Women in Ministry

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

So Norman, What does Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 5:2, as you interpret it, mean? He said, "Do not rebuke your elders...treat the elder women as your mother..."

For that matter, Norman, based on your appearance in the photo Denise posted, I think a number of the men you have taken to rebuking here on CA are older than you. Are you treating them as you would your own father?

Just thought I would ask...

Tom

(And Denise, let Norman speak for himself. It is unseemly for a wife to speak for her husband...)

Tom, why are you twisting scripture to make it say something to make me look bad?

I am not the one twisting Scripture. Nor am I the one attempting to make it say anything other than what it actually says. As for making you look bad, well that would be entirely up to you as I have no control over your appearance, what you say or what you do.

Originally Posted By: Norman

The verse say rebuke not an elder as in elder of the church, it does not mean an older man.

Pay attention Norman! I asked you what it meant, as you interpret it. You and the others who have strongly disagreed with what I have posted about this passage have been insisting that Paul was only talking to Timothy about older men and older women - a be nice and and respectful to the elderly rule, if you will. Now you insist that the subject of this particular sentence is what I have been saying all along - elders of the church at Ephesus.

Look carefully where this sentence begins and ends, according to every translation which we have been assured are quite reliable by the experts in our midst. The sentence starts at the beginning of verse one and does not end until the end of verse 2. This is the most immediate context. And if you broaden the textual context only by a couple verses back into chapter 4, you can see that Paul is talking to Timothy about the whole body of elders and how he should work with them and relate to them since he was their newly appointed and ordained, and young, pastor. The subject of the sentence is elders, as you have acknowledged and the rest of that sentence bears out that the elders being spoken of by Paul apparently include older men, younger men, older women and younger women. Timothy is admonished to not rebuke them, but to show all of them proper respect.

But even under your previous understanding that verse 2 is only talking about women who are not a part of the body of elders, Paul commands that the older women of the church should be treated as your mother, and the younger ones as your sister. My point was that Beryl, an older woman, should be treated as your mother. I should hope that you do not treat your own mother, or speak to her as you have done to Beryl. And you don't even have to understand 1 Timothy 5:1-2 as I have to come to that clear conclusion.

Tom

[Woody]

Quote:

Do you believe in the position I have taken on these topics?

I don't think this is what Carolaa is concerned with Norman. I think she is saying that the manner in which you are saying what ever you are saying ... negates any message that you might have.

[Woody]

Quote:

But, anyway, the point of my post was merely a suggestion that you might consider your words so as not to come across so arrogant and condescending.

Good Point Carolaa. I hope he will be able to assimilate this.

[Woody]

Quote:

Tom, why are you twisting scripture to make it say something to MAKE ME look bad?

This seems to be a common complaint from Norman. Why do others make HIM look bad? It would appear that HE does a fine job of doing that himself. Just look below for an example ...

Quote:

Shame on you Tom Whetmore.

This is JUST what we are taking about. Shaming people does not promote your beliefs or causes. Try a more gentle approach by edifying rather than shaming or condemning.

Quote:

You have an obsession with me and therefore you see what is not there.

Tom has an obsession? Why all the finger pointing Norman? We are your Christian brothers and sisters. Why all the condemning of us for our beliefs? Try a more tender approach and you might have more success in articulating your ideas and reaching us.

[Woody]

Quote:

do you see what I see? Do you see what I see?

It would appear that you see a lot of shame in people. You seem to feel that people are out to get you so you lash out. We are just here to discuss ideas though ... not to get a tongue lashing for not believing as you. Carolaa used the word arrogance. Well ... when you tell people that you are the one with truth and imply that the rest of us are just heathens because we don't accept truth (your truth)... well ... what kind of response do you think you will get.

[Woody]

Quote:

So my conclusion is, why is she not saying something to them? It must be because she agrees with them and feels the same way.

The point here is that ONE person is making himself out the be the exclusive holder of truth. The issue is arrogance. I don't see anyone else making this claim, putting down and condemning others.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

Pay attention Norman! I asked you what it meant, as you interpret it.

Tom, you are obessed with me and you need to just let it go. I have nothing to say to a person who has no care for me and my wife. I will now employ my priviledge of using the ignore feature with you.

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

Why all the finger pointing Norman?

Why all the finger pointing? That's a pretty amazing question coming from Captain complaint.

Quote:

We are your Christian brothers and sisters

Well then I must have some really evil enemies

[olger]

Tom:

I understand where you are coming from.

What you seem to be missing is the New Testament view of the church as a family. The church is not merely a service organization, but an extended spiritual family. By accepting Jesus, believers receive adoption as sons (Gal. 4:5). As adopted children we call God “Father” (Gal. 4:6) and relate to one another as “brother or sister” (James 2:14; Romans 12:1; Thess 4:6). Believers are called “sons of God” in contrast to unbelievers who are outside God’s family (1 John 5:1-5).

The pastor/elder functions as a spiritual father within the church family. This is why Paul refers to Corinthian believers as children, and to himself as their father (1 Cor. 4:14, 16).

This explains why elders who function as spiritual fathers and shepherds were not women, because their role is that of a mother, not a father. This theme of the church as a family (or household of God) is especially evident in the letters to Timothy. Paul Calls Timothy his “son.” He advises him to treat older men like a father, younger men like brothers, older women like mothers, and younger women like a sister “in all purity.”

We are told that a church leader must be a respectable family man, with the proven virtues of fatherhood. The analogy between the church and the family is not an incidental illustration, but the basis for defining leadership roles in the church. This is why the Bible precludes appointing a woman to function as the representative spiritual father and shepherd of a congregation. The reason is not that a woman is less capable than man in devotion, zeal, etc.., but simply because the New Testament role of a bishop/elder is that of a spiritual father, and not of a mother. The role of a spiritual mother comes later (Titus 2:4,5; 1 Peter 3;1).

Thus the New Testament emphasizes the creational role distinctions found in the Old Testament at creation. These role distinctions do not reflect superiority and inferiority, but a divine design for harmony in the home and in the church. We are different and complimentary.

Here I will share a personal observation, gained over my short 47-years. As marriages & Biblical relationships continue to crumble in this sinful world, we should expect to see a simultaneous call for the reinterpretation of roles within the church. I submit to you that this day is upon us. They both have the same fountainhead.

It is not therefore surprising that GC sessions in the last decade & a half would be used to call for a reinterpretation of the Biblical counsel regarding marriage & divorce AND a reinterpretation of the Biblical roles of men & women. The two are linked. The more marriages fail, the more roles are distorted.

Thus we may expect to see a third reinterpretation called for – that of homosexual & gay marriage. A person would have to be determined to ignore the evidence to miss the rebellion directed at divine creation roles & order in all three of these confusions. They feed on each other, and I am only one in a million to observe this aspect.

The same Hebrew word for elders (zaqen) is used in Zechariah 8:4 to describe old men AND women. It does so without confusion of male & female roles. For instance, when the Bible recounts occasions when the elders of Israel were called together, it refers to men alone (Joshua 24:1; Deut 31:28; Ruth 4:2; 1 Samuel 4:3; 1 Kings 20:7; 1 Chr.21:16; Ezra 10:14).

There is therefore no justification whatsoever for stating that 1 Timothy 5:2 refers to anything but an older woman, a spiritual mother. The New Testament Church did not appoint women as elders of the flock, but rather only qualified men (Titus 1:5; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6).

in Him,

olger

[carolaa]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: NormanIf you don't believe in what I have written and disagree with it and are telling me about what I am doing wrong??? do you see what I see? Do you see what I see?

I'll explain because Normanese can be hard to understand even Denise had to ask me what I meant. I am saying: If you don't believe in what I have written and disagree with it and are telling me about what I am doing wrong. Doesn't that seem a little biased when some others here have intentional mean spirited comments with no other purpose than to take a swing, but you have not said anything to them.

So my conclusion is, why is she not saying something to them? It must be because she agrees with them and feels the same way.

Do you now see what I see?

I agree with you that others have made comments that I could have responded to, but I guess for me personally, arrogance is one of my pet peeves. I can view other disagreeable comments going back and forth and roll my eyes and move on. But arrogance is a big turn-off to me, so I was responding to you about how your comments made me feel. I included the 2 quotes of yours that I felt were especially condescending. If it were me, I would find it helpful to know how I was coming across to people, although it's not easy to hear, but I would want to know.

As far as agreeing with your views or not, I guess I'm a little dense because you seem to talk in riddles to me, skirting issues. You are not the only one who does this, but you seem to do it the most. I'm willing to say it is my problem that I'm slow to understand. But bottom line is I am not real clear on what you are even saying to be able to agree or disagree.

The arrogance was the big deal to me. It sounds like you think you have the big answer that we all need to find out for ourselves, and we are just too dumb or unspiritual to figure it out, but you aren't going to tell us. And maybe I AM dumb as a brick and everyone else knows what you are talking about. And probably I do need to pray more. But maybe it would be helpful for you to step down and talk to us dumbos more clearly.

Anyway, I just needed to express that I feel you could be much more effective by not alienating people like me who feel your attitude is arrogant. I thought it's very possible that you aren't aware that your attitude may be turning people off to whatever you are trying to say. And maybe it's all my perception of your attitude, in which case you could respond by clearing that up.

I hope I'm not being preachy, because one of my many weaknesses is that I tend to be a big, blunt, truth teller with little regard for people's feelings, and I'm trying to learn different ways of expressing myself.

[Stan]

I have moved most of the nasty ones. it is hard BECAUSE when i remove one, every one connected with it goes as well..

PLEASE KEEP TO THE SUBJECT IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IT PERSONAL THEN DO IT PRIVATELY

[Woody]

Thank you SO much Stan. Your time and effort is greatly appreciated. I am sure that none of us here appreciate the enormity of your job.

I can't fault you for what you have to do with this mess in order to correct it.

Thanks also for your good advice. Now if I and we can follow it.

[Woody]

Back to women's ministry ....

Quote:

"It has been no infrequent thing for men in ecclesiastical authority to take exception to the ministry of those who have not been commissionsed by themselves. Men with some power in their hands may easily fancy that ONLY they can instruct others how to perform publicly." 6BC 164

[olger]

Thanks Stan. That sounds like a big job..

oG

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

I hope I'm not being preachy, because one of my many weaknesses is that I tend to be a big, blunt, truth teller with little regard for people's feelings, and I'm trying to learn different ways of expressing myself.

That's me as well, but this is not a weakness in my view. I am not Christ but I know that He spoke to some folks in a much more harsh manner than I have. Sometimes with tears in His eyes and sometimes not. But in the eyes of those receiving His words He was mean arrogant and unkind.

Concerning that which I do not want to tell others; I hold back for a reason. Because people are not ready for it. Yes I know how that sounds but it's the truth. Not that people won't understand it but they will reject it because it takes a major chnge in thinking and admitting that one is wrong to accept it. I am referring to the reason women ought to be silent in church. The explanation of that is far from what most people think. It does not mean that women are not allowed to speak in church that I will tell you.

I'm sure the time will come when I will share this either in PMs or on some thread, just not now. On top of that I really wouldn't share it with the people who at the time were actually pretty rude themselves. That doesn't bother me much but there's no point in sharing something spiritually valuable in the heat of a debate, it will not be accepted.

As I have said before I do think people can understand what I'm talking about and some times they don't. That is the way that I am. I think in King James terms. I leave out words that I believe are understood and people are going "what did he say???" If that happens just ask and I'll be glad to explain

I also believe that there is a time for harsh words, this is spoken of in the Bible. WE as a society have become such whiners and politicaly correct that we don't dare say anything to any one for fear of offending. The problem is (a problem for those who embrace PC) that the truth is offensive and so is the Gospel.

There will be battles over the truth and though we are SDAs some are only so in name, so there will naturally be huge differences and disagreements.

There is a time to hurt and a time to heal and we seem to have gone through the hurt and are going through the healing. In the end it can make us stronger and more respectful of each other.

Norman

[carolaa]

I believe that having little regard for the feelings of others is a severe weakness in my life. The way we treat others is more important than the truth we speak. Jesus almost always reserved his harsh words for the hypocrites, not for the seekers of truth.

I was not offended by anything you said, just quite aghast at the level of arrogance that came across -- to be condescending to others who don't have your *answer* but at the same time not share what the answer is. Better to not say anything, imo. Anyway, you can decide if the shoe fits. Meanwhile, I'll try my best to follow all the posts.

[Taylor]

(This is not aimed at any particular person. It is just a comment in general..)

Wow this thread has gotten hot since I was on here last. I think both sides have stated their position very clearly and probably the only option is to drop the subject becuase neither side is going to change what they perceive as the Lord's clear direction on this topic. However, maybe we can agree to all be friends despite our differences and allow those differences to exist without feeling like we need to straighten each other out. It is a good thing that God is the judge in all of this or I fear that all of us would make some grave mistakes.

[Guest Male Man]

Quote:

I believe that having little regard for the feelings of others is a severe weakness in my life. The way we treat others is more important than the truth we speak.

Yes and no. If we lived our lives with the priority that we mustn't offend anyone then we will be useless to God. I think the church can be far too concerned about it's reputation than actually doing the right thing. So it sits paralized in the middle niether offending for the sake of the Gospel and neither speaking loudly about relevant issues for today.

[Woody]

Quote:

neither speaking loudly about relevant issues for today.

I agree with you that the church has a long history of not making public positions known in the political arena. I do see us doing that more than ever though.

I am not really sure that we should. I think that mixing church and state can present problems.

[John317]

...Thus we may expect to see a third reinterpretation called for – that of homosexual & gay marriage. A person would have to be determined to ignore the evidence to miss the rebellion directed at divine creation roles & order in all three of these confusions. They feed on each other, and I am only one in a million to observe this aspect.

The same Hebrew word for elders (zaqen) is used in Zechariah 8:4 to describe old men AND women. It does so without confusion of male & female roles. For instance, when the Bible recounts occasions when the elders of Israel were called together, it refers to men alone (Joshua 24:1; Deut 31:28; Ruth 4:2; 1 Samuel 4:3; 1 Kings 20:7; 1 Chr.21:16; Ezra 10:14).

There is therefore no justification whatsoever for stating that 1 Timothy 5:2 refers to anything but an older woman, a spiritual mother. The New Testament Church did not appoint women as elders of the flock, but rather only qualified men (Titus 1:5; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6).

in Him,olger

So far, the following verses are the ones which some members of CA have pointed to as offering the best evidence that there were female elders or pastors in the NT church:

1) 1 Tim. 3: 11-- gunaikas-- referring to wives of deacons or possibly deaconesses; most probably the wives.

2) Romans 16: 1-- diakonos-- servant or deaconess. Even if translated as "minister", it does not necessarily mean "pastor." We need to examine the role and qualifications of the NT deacon, and also examine all the uses of diakonos in the NT.

3) 1 Tim 5: 2-- presbutera (Fem): All 66 translations that I've examined in English have "older women." All Greek-English lexicons and authorities agree with that translation of 1 Tim. 5: 2.

4) Titus 2: 3-- presbutis-- "an aged woman." Translated here as "aged women," "elder women" or "older women."

5) Romans 16: 3-- sunergous-- co-worker or fellow worker. Compare its use at 1 Thess. 3: 2.

Is there anyone who believes that these verses offer evidence that there were women functioning as pastor or elders in the NT church? If so, what is the evidence that these verses may properly be understand in this way?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Taylor]

Thus we may expect to see a third reinterpretation called for – that of homosexual & gay marriage. A person would have to be determined to ignore the evidence to miss the rebellion directed at divine creation roles & order in all three of these confusions. They feed on each other, and I am only one in a million to observe this aspect.

However there is a huge difference here. Homosexuality is a sin, and that is very clearly stated in the Bible (although the sinner must be loved). But women working as pastors does not make them "living in sin" or "rebellion". They are fulfilling the calling that they honestly belive with all their hearts, that the Lord has given them and that through just as much study and soul searching as any male pastor would do who had a calling to the ministry.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: olger

Thus we may expect to see a third reinterpretation called for – that of homosexual & gay marriage. A person would have to be determined to ignore the evidence to miss the rebellion directed at divine creation roles & order in all three of these confusions. They feed on each other, and I am only one in a million to observe this aspect.

However there is a huge difference here. Homosexuality is a sin, and that is very clearly stated in the Bible (although the sinner must be loved). But women working as pastors does not make them "living in sin" or "rebellion". They are fulfilling the calling that they honestly belive with all their hearts, that the Lord has given them and that through just as much study and soul searching as any male pastor would do who had a calling to the ministry.

I totally agree with you about this difference.

However, the same argument made in defense of homosexuality is made in defense of women becoming pastors of churches: the argument is that the Bible in both instances is reflecting human opinions and cultural values. In other words, it is argued that God doesn't really view homosexuality as sin. In the same way, and for the same reasons, it's argued that God doesn't really object to women being pastors of local Christian congregations. In both cases, people are claiming that we have grown beyond the Bible's "backward" view of women and homosexuals.

The question, then, is, if we accept this argument in regard to women, why shouldn't we accept it in regard to homosexuals? Many already do accept this argument, and we can expect to hear more of it in the future.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

The following are all the NT verses containing the noun, presbuteros, Strongs # 4245, which is usually translated as "elder" or "elders." It is also translated as "older men," etc., such as in Acts 2: 17. The feminine gender of that word is only used once in the NT, at 1 Tim. 5: 2, where it is always translated as "older women." Except for that single exception, the word is in the masculine gender and always refers to males.

1) Matt. 15: 2--- "elders." All references in the gospels and the Acts are in regard to men.

Matt. 16: 21; 21: 23; 26: 3, 47, 57, 59; 27: 1, 3, 12, 20, 41; 28: 12.

2) Mark 7: 3, 5; 8:31; 11: 27; 14: 43, 53; 51: 1.

3) Luke 7: 3;9: 22; 10: 40; 15: 25; 20: 1; 22: 52.

4) John 8: 9-- here it refers to "eldest men."

5) Acts 2: 17-- "old men."

6) Acts 4: 5-- RSV, "elders."

7) Acts 4: 8-- RSV, "elders."

8) Acts 4: 23-- RSV, "elders."

9) Acts 15: 2-- RSV, "elders."

10) Acts 15: 4-- RSV, "elders."

11) Acts 15: 6-- RSV, "elders."

12) Acts 15: 22-- RSV, "elders."

13) Acts 15: 23-- RSV, "elders"

14) Acts 16: 4-- RSV, "elders."

15) Acts 20: 17-- RSV, "elders."

16) Acts 21: 18-- RSV, "elders."

17) Acts 23: 14-- RSV, "elders."

18) Acts 24:1-- RSV, "elders."

19) Acts 25: 15-- RSV, "elders."

20) 1 Timothy 5: 1-- RSV, New American Standard, New Jerusalem Bible, TEV, LB, Phillips, Revised New English Bible, New King James Version, NIV-- "older man;" KJV-- "elder."

21) 1 Tim. 5: 2-- RSV "older women." ALL 66 translations that I own read the same here. All Greek-Lexicons also agree that this is the correct translation at this verse.

22) 1 Tim. 5: 17-- RSV, "elders"

23) 1 Tim. 5: 19-- RSV, "an elder"

24) Titus 1: 5-- RSV, "elders."

25) Hebrews 11: 2-- RSV, "men of old;" KJV, "the elders;" NIV, "the ancients."

26) James 5: 14-- RSV, "elders;" i.e., "elders of the church." This verse assumes that the "elders" are all males.

27) 1 Peter 5: 1-- RSV, "elders."

28) 1 Peter 5: 5-- RSV, "elders."

29) 2 John 1-- RSV, "elder."

30) 3 John 1-- RSV, "elder."

31) Rev. 4: 4-- RSV, "elders."

32) Rev. 4: 10-- RSV, "elders."

33) Rev. 5, 6, 8, 11, 14-- RSV, "elders."

34) Rev. 7: 11, 13-- RSV, "elders."

35) Rev. 11: 16-- RSV, "elders."

36) Rev. 14: 3-- RSV, "elders."

37) Rev. 19: 4-- RSV, "elders."

In heaven all the "elders" are men. Rev. 14: 3 and 19: 4 describe events yet future.

The only occurrence of presbutis, Strongs #4247, is at Titus 2: 3, where it is always translated as, "aged women, " etc. All Greek-English Lexicons agree that this is the correct translation.

Presbuterion, Strong's #4244, occurs in three verses, and each time is translated, "elders," and obviously refers to men: Luke 22: 66; Acts 22: 5; 1 Tim. 4: 4.

Next we will look every occurrence in the NT of the verb, diakoneo, Strongs #1247, which means to be a servant, attendant, domestic; to serve, minister, wait upon.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Quote:

the same argument made in defense of homosexuality is made in defense of women becoming pastors of churches: the argument is that the Bible in both instances is reflecting human opinions and cultural values.

This is just an argument that the anti-WO crowd uses to scare people. It makes NO sense. And the arguement that they "claim" that those who support WO is just not used. God created man and woman to be joined together at creation. This was NOT a cultural union. God also created man and woman as equal partners.

So, in the discussion of woman pastors .... we don't NEED to look at the cultural aspects of the time of Christ. The proof is to go back to creation for both discussions.

Don't be frightened by this linkage of the two issues. Just look to creation for the answers.

And by the way ... with your bias on this topic ... it would seem strange for you to say that you don't know if you support women to be pastors. Why not just come out and say NO?

[John317]

Quote:

the same argument made in defense of homosexuality is made in defense of women becoming pastors of churches: the argument is that the Bible in both instances is reflecting human opinions and cultural values.

All you need to do to know it's true is to read literature written by those pushing the homosexual agenda. They argue that the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is outdated in the same way that its view of women is outdated.

How do you think homosexuals persuaded various churches to ordain homosexuals as priests and pastors? It was with the use of this very argument: the Bible cannot be trusted to give us absolute truth but is culturally conditioned. That is the same argument used to say that Paul's statements in regard to women in the church no longer apply.

Quote:

And the arguement that they "claim" that those who support WO is just not used. God created man and woman to be joined together at creation. This was NOT a cultural union. God also created man and woman as equal partners.

Men and women were created equal, that's true. But as a result of the Fall, and because of the problems that result from the Fall, God made man head of the family and of the woman. Compare Gen. 3: 16; 1 Cor. 11: 3. "The head of a woman is her husband."

Quote:

So, in the discussion of woman pastors .... we don't NEED to look at the cultural aspects of the time of Christ.

Would you say that Christ chose all 12 Apostles (plus Paul, as the 13th) from among males for cultural reasons?

We need to look at what the Bible teaches regarding Adam and Eve and also at the way the New Testament applies those things to the church.

Quote:

The proof is to go back to creation for both discussions.

Don't be frightened by this linkage of the two issues. Just look to creation for the answers.

Show how this "look to creation" alters what Paul writes in the NT.

Quote:

And by the way ... with your bias on this topic ... it would seem strange for you to say that you don't know if you support women to be pastors. Why not just come out and say NO?

I lean in the direction of opposing women as pastors, because up to this point, I don't see much evidence that the Bible supports it, but I am open to change based on Biblical evidence and arguments based on the Bible. Once I've completely made up my mind, I will let you know.

Since you don't want people putting words in your mouth or telling you what to say, please refrain from doing it to others.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"