Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[Rossw]

5 hours ago, CoAspen said:

God calls whom ever he chooses. If we ordain men who have been 'called', why would we not ordain women who are 'called'?

Of course, some will say, God would not 'call' for a women to be a leader, pastor, etc. My question comes back to, who on this earth has the ability to say what God can and can't do. 

Are we going to put God in a 'box' made by human thinking? 

We are to assume all of the women who are "called" were genuinely called by God to contradict what EGW wrote and God's word in 1Timothy 3 to usurp the male headship role of the Church? A church I formerly went to used to have female pastors. I can say with much certainty they were not called or ordained by God. They were terrible pastors. The last female pastor they had brought in "The Circle Maker" pagan garbage. She even promoted the book through the ABC! The same church also currently has a female head elder. Guess what?...that church is failing!

We know from Scripture God doesn't change yet you are expecting me to believe His consistency is just putting him in a box? I don't think so. It isn't human thinking that wrote of God's consistency. It is His word in the Bible.

How do I know a female's calling to lead a church isn't genuine?...by God's own words in the Bible.

[LadyRachelLynn]

The church I went to as a small child broke up because of a specific male pastor.  You can't say that all women pastors are horrible pastors because they messed up a church.  Men have done it too.

[CoAspen]

Many more male pastors have failed just due to the numbers. We have had a Black female Head Elder that did wonderful things for our church. We have also had a female Associate  pastor as well. We also have a friend who is an ordained pastor. A great person and leader. I would suspect that a failed female pastor is an exception, if it is based on fact and not dislike.

Who knows the mind of God? The Bible is the only record of Gods contact with humans? God sake only 'once' and has been silent ever since? The Holy Spirit is not real? 

Who hasn't seen the wonders of the universe through the eye of the Hubble telescope? Amazing!

Now some would tell me that the God they believe in, simply wouldn't bless a female to be a leader. I find that even more amazing!

[Green Cochoa]

4 hours ago, Rossw said:

How do I know a female's calling to lead a church isn't genuine?...by God's own words in the Bible.

Well spoken, Ross.  We must stand, in all of our doctrinal positions, on a firm "thus saith the LORD."  The Bible is where He "saith" what we must know.  If we do not have a scriptural foundation, we are building on sand.

The devil, as with Eve, would like us to believe his nice-sounding, pseudo-logic.  Only the Scriptures can safely guide us in these deceptive times in which even our own opinions and feelings must never be trusted.  And what does the Bible say?  Does it not tell us that an elder should be the husband of one wife?  What? The Bible never calls a woman a husband?  Even once?  How unfair!  What?  The Bible tells me I must keep God's law, and shun the pleasures of this world?  How unfair!

You see, the ones who view God's law as unjust are taking their side with Satan who has made that same claim from the beginning of sin.  The closer we come to Christ, the more fair and righteous we see His law to be.  Those who see God's law as unfair show us, by this fruit, all we need to know.  "By their fruits ye shall know them."  We need not judge them, but we are enjoined to "know" them by Jesus' own words.  "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh," we are told.  The fruit of the lips is valuable evidence for us in terms of knowing whose side they support.  "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."  And why should we "know them"?  So that we do not follow the wrong individuals down the path that leads away from Christ.

Jesus spoke of a broad way and a narrow way, wherein the multitudes went down the easy path and but a few pressed on in the narrow way.  Today, multitudes are speaking of "empowering" women.  It is "politically correct" among non-Christians and among many Christians alike.  True, women have had many trials.  True, women have gifts that God calls them to use.  But the Word of God never establishes women in the same position of church eldership/leadership as men.  Why then, contrary to God's Word, do many seek to establish women in positions of leadership over men?

What does the Bible say about women leaders?

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." (Isaiah 3:12)

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." (1 Timothy 3:12)

NOTE: The Bible's use of the word "house" would include the wife, as well as the children, the servants, and all that belonged to the man of the house.  (See Gen. 12:15-17; 20:18; 24:38-40; 28:2; 34:29; 36:6; 39:8-9; Deut. 20:7; 24:1-3; 25:9; etc.)

[Gregory Matthews]

An acceptance of what Green has proposed will logically lead to a rejection of the ministry of Ellen White in the SDA Church.  NOTE:  I do not agree with what Green has said.

The Biblical issue is the role that women should have in spiritual nurture. It is not ordination.

If you tell us that  EGW had no role in spiritual nurture in the SDA Church, you do not understand her ministry.

If you tell us that EGW did not have a leadership role in the developmental days of the SDA denomination, you clearly do not understand our history and her place in our development.

By the way, Green, I acknowledge your sarcasm in your above post.  Is this the level on which you wish to continue the discussion?  You clearly have the ability to discuss on a higher level.  And you could have made your points which are worthy of consideration, without your sarcasm.

It should also be noted that you made statements that are true on their face but miss-represent the position of many with whom you disagree.  Perhaps they are accurate for some?  As you have not identified exactly who it is that you reference, one cannot say you are wrong.  Doing such simply puts people in a place where they cannot debate you on that point.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw asked, below:

The arguments for the ordination of women have been published in books and articles.  In fact  this issue was studied and published prior to the past General Conference.  It would be impossible for me to respond to you with the 100s of pages that have been published on this question.  What has been published says it better than I could repeat it.  Therefore, I cannot answer your question.

However, please note that I have stated many times, to include here in CA, that the Biblical issue is not that of ordination.  Rather, it is the role that women should have in spiritual nurture. 

Greg, why do you believe women should be ordained?

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw said below:

In China, there are tens of thousands of people who worship as SDAs in SDA congregations that are led by women.  If I understand Rossw correctly, he would consider those congregations to not be led by God.  Rossw, again I am not attempting to put words in your mouth.  If I am wrong, please correct me.  This is simply how I understand you.

Yes, I know that in China there are some congregations that are led by men.

How do I know a female's calling to lead a church isn't genuine?...by God's own words in the Bible.

[Rossw]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

The Biblical issue is the role that women should have in spiritual nurture. It is not ordination.

Uh-oh, you've logically backed yourself into a corner.(If I understand this correctly)

[Green Cochoa]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

An acceptance of what Green has proposed will logically lead to a rejection of the ministry of Ellen White in the SDA Church.  NOTE:  I do not agree with what Green has said.

This unsupported assertion is simply false.  Most likely it is based on a lack of discernment, specifically the failure to distinguish between the roles of prophethood and priesthood.  This particular conflation has become nearly ubiquitous today among supporters of women's ordination.  It is on a par with the use of Galatians 3:28 to support the women's movement's egalitarian principles--despite the fact that the verse is addressing equal opportunity for salvation, not equality in any other sense, and, if taken to the logical conclusion of the pro-women's ordination camp, would be used equally well to support gay marriage.  Peter had somewhat to say about such a use of Paul's writings (see 2 Peter 3:15).

All Christians are called to minister.  Ellen White was clear regarding the call of men to the office of the "sacred desk."

"The primary object of our college was to afford young men an opportunity to study for the ministry and to prepare young persons of both sexes to become workers in the various branches of the cause. These students needed a knowledge of the common branches of education and, above all else, of the word of God. Here our school has been deficient. There has not been a man devoted to God to give himself to this branch of the work. Young men moved upon by the Spirit of God to give themselves to the ministry have come to the college for this purpose and have been disappointed. Adequate preparation for this class has not been made, and some of the teachers, knowing this, have advised the youth to take other studies and fit themselves for other pursuits. If these youth were not firm in their purpose, they were induced to give up all idea of studying for the ministry."  {5T 60.1}  

"Those who stand as ministers in the sacred desk should be men of blameless reputation; their lives should be spotless, above everything that savors of impurity. Do not place your reputation in jeopardy by going in the way of temptation. If a woman lingeringly holds your hand, quickly withdraw it and save her from sin. If she manifests undue affection and mourns that her husband does not love her and sympathize with her, do not try to supply this lack. Your only safe and wise course in such a case is to keep your sympathy to yourself. Such cases are numerous. Point such souls to the Burden Bearer, the true and safe Counselor. If she has chosen Christ as a companion, He will give her grace to bear neglect without repining; meanwhile she should diligently do all in her power to bind her husband to herself by strictest fidelity to him and faithfulness in making his home cheerful and attractive. If all her efforts are unavailing and unappreciated, she will have the sympathy and aid of her blessed Redeemer. He will help her to bear all her burdens and comfort her in her disappointments. She shows distrust of Jesus when she reaches for human objects to supply the place that Christ is ever ready to fill. In her repining she sins against God. She would do well to examine her own heart critically to see if sin is not lurking in the soul. The heart that thus seeks human sympathy and accepts forbidden attentions from any one is not pure and faultless before God."  {5T 597.2}

[Green Cochoa]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As you have not identified exactly who it is that you reference, one cannot say you are wrong.  Doing such simply puts people in a place where they cannot debate you on that point.

Isn't that nice?  I'm not here for strife and debate.  I'm here to speak the truth to some who might otherwise not be exposed to its influence.  As the Bible puts it, "he that hath an ear, let him hear."

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw:

Paul is often cited by those who oppose female ordination.  Yet, Paul does not use the word "ordination"   What Paul does is speak about the role that women should have in leadership and/or spiritual nuture.  As I have posted many times, and said and written elsewhere, that is the Biblical issue, not ordination.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said below:

I will suggest that the idea of a New Testament, End Time, priesthood is more that of the Roman Catholic Church than that of the Bible and the SDA View.

This unsupported assertion is simply false.  Most likely it is based on a lack of discernment, specifically the failure to distinguish between the roles of prophethood and priesthood.

[Green Cochoa]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In China, there are tens of thousands of people who worship as SDAs in SDA congregations that are led by women.  If I understand Rossw correctly, he would consider those congregations to not be led by God.  Rossw, again I am not attempting to put words in your mouth.  If I am wrong, please correct me.  This is simply how I understand you.

Yes, I know that in China there are some congregations that are led by men.

Perhaps you already know more about that situation than you let on, but you are doing what many others have done--finding what appears to be an exception, and making unreasonable capital of it to support an unrelated conclusion.  Does the Bible tell us to use China as our example?  What are we told to follow?  Is it not a plain "thus saith the LORD"?  Wherein, then, has the Washington Conference gotten the idea that they should ordain women pastors?  Upon what basis?  Even TOSC split three ways on the matter and reached no consensus.  The General Conference has not authorized it.  THREE General Conference Sessions, with delegates from all over the world, have now failed to take the first step toward ordaining women.  And Washington Conference does so?  Why, oh why?

 

14 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I will suggest that the idea of a New Testament, End Time, priesthood is more that of the Roman Catholic Church than that of the Bible and the SDA View.

I will suggest that you may be trying to have your cake and eat it too.  Either the priesthood was abolished at the Cross, or it wasn't.  What about that "royal priesthood" the New Testament speaks of?  Abolished?  Catholic?  Does everything that Peter supported become Catholic?

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." (1 Peter 2:9)

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, Rossw said:

We are to assume all of the women who are "called" were genuinely called by God to contradict what EGW wrote and God's word in 1Timothy 3 to usurp the male headship role of the Church? .

First I am wondering which Ellen White quote you are referring to. As for 1 Timothy 3 there are linguistic and historical issues that indicate that those who are using it as a proof text against women's ordination are using it in the same way as Sundaykeepers use the text for the thief on the cross and Paul's "Absent from the body and present with the Lord" to say that the dead go to heaven when they die or the "One man esteems one day above another" to keep Sunday instead of Sabbath.

Trying to support "Headship Theology" (which is based on Calvinism and not Arminianism/Wesleyan as our beliefs are) we have downplayed the role of Prophet. The Bible does have a hierarchy. Christ is the head and the highest authority. Then come the Apostles, those who saw Christ both before and after his resurrection. There is a potential of over 500 apostles but if you want to be picky and point out the 12 male names we have, we have to remember that Jesus actually had 82 direct followers. To say that Jesus did not have any female apostles we have to prove that all 82 were male (and to make a strong case all over 500 as all male.) You must give proof or evidence that there were only male apostles. That Jesus never once allowed a woman to sit at his feet when he sat and taught. The Apostles had authorities over others.

Third comes Prophets. After the apostles died off the Prophets have the most authority over others.

Below the Prophets comes the pastors and teachers.

The headship people have to reject this Biblical teaching and our people who oppose women's ordination have to put down Mrs. White's authority to support this tradition of man.

[Kevin H]

If you lived in the ancient world and traveled with the caravans and was looking for an ordained priest you would look for someone with a tassel that had a blue thread in it.

God commanded in Numbers for all the Hebrews, including men and women, to wear this sign of being an ordained priest making them a kingdom of priests.

About 200 years before Jesus as a movement started for Jews to STOP having female priests and to STOP having female rabbis, those involved in this anti-ordination movement began teaching that women should STOP having this sign of being an ordained priest in her wardrobe, that since they believed that only men should be priests and rabbis that only men should wear that blue thread. Thus the anti-ordination people rejected the thus saith the Lord that both men and women should wear this article of clothing that identified them as an ordained priest.

[Green Cochoa]

12 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

If you lived in the ancient world and traveled with the caravans and was looking for an ordained priest you would look for someone with a tassel that had a blue thread in it.

God commanded in Numbers for all the Hebrews, including men and women, to wear this sign of being an ordained priest making them a kingdom of priests.

About 200 years before Jesus as a movement started for Jews to STOP having female priests and to STOP having female rabbis, those involved in this anti-ordination movement began teaching that women should STOP having this sign of being an ordained priest in her wardrobe, that since they believed that only men should be priests and rabbis that only men should wear that blue thread. Thus the anti-ordination people rejected the thus saith the Lord that both men and women should wear this article of clothing that identified them as an ordained priest.

Where are your texts/sources?  Without a plain "thus saith the LORD," this seems a nicely trumped-up (no pun intended) story.  In fact, the Bible lacks writings for the 400 years prior to Jesus' birth, and, therefore, has nothing to say about this "movement" you claim existed.  Furthermore, the "blue ribband" in the people's garments had a special meaning: ordination was not it.  Let's get our "thus saith the LORD" directly from the Bible.

Quote

Numbers

15:37    And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,  
 15:38    Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:  
 15:39    And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:  
 15:40    That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.  
 15:41    I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God.  
 

It was to be a reminder of the Ten Commandments.  No mention is made in this passage of priest, nor of prophet, nor of ordination in any sense.  What about the priests' garments?

Quote

Exodus

28:4    And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.  
 28:5    And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen.  
 28:6    And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work.  
 28:7    It shall have the two shoulder pieces thereof joined at the two edges thereof; and so it shall be joined together.  
 28:8    And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen.  

That passage does not specify meanings for each color, but it should certainly be logical that the blue was again to remind the people of God's law.  If it were a symbol of ordination, should no one ever wear blue, or gold, or purple, or scarlet, or white?  Furthermore, if the "royal priesthood" was to continue in the New Testament era, why does the NT never once mention the color blue?  

[CoAspen]

Ah yes...so many people want a 'thus saith the Lord' for the things they have a personal belief in....but what about all the other areas of life?

Christ walked or rode a donkey, had long flowing robes, had no home of His own on earth, wore sandals, etc. Oh. That was cultural! So we do consider some things change over time. But how women are treated by societies in religious matters we do not. Why is that? 

The one issue that is being avoided is that God is in control and humans are not. God is the elephant in the room. We cling to the way ancient peoples interpreted their interactions with God based on the culture of their day. We even do the same with EGW, forgetting that she too modified her beliefs over time, like we all should. Using a 'thus saith the Lord' can get very tricky and perhaps dangerous at times. We need to address how we see the HS acting on the human heart today and stop denying that God works in wonderful and mysterious ways.  Instead of trying to wring every drop of possible interpretation from the Biblical words and using that to put forward any agenda, we should look more towards what best accomplishes taking the message to the world around us and to us as a church. 

Do those who deny a belief in WO say that a women who believes she has been called and demonstrates that characteristic, is wrong, not called? Not directly, but the word misguided or some such, is used instead. I have my doubts that they would walk up to that individual and say, "God did not called you". If they did, I would suggest supreme arrogance on their part. Lets stop the disparaging of women called to be leaders, pastors, ordained or not and recognize the hand of God through the HS.

....enough said....thats all folks!!

[Kevin H]

Green Cochoa: I think that you would have your questions and objections answered if you look up this book: http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58

[Green Cochoa]

3 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Ah yes...so many people want a 'thus saith the Lord' for the things they have a personal belief in....but what about all the other areas of life?

Christ walked or rode a donkey, had long flowing robes, had no home of His own on earth, wore sandals, etc. Oh. That was cultural! So we do consider some things change over time. But how women are treated by societies in religious matters we do not. Why is that? 

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority--not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support.  {GC 595.1}  

. . .

Thus the message of the third angel will be proclaimed. As the time comes for it to be given with greatest power, the Lord will work through humble instruments, leading the minds of those who consecrate themselves to His service. The laborers will be qualified rather by the unction of His Spirit than by the training of literary institutions. Men of faith and prayer will be constrained to go forth with holy zeal, declaring the words which God gives them. The sins of Babylon will be laid open. The fearful results of enforcing the observances of the church by civil authority, the inroads of spiritualism, the stealthy but rapid progress of the papal power--all will be unmasked. By these solemn warnings the people will be stirred. Thousands upon thousands will listen who have never heard words like these. In amazement they hear the testimony that Babylon is the church, fallen because of her errors and sins, because of her rejection of the truth sent to her from heaven. As the people go to their former teachers with the eager inquiry, Are these things so? the ministers present fables, prophesy smooth things, to soothe their fears and quiet the awakened conscience. But since many refuse to be satisfied with the mere authority of men and demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord," the popular ministry, like the Pharisees of old, filled with anger as their authority is questioned, will denounce the message as of Satan and stir up the sin-loving multitudes to revile and persecute those who proclaim it.  {GC 606.2}  

I want a "thus saith the LORD" for matters of doctrine or church teaching (precept).  Mrs. White tells me I should demand such for these things.  And is this matter such an issue?  I would point you to the Bible, our standard:

"Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." (1 Timothy 4:12-16)

"Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (Hebrews 6:2)

[Green Cochoa]

4 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Do those who deny a belief in WO say that a women who believes she has been called and demonstrates that characteristic, is wrong, not called? Not directly, but the word misguided or some such, is used instead. I have my doubts that they would walk up to that individual and say, "God did not called you". If they did, I would suggest supreme arrogance on their part. Lets stop the disparaging of women called to be leaders, pastors, ordained or not and recognize the hand of God through the HS.

If some say that God has told them He changed the day of worship to Sunday, would you walk up and tell them it wasn't true?  Whether or not one chooses to rebuke someone for his or her errors, the truth is still unchanged.  When we take our doctrines from the Bible, including that of "the laying on of hands," we have no need to change them just because someone says they should be changed.  This is precisely the reason we are told we must demand a plain "thus saith the LORD."  Human judgment is not to be trusted.  We need a divine standard--and the Bible gives us this.

[Green Cochoa]

4 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Green Cochoa: I think that you would have your questions and objections answered if you look up this book: http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58

If that book, to which I have no access, claims to give answers from the Bible, why not simply give me the Bible's "thus saith the LORD" directly?

[CoAspen]

(I fibbed...re:thats all)......

Quote

If some say that God has told them He changed the day of worship to Sunday,........

We aint talking about the sabbath...Classic avoidance of answering questions, straight out of the 'when all else fails' book...redirect, redirect!!!

Oh, and that fits most of all the answers to Kevin H also.

(...locking my mouth such....)

[Green Cochoa]

5 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

We aint talking about the sabbath...Classic avoidance of answering questions, straight out of the 'when all else fails' book...redirect, redirect!!!

Even Jesus at times answered a question with a question--maybe an "off-topic" one.  Would you accuse Him of "classic avoidance of answering questions"?  Please do not accuse me of avoiding your question when I took some of my valuable time to answer it in a way that I felt would best communicate the thoughts I attempted to express.  Communication, as Jesus' example shows, can sometimes best come in the form of a question, an example, an allegory, or a parable.  One need not always expect a direct spoon-feeding, as sometimes it helps the listener to comprehend if another method is employed.  As a disciple of Christ, I am trying to learn of Him.  Wherein I may have failed, please forgive me.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

57 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

"Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." (1 Timothy 4:12-16)

"Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (Hebrews 6:2)

was 1 Timothy 4:12-16 not written for all believers?  If not, perhaps there should be a Bible wherein the texts for women to read could be separated out from those strictly for men....

[Tom Wetmore]

6 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

"Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.  Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." (1 Timothy 4:12-16

Green, if you continue reading a few more verses you will find Paul's continuing counsel to Timothy on how he as a new young pastor should relate to and work with that body of elders (presbytery) that had just appointed him with the laying on of hands. The original Greek confirms that there were both male and female elders in that body of elders that appointed Timothy.  

Paul also regarded Phoebe as a leader (prostatis) and minister (diakonos) of the NT Church and Junia (a woman) as being among the apostles.  It should not be dismissed lightly that he also said that in the body of Christ, the Church, there should be neither male nor female, any more than there should be any other distinctions of class or status such as Jew or Greek, slave or free.  

There are really no church roles, functions, or positions described in the NT that do not specifically include women. Women are not expressly excluded from any. There are specific examples of females described as disciples, deacons (ministers), apostles, fellow laborers in the gospel ministry, elders, and leaders.