

This would suggest that Phoebe certainly was very well-regarded by the church, and by God, but it tells us nothing of her performing anything resembling "pastoral" duties.

In 1 Tim. 2:12ff, the word "woman" (gr. gune) is also capable of being translated "wife," and the word "man" (Gr. aner) also can mean "husband." In another context, I could entertain the possibility that Paul is here merely talking about domestic relations, and not about church offices.

However, since the discussion immediately following this passage is concerned about the recognition of church leaders, I am inclined to think that is what Paul has in mind in these verses as well. If I am mistaken in this assumption, and Paul is only talking about husband-wife relations, then this still does not provide much encouragement for the appointment of female presbyters, since, in that role, they may well end up authoritatively teaching their own husbands in the congregation. If this is improper for them in the home, it would be difficult to know what would turn it into a legitimate activity in the church gathering.

In any case, if our society did not wrongfully view church leadership as privileged role, and did not make it a paid profession, then neither any man nor any woman would complain about being disqualified to take that role.

Many people believe that Paul's words effectively disqualify me (though I am a male) from being a church overseer, as much as they disqualify a woman (because of my broken family situation). This is quite possibly true. Since my family situation was not of my choosing any more than a woman's gender was of her choosing, I might have as much reason to complain about Paul's restrictions as would any woman—if I were the ambitious type. I am not, and neither should a woman be.

Fortunately, I am not silly enough to think of an overseer's position as a desirable one to occupy! In any case, anyone who complains that he or she is deprived of what is viewed as a "privileged position" in the church has an attitude problem that would disqualify them in my book, regardless of their gender.

I see the difference in 1 Timothy 3 between Deacons and Overseers but in Stongs they have this definition for deacon:

diakonos;
Probably from διάκω diakō (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon, minister, servant.

Where are they getting this from?

The suggestion that a deacon was "a Christian teacher and pastor" must come from Mr. Strong's reading of the Scripture through his traditional Methodist grid! There certainly is no use of the term in that sense in Scripture. One of the qualifications for the elder/overseer is that he must be "able to teach" (1 Tim.3:2), whereas Paul's qualifications for deacons conspicuously omit this requirement (1 Tim. 3:8-13). Apparently, teaching was not one of the deacon's duties.

Stephen and Philip both preached (Acts 6-8), and are often referred to as "deacons" in modern church-talk. However, the Bible nowhere uses the word "deacon" with reference to either of them. In any case, neither man served in pastoral/teaching ministry. Stephen was an apologist (Acts 6:9-10), and Philip is the only man in Scripture designated an "evangelist" (Acts 21:8)—a role Paul clearly distinguishes from "pastors and teachers" in Eph.4:11.

Preachers today often refer to Timothy and Titus as "pastors." This does not reflect any biblical use of such a term to these men. If anything, they were apostles, or apostolic legates, who themselves appointed the "pastors" (elders/overseers) for the various congregations (see 1 Tim.3 and Titus 1).

In our day, different denominations place different titles on their clergy. Many use biblical titles, but in very unbiblical ways. In some modern-day churches, those whom they call "deacons" fill a role similar to that of the biblical elders. This is a deviation from the teaching of Scripture—a trend not uncommon in institutional churches.

Since the Bible nowhere describes the duties or activities of church deacons (only their qualifications), it is easy to read into the biblical mention of them whatever picture is in our mind from our own experience in our denomination. This is apparently what James Strong was doing when describing deacons as pastors and teachers.

While we don't know exactly what the deacons did do, we know that pastoral ministry was not their task, because that was the activity assigned to the elder/overseers (Acts 20:17, 28/ 1 Pet.5:1-2)—not the deacons.

Thanks Steve, you've been very helpful.