Women in Ministry

[Tom Wetmore]

In other words, keep your expectations low and you won't be disappointed.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

...why, do you think, did Christ choose only men as apostles of the church? Couldn't Christ have chosen a woman to be an apostle if He had wanted to?

Probably the same reason he only chose twelve Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews.

Why not 6? Why no Samaritans? Why no Romans? Or Greeks? Was the ability to speak Hebrew/Aramaic a requirement to be an apostle? And if not, why not? Why do you think only their gender is relevant now?

But more to your point that this choosing of the apostles was somehow to be a standard for our selection of our modern day clergy, should we limit ourselves to exactly twelve ministers? Or twelve elders in each church as some have suggested apparent exlcusive maleness is a heavenly pattern from Revelation to be emulated here on earth for elders. And where are all our Jewish ministers?

The point being, I don't think you can equate the demographic details of Jesus' selection of His chosen twelve as the mandatory pattern for our selection of our clergy today. It was in large part driven by Jewish culture and tradition of the time and place and culture to which Jesus was born and lived.

And as has already been pointed out, the circumstances of the relationship between a Rabbi and his chosen twelve special apprentices, they would spend all their time, 24/7, with him. That included eating and sleeping together as a group. In those days women did not even eat with the men.

But the answer to your question is yes, Jesus could have chosen women just as certainly as he could have chosen a Samaritan, Greek or could have chosen 17. He was God, after all, and could have done anything within His power to do. But he worked within the constraints of the culture, times and the human body he lived and worked in.

Nonetheless, we must not overlook the reality that Jesus conducted himself most radically for the time and culture with regard to women. According to Luke, He did allow women to be a part of the larger group of disciples that followed him wherever he went. His first missionary that he commissioned was a Samaritan woman, that he had the audacity to even speak to. He forgave and healed and tolerated women touching his person. And according to EGW the first person he commissioned to proclaim, or preach the gospel of a risen Savior was a woman - Mary. And consider that he specifically treated Mary, the sister of Martha as a disciple. And despite Martha's protest and complaint against it, Jesus affirmed Mary as one who had chosen a good thing to sit at his feet as one of his disciples, as was the custom for disciples to do.

Understand all that in your reading of Galatians 3:26-29.

Tom

[olger]

Jesus chose 12-men because He wanted men as the leaders of His church. Like that's hard to figure out...

The real question is why twelve? Why not 10, or 7? Aha!

The answer is that He was re-creating Israel-a new Israel in which the loving requirements of OBEDIENCE would be met.

oG

[Tom Wetmore]

Pay attention Gerry... All of the questions count. You can't just pick and choose the ones you want and ignore the rest if you want to keep up in this class. :R

As I asked John, why are you selectively focusing on only their maleness? If the leaders of His church must be men, why just stop there in the context of imposing the characteristics of the apostles on the leadership, or the context of this topic - ministers of the church? Why shouldn't their ability to speak Hebrew be important? Shouldn't all of our church leaders and ministers be Jewish since none of the apostles were anything else. And shouldn't we have exactly 12? The early church apparently thought so since they immediately replaced Judas.

But if you want believe that it was all and only about being real men, go right ahead. I just happen to believe there was far more to it than that...

Tom

[Taylor]

Yes and since Jesus didn't have samaritan men as his disciples doesn't mean he was racist any more than the reason he chose only men as his 12 disciples meant he was against women in leadership. He simply worked with the times in which he lived as as you pointed out Tom, he was a radical in the incredible way he treated women.

[olger]

The beginnings of the Church are fixed in the foundation of the New Jerusalem, and are thus - immovable. The God of heaven does not build His Kingdom on human cultural nonsense, but rather upon the eternal principles of truth.

I am interested how people view things. Apparently some will look at the first Passover which fell upon the man of the house to administer and see an enduring principle that is linked to creation. Others are able to brush it aside on the basis of "cultural accomodation", whatever that is...

The Scriptures are plain regarding the differing roles of men & women. Both are needed, and each is different.

regards,

gcw

[D. Allan]

The beginnings of the Church are fixed in the foundation of the New Jerusalem, and are thus - immovable.

Foundations are useless unless they are built upon, Ol'ger'. And of course the past is immoveable. The future is fluid, and it is up to us to build on the foundations. We shouldn't stand around admiring them. Rooms are needed for people (women) to live in. Now! It is cold out there in the dark night.

[Woody]

Good one D. Allan. And even if we go back to the beginning ... we find that Adam failed. And the curse was upon HIM. Adam failed as he was beside his woman at the tree. Why was he even there with her? He should have been encouraging her not to go near the tree. Well ... OK. I know that if you believe in Ellen White you believe that he was not at her side. But the Bible is clear that he was. And if he wasn't ... then WHY WASN'T HE? He was suppose to be with her.

They were to be protectors of each other. They were to look out and support each other. Hey, they BOTH failed.

[Taylor]

I do believe that Jesus respected many cultural norms or he wouldn't have worn a robe, he wouldn't have lived like the locals etc. If Jesus were here today no doubt he would use the internet, listen to music on an ipod, and attend not just weddings but youth conferences, children's ministry workshops, and religious liberty conventions. The reasons Jesus didn't have women as part of his 12 isn't as clear cut as some may think. There are other reasons, namely appropriateness because he traveled so much and had to sleep wherever he could find the lodging. It wouldn't have looked right not only in that culture but in our culture as well, given the sleeping arrangements etc.

Women and men do have differing roles of nurturing and protecting though both should do both...they naturally do have differing roles, but those roles do not exclude giving the gospel in the form of preaching for women. If God could have his way, I am sure he would turn everyone into a preacher of the gospel, not just by lifestyle wittnessing but active preaching whether they were women or men, young or old, boys or girls. God has given some people incredible talents in various areas, and some are more talented in preaching than others and that is fine. That heavenly gift of preaching has also been obviously bestowed upon not only the young and the old but in some cases for men and women and even little children. (See the recent edition of the Adventist Reviews this month. It features child preachers..both the brother and sister.)God forbid that we not only ignore the gospel comission but also do not put to use the gifts he has given us for advancing the gospel, regardless of our age or gender. We have been given a comission that angels wish they could participate in. What a priviledge to preach this gospel wherever and whenever we are given the opportunity. But, because we haven't done our job as humans to preach this gospel, the rocks may have to cry out.

[Woody]

Good one D. Allan. And even if we go back to the beginning ... we find that Adam failed. And the curse was upon HIM. Adam failed as he was beside his woman at the tree. Why was he even there with her? He should have been encouraging her not to go near the tree. Well ... OK. I know that if you believe in Ellen White you believe that he was not at her side. But the Bible is clear that he was. And if he wasn't ... then WHY WASN'T HE? He was suppose to be with her.

They were to be protectors of each other. They were to look out and support each other. Hey, they BOTH failed.

[Woody]

Thank you Taylor.

Yes, we are all called. And I don't see Jesus as being someone who would say "Oh ... you can't do that after all ... you're a WOMAN".

[Beryl]

Quote:

That heavenly gift of preaching has also been obviously bestowed upon not only the young and the old but in some cases for men and women and even little children.

I have hesitated to put in my comments on this, but -- here they are.

I really believe that God can and does use anyone,-- male, female, adult or child, who is willing to be used by Him. I had an experience this last week which still leaves me humbled by the way God works. I was scheduled to preach the service in a particular church last Sabbath. At the beginning of the week I set about on my preparation, but it was not working out. I had a definite impression that I should speak on a certain subject. The more I hesitated, the stronger the impression. So, I began my preparation. I used the illustration of the needs of our body in having sufficient fresh air--going on to our need of the Holy Spirit, the Breath of God, and of what happened after the ascension, while the disciples (a group of about 120 men and women) waited and prayed, and put aside all of their differences, and threw out a challenge to them to allow the Holy Spirit into their lives, and then He would work with them to become a church that was united, and ready for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit to finish the work in their community.

As the congregation left after the service I was amazed at the number who, as they came to shake hands on the way out, remarked on how appropriate the service was. A group of them had been engaged in 10-days of special prayer that the Holy Spirit would work in their church and bring them all together with misunderstandings forgiven -- just what I had preached about. I truly believe that God guided in the preparation of that sermon to meet the needs of that church at that particular time.

Why didn't He impress the church pastor to preach on that subject? I don't know, but I do know that He filled my mind with the thoughts as the preparation progressed. Perhaps the pastor had a good knowledge of the problems, and had he preached the same service, challenged them with the same questions, they would have known that he knew the details of the problem and would have thought that he was "getting at them", whereas I was able to do it from a neutral point. I don't know, but I do know that He was in charge.

With all of the going back 2000 years in history to find out how we think God is wanting His church to act today, we are in great danger of overlooking the fact that God can AND DOES choose individuals, male or female, young or old, to do a particular task for Him. The fact of who He chose back in AD30 is not of much relevance to whom He chooses now. We see the signs of His coming becoming more relevant day by day. We can see nations lining up for how it has been prophysied the events of the last days will happen. A news item tonight about global warming showed pictures of the Antarctic just melting away with the Global warning. Northern Australia is just having floods that are unprecidented. From a political point of view, decisions are being made that seem to be placing the political powers in the right places for the final events. President Bush is very hopeful of peace in the Middle East before the end of the year -- and it could well happen. "And when they shall say, peace and safety, then will come sudden destruction..."

There is a work to be done --- let's get on and do it!

God bless,

Beryl

[Guest charis]

Wow, Beryl! That was an awesome accounting of what happened! I wish you could come preach in my church!

[Tom Wetmore]

Beryl,

IMHO, all of the arguments for or against are resoundingly trumped by your personal testimony - and that countless other women in ministry who have been called and specially blessed by the Holy Spirit to preach the Good News....

Thanks,

Tom

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I would be very interested in your understanding of 1 Tim. 2: 11-14 and 1 Cor. 14: 33-35.

If one is to take these two passages literally there are some real problems and some really screwy ideas...

Is this your best answer and explanation of these verses?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

...why, do you think, did Christ choose only men as apostles of the church? Couldn't Christ have chosen a woman to be an apostle if He had wanted to?

Probably the same reason he only chose twelve Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews.

Why not 6? Why no Samaritans? Why no Romans? Or Greeks? Was the ability to speak Hebrew/Aramaic a requirement to be an apostle? And if not, why not? Why do you think only their gender is relevant now?

Have you not observed that there is a consistent Biblical pattern of male leadership throughout the entire Bible?

Quote:

But more to your point that this choosing of the apostles was somehow to be a standard for our selection of our modern day clergy, should we limit ourselves to exactly twelve ministers?

Why is this "more to the point"? Do you think this is a good argument from the viewpoint of WO? It only makes people wonder why something like this would be said if those in favor of WO have good Bible arguments to support them.

To answer the question directly, there is nothing in the NT indicating that the churches should only have 12 ministers. The NT does not set a limit on the number of leaders the Christian churches of the world should have. But it is a fact that all of the elders and bishops and pastors in the NT were men and that the instructions of Paul are to appoint men, not women, as pastors and elders, etc.

Can you point to a single instance of a NT congregation's unquestionably having a female pastor or elder?

Quote:

The point being, I don't think you can equate the demographic details of Jesus' selection of His chosen twelve as the mandatory pattern for our selection of our clergy today. It was in large part driven by Jewish culture and tradition of the time and place and culture to which Jesus was born and lived.

And as has already been pointed out, the circumstances of the relationship between a Rabbi and his chosen twelve special apprentices, they would spend all their time, 24/7, with him. That included eating and sleeping together as a group. In those days women did not even eat with the men.

But the answer to your question is yes, Jesus could have chosen women just as certainly as he could have chosen a Samaritan, Greek or could have chosen 17. He was God, after all, and could have done anything within His power to do. But he worked within the constraints of the culture, times and the human body he lived and worked in.

Nonetheless, we must not overlook the reality that Jesus conducted himself most radically for the time and culture with regard to women. According to Luke, He did allow women to be a part of the larger group of disciples that followed him wherever he went. His first missionary that he commissioned was a Samaritan woman, that he had the audacity to even speak to. He forgave and healed and tolerated women touching his person. And according to EGW the first person he commissioned to proclaim, or preach the gospel of a risen Savior was a woman - Mary. And consider that he specifically treated Mary, the sister of Martha as a disciple. And despite Martha's protest and complaint against it, Jesus affirmed Mary as one who had chosen a good thing to sit at his feet as one of his disciples, as was the custom for disciples to do.

Understand all that in your reading of Galatians 3:26-29.

Tom

Those are good points, all showing that Jesus' choosing 12 men as apostles (13, counting Paul) was deliberate and not due simply to Jewish tradition or culture. Jesus did not show any unwillingness to go against culture when he believed it was God's will for Him to do so. Therefore, we may assume that if Jesus had believed that it was God's will for Him to choose 6 women and 6 men as apostles, Jesus would surely have done so.

As a result of Jesus' choice, the Bible says that the 12 tribes of Israel will be judged by 12 male Apostles and that the foundations of the city of God will have the name of those 12 male Apostles inscribed on them throughout eternity. Also, the head of the church and of the saved throughout all eternity will be a male, Jesus Christ. Jesus will forever be the God/man, not the God/woman.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I would be very interested in your understanding of 1 Tim. 2: 11-14 and 1 Cor. 14: 33-35.

Quite simply, I accept the explanation given by Angel Rodriguez, I believe it was, that said the original Greek used here does not mean absence of sound or no speaking at all. The nuance of the original meaning was more on the order of do not be contentious or disruptive.

Tom

If you accept it because you understand it, would you explain briefly what he says about it?

Of course it is true that Paul doesn't mean that women are not to utter any words at all in the church. One does not need to know Greek to be sure of this point. Paul's instructions at 1 Cor 11: 5 prove that. Women clearly may pray and prophesy. According to the NT, women may also teach individuals, as in Bible instruction.

1 Tim. 2: 11-14 and 1 Cor. 14: 34 prohibit woman from teaching, ruling and governing the local church.

Why?

Regards,

"John 3; 17"

[John317]

[Woody]

I think the Bible is clear that we should allow members to have slaves since Jesus supported this idea by saying that the slaves should obey their masters.

Why did Jesus support this tradition? Why didn't He speak out against it?

[John317]

I think the Bible is clear that we should allow members to have slaves since Jesus supported this idea by saying that the slaves should obey their masters.

Why did Jesus support this tradition? Why didn't He speak out against it?

Gays make this also a part of their argument in favor of the church having gay pastors. Gays make the connection between the Bible's statements about slavery, women, and gays, and say that it shows that both women and gays ought to be ordained as Christian pastors. Not to ordain them both, they say, is to accept the backward ideas of the 1st century as our standard. Since we don't accept the Bible's standard as far as slavery and women are concerned, why do so in regard to gays?

What would your response be?

By the way, gays also point to the wonderful work of gay pastors as demonstrable proof of the Lord's blessings on their ministry and calling.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Woody]

Quite honestly ... I see the gay issue as total avoidance. If you don't have a Biblical belief ... then connect the opposite view to the gay issue.

Sad.

If both sides participated in such mud slinging ... there wouldn't be a clean person around.

[John317]

...

Quote:

• A Bishop must be the husband of one wife and able to didasko (1 Timothy 3:2).

And the same qualification was indicated for a minister of the church (diakonos) which Phoebe, a woman, is identified as being.

There are many different kinds of ministers. The word, diakonos, is the ordinary Greek word for servant. By comparing its use in the NT, you can see that it refers to all kinds of ministry and service, from serving drinks to serving tables or distributing food, etc., to the poor. When it is used in the context of church officers, it is usually translated, "deacon" or "minister." The only time it is used in reference to a woman is in Romans 16: 1, and here it is most often translated servant or deacon or deaconess.

The proof that Phoebe was not a minister in the sense of being the pastor of a church is shown by the fact that Paul says in 1 Tim. 2: 12 he "permits NO woman to teach or have authority over a man." Now, Paul could not make that statement if Phoebe was an elder or pastor of a local church, with authority over the men in the church. The truth is that Bible scholars are agreed that we can't know exactly what kind of "servant" or "minister" Phoebe was in the local church, but one thing we can know for sure is that she was not the elder or pastor of the church in Corinth, because Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers, "As in all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says" (1 Cor. 14: 33b-34; ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, New Jerusalem Bible, Beck, Amplified.)

It should be noted that the apostle wrote this from a church where Priscilla-- a woman who, along with her husband, taught Apollos the Scriptures-- was an active member (see 16: 19). Priscilla was an intelligent, educated woman, yet Paul included her among the women whom he would not permit to exercise authority over a man. Can you imagine Paul writing this to a church at the same time that a woman, Phoebe, was the pastor of a local church? I can't.

Quote:

As I have pointed out before, the Greek phrase that is translated as "the husband of one wife" is literally translated "one man woman" which is to really a Greek expression that seems to describe a monogamous relationship. Certainly in the context in which it is written of moral/character qualifications, reading it as male gender exclusive concept makes no sense.

Except for the simple fact that, for some reason, you never come across any Biblical instructions that a church officer is to be "a one-man woman."

Also, one really should consider the fact that in all the references to elders, bishops, or overseers, and pastors, there are clear indications that a man is meant, not a woman. Would you be anxious to argue that this is merely coincidental?

In the context of 1 Tim. 3: 2, the word gune means wife and the word aner means husband. These are the same words that are used in Eph. 5: 23-24 where it says that "the husband is the head of the wife," "as the church is subject to Christ and as the wives are to be subject to their own husbands in everything."

Please notice that Eph 5: 32 significantly compares the husband's relationship to the wife with Christ's relationship to the Father and to the church. It's a point that we need to dwell much more on as we discuss this subject. Would it ever be appropriate for the church to try to take over the leadership role that belongs to Christ? How about if Christ were to try to take over the leadership role of the Father? If those things would never be right, would it be right for the wife to try to take over the leadership role of the husband? If the woman takes over this leadership role of the man in the church, would not the same thing happen in the family and in the home? What would be the effect of this on the family, society and the church?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

I think the Bible is clear that we should allow members to have slaves since Jesus supported this idea by saying that the slaves should obey their masters.

Why did Jesus support this tradition? Why didn't He speak out against it?

Are you sure you want to get off the subject of women in ministry?

To offer just a brief answer: Slavery, as also polygamy, was not originally in God's plan for mankind (despite Mormon beliefs to the contrary), yet God allowed those things to happen, and did not call for their abolition, although He knew that if people understood and practiced Christ-like love, they would not long practice either polygamy or slavery. Notice that neither God nor Christ, nor his disciples, gave commandments that people must have multiple wives or that the church must encourage or support slavery. God never said that He wanted people to have slaves or multiple wives. He said people may have them, but that is different from saying it was His will for His people to have them.

On the other hand, as far as women's role in the church is concerned, God gave clear directions, and those directions include the fact that the human leadership in the church is to consist of men, the husband is the head of the wife, and the divine leadership of the church is to be Christ.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Beryl]

Quote:

1 Tim. 2: 11-14 and 1 Cor. 14: 34 prohibit woman from teaching

So then, we must sack all of our female Sabbath School teachers?

You can't have it both ways.

Beryl

[Tom Wetmore]

...On the other hand, as far as women's role in the church is concerned, God gave clear directions, and those directions include the fact that the human leadership in the church is to consist of men...

It is only clear if you quite intentionally ignore the real evidence of women in leadership roles from even the OT, spin the ambiguities only one way, ignore the full meaning of passages and key words or selectively use only the meaning most closely matching your own predisposition, and selectively focus on irrelevant details that are not determinative to the issue. In short, it is clear that you are predisposed and biased toward only one outcome. There is plenty of evidence for those who are willing to see it.