Are Protestants being hypocrites?

[Verita]

Protestants are famous for disagreeing with Catholic teaching because “It’s not in the Bible.” Anything that isn’t mentioned in the Bible is rejected. Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, prayer to Saints… etc. The Catholic Church its self is rejected because “It’s not in the Bible.”

But lately it has come to my attention that alot of Protestants accept women as Priests/Pastors. My own former Protestant Church once had a woman guest Pastor preach on sunday. And on another (non-religious) messageboard I participate in there is a thread for Christian fellowship were when recently polled most participants agreed that women pastors are perfectly fine (even encouraged). It was mostly the Catholics in the thread who dissented. (I say mostly because I am not certain of the results, but I don’t remember any non Catholics being against it.)

Now it occurs to me that perhaps these Protestants are being hypocritical. After all, not only are female Priests/Pastors not found anywhere in the Bible, but Paul gives explicit instructions that women are to be silent in Church.

So why do Protestants accept this?

 

[RyanL]

Please be careful about lumping all Protestants together - several denominations do not accept women pastors. The ones who do accept women pastors, in my experience, typically don’t hold very tightly to Sola Scriptura (I’m thinking more or less about their position on homosexuality, more than anything else)…so it would be tough to claim that they’re being hypocritical, in my opinion.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Trelow]

Protestants come in many flavors. Usually the ones with female pastors won’t be the ones handing out tracts and such. Typically they are also the ones who ignore anything to do with sin in the bible.

 

[Verita]

I don’t think that is true. The church I came from was a non denominational very Bible based church and they were perfectly fine having a woman pastor from another church come speak to them. (It made me extremely uncomfortable, years before I decided to become Catholic.)

And in the Christian thread on the other messageboard I frequent, there are a variety of denominations represented. There is a very outspoken Baptist minister there who also taught that it was a fine and good thing. Almost everyone there was ok with it, except the Catholics.

This seems to be more widespread that I originally thought.

 

[Trelow]

Your experience is rather different than mine then.

 

[credno]

Call me old fashioned, but Jesus chose his 12 disciples, and they were all male. These disciples were the first leaders of the Church. I think that if Jesus wanted female Church leaders, then he would have made some of the disciples females! After all, the holiest of them all was his mother, and even she didn’t get chosen, or Mary Mag. for that matter. Am I crazy??

Chris

 

[mlchance]

All good men are hypocrites. Perhaps it’s time to up with a new perjorative?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I agree with others. As a “general rule”, those with female pastors are not the fundamentalist crowd. They tend to be the ELCA, United Methodist’s and Anglican’s. AOG and others due but often quite restricted.

But are they hyprocritcal…you bet. They ignore or distort statements about tradition, claim to believe in the literal word of God yet disregard the clear teaching about the Eucharist claiming (nonsensically) that Jesus statements are not literal just like when scripture says God has wings as is being figurative. The power of sacramentals is mentioned in the NT and ignored (the cloth). So yes it is pick and choose time. But hard to argue with someone who believes the King James version of the bible was published by the Heavenly Press and that Textus Receptus is the most accurate of manuscripts.

North

 

[Verita]

All good men are hypocrites. Perhaps it’s time to up with a new perjorative?

– Mark L. Chance.

I did not mean the term to be insulting. I meant it in the strictest sense of the word: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. Rejecting things because they are not in the bible and then allowing women to be pastors seems to me to be a big contradiction.

I agree with others. As a “general rule”, those with female pastors are not the fundamentalist crowd. They tend to be the ELCA, United Methodist’s and Anglican’s. AOG and others due but often quite restricted.

Yet even those who don’t attend a church that has a woman as a pastor still seem to think it is perfectly alright for other to. They seem to accept it as a Christian practice.

 

[Contarini]

Protestants are famous for disagreeing with Catholic teaching because “It’s not in the Bible.” Anything that isn’t mentioned in the Bible is rejected. Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, prayer to Saints… etc. The Catholic Church its self is rejected because “It’s not in the Bible.”

But lately it has come to my attention that alot of Protestants accept women as Priests/Pastors. My own former Protestant Church once had a woman guest Pastor preach on sunday. And on another (non-religious) messageboard I participate in there is a thread for Christian fellowship were when recently polled most participants agreed that women pastors are perfectly fine (even encouraged). It was mostly the Catholics in the thread who dissented. (I say mostly because I am not certain of the results, but I don’t remember any non Catholics being against it.)

Now it occurs to me that perhaps these Protestants are being hypocritical. After all, not only are female Priests/Pastors not found anywhere in the Bible, but Paul gives explicit instructions that women are to be silent in Church.

So why do Protestants accept this?

Generally speaking, the fundamentalist Protestants you have in mind (who reject anything they can’t find explicitly in Scripture) are extremely hostile to women having any leadership role in the Church.

Protestant churches who ordain women come in two flavors:

1. “Mainline” churches which tend to be more liberal and are slow to say “the Bible says X.” That doesn’t necessairly mean that they don’t accept the Bible’s authority, but that they are aware of how complex Biblical interpretation can be. (I’m not denying that this can lead to denying the Bible’s authority–I’m just saying that it doesn’t have to.)
2. Holiness/Pentecostal/pietist churches which tend to give a high level of credence to experience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This makes them willing to look twice at what Scripture appears to be saying rather than taking the rigid literalism of the fundamentalists. However, many of these churches have been influenced by fundamentalism in the past century, and as a result they have given women less prominence.

Recently some of the more Reformed evangelical churches (the CRC, for instance) have become more open to women’s ordination. Of course the conservatives see this as creeping liberalism.

In both liberal and pietist cases (excluding those liberals who genuinely do reject Scriptural authority) the argument would be that the Scriptural texts in question need to be read in their cultural context and in the context of the teaching of Scripture as a whole. The holiness tradition puts a lot of emphasis on the prophecy in Joel, which St. Peter claimed was fulfilled at Pentecost: Your sons and your daughters will prophesy. They/we would say that since the gift of the Spirit is poured out on all, any restrictions of the exercise of that gift must be seen as pragmatic and culturally limited.

This is also, of course, why we are nervous about the Catholic understanding of the ministerial priesthood. I for one have no problem with the language and symbolism of the priesthood, but I have a problem with the claim that certain gifts are necessarily restricted to the priesthood, so that if a layperson were to celebrate the Eucharist, for instance, it would be invalid. In my view this is linked to the women’s ordination issue. Those of us who believe in the priesthood of all believers have no valid theological reason for rejecting women’s ordination. Catholics do have such a rationale, but I think it’s a bad one, arising from a corrupt clericalism rather than from the original deposit of faith.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Call me old fashioned, but Jesus chose his 12 disciples, and they were all male. These disciples were the first leaders of the Church. I think that if Jesus wanted female Church leaders, then he would have made some of the disciples females! After all, the holiest of them all was his mother, and even she didn’t get chosen, or Mary Mag. for that matter. Am I crazy??

Chris

In my opinion any argument resting on speculation about what Jesus would have done is probably a very bad argument. And this one is no exception.

Edwin

 

[mlchance]

I did not mean the term to be insulting.

The term itself is insulting.

I meant it in the strictest sense of the word: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

And, as I’ve pointed out, that describes everyone to one degree or another. A more sensible starting point might be: Why do some Protestant groups allow female pastors?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Verita]

And yet, Contarini, as I have said, I have increasingly come into contact with Protestants who do believe in only the Bible who are ok with women as Pastors. That is my point. I’m not talking about the mainline Churches. What I’m saying is that my old non-denominational extrememly Bible oriented, not accepting any other authority church was very accepting of the woman minister who came and preached to us. And on a thread full of various types protestants including a very firm bible believing Baptist minister all condoned it.

Even if these people don’t attend the churches of female pastors, they still accept the practice. And that seems hypocritcal to me.

 

[Verita]

The term itself is insulting.

And, as I’ve pointed out, that describes everyone to one degree or another. A more sensible starting point might be: Why do some Protestant groups allow female pastors?

– Mark L. Chance.

If you are insulted by it, it’s nothing to do with me. It’s a word I’m using to accurately describe a contradiction in beliefs.

That’s not the question. I know why they allow it. I’m merely pointing out a discrepancy and wondering why protestants aren’t bothered by this.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Generally speaking, the fundamentalist Protestants you have in mind (who reject anything they can’t find explicitly in Scripture) are extremely hostile to women having any leadership role in the Church.

Hi,
While I do agree with most of what you say(as a fundie sola scriptura person) I think the word hostile is a bit too strong of a word to use in the context of the topic.

I agree with the CC on this one. I do believe that women should not be preachers. However, there is nothing wrong with women teaching other women and children.

Yes I think these Protestants are being hypocrites. As you guys refer to cafeteria catholics, there are also cafeteria protestants.

 

[mlchance]

If you are insulted by it, it’s nothing to do with me. It’s a word I’m using to accurately describe a contradiction in beliefs.

I’m not insulted by it. The term itself is an insult. As a Catholic, you ought to know that one’s intentions does not change the objective meaning of a thing. There is no way to compliment someone by calling them a hypocrite. Attempting to acquire knowledge and understanding by opening up with “Why are you such a hypocrite?” is foolish (at best).

That’s not the question. I know why they allow it. I’m merely pointing out a discrepancy and wondering why protestants aren’t bothered by this.

Many Protestants are bothered by it. It’ll be a cold day in Hell before you see a woman ordained as a Southern Baptist pastor. Other Protestants aren’t bothered by it; for example, large hunks the Anglican Church, which doesn’t even seem to be terribly bothered by sodomite divorcees being installed as bishops.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Verita]

Yes I think these Protestants are being hypocrites. As you guys refer to cafeteria catholics, there are also cafeteria protestants.

I don’t think that’s an accurate description for what I’m describing. Cafeteria Catholics pick and choose what they want in every area. But the protestants I have encountered are very strong in their faith and very staunchly bible-only in every area… but not this one. It’s like they don’t even realize it.

 

[Verita]

I’m not insulted by it. The term itself is an insult. As a Catholic, you ought to know that one’s intentions does not change the objective meaning of a thing. There is no way to compliment someone by calling them a hypocrite. Attempting to acquire knowledge and understanding by opening up with “Why are you such a hypocrite?” is foolish (at best).

Now who’s being insulting? You are openly accusing me of being foolish. The most I did was use an adjective in a question.

No, the word hypocrit is not inherently an insult. It is a word used to describe a state of being. Whether or not someone is offended by it isn’t my problem. Furthermore, the thread is asking a question. I have not made any judgements.

Many Protestants are bothered by it. It’ll be a cold day in Hell before you see a woman ordained as a Southern Baptist pastor. Other Protestants aren’t bothered by it; for example, large hunks the Anglican Church, which doesn’t even seem to be terribly bothered by sodomite divorcees being installed as bishops.

– Mark L. Chance.

And yet I have described a Southern Baptist pastor who is under the impression women pastors are perfectly fine. I am not talking about denominations as a whole. I am talking about individual protestants.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I don’t think that’s an accurate description for what I’m describing. Cafeteria Catholics pick and choose what they want in every area. But the protestants I have encountered are very strong in their faith and very staunchly bible-only in every area… but not this one. It’s like they don’t even realize it.

Hi,
I think it is mostly mainline protestants that are doing this. My church is bible only and we do not believe in women preachers. I see it in the Episcopal, reformed churches, methodist. Do the baptist have women preachers? I have not heard of them going that way.

I dont know what to say about the churches who are doing this. I just know I dont agree and neither does my church.

 

[Verita]

Again, I’m really not talking about churches. I’m talking about people. I’ve been encountering many individual people who accept women pastors, people from all kinds of denominations, not just the mainline ones.