History of Women Elders and Pastors

[olger]

Tom said:

Quote:

Of course, Gerry, I am sure you could get any number of stalawarts to deny the facts similar to the very recently assertion made by an Adventist leader from South America that there were no homosexuals in the Adventist Church in South America.

I hope you're not disappointed.

[there buster]

Quote:

What is Batchelor's reason for citing Luke 17: 28-30?

Read below:

Jesus said that before His return, conditions in the world at large would resemble conditions in Sodom. "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." Luke 17:28-30.

The very survival of our society and church leans heavily upon the family unit, where a basic truth must be clear-that men are fathers and women are mothers. Men and women are equal as humans but entirely unique as creatures. They are not only distinct genders sexually, but almost every aspect of their natures is different. Men should never try to be women, and women should never try to be men. These differences should be evident, maintained, and yes, even emphasized in everything from the way we walk and talk to the way we work and dress.

Well, that's all fascinating, except that you wanted a careful study of the Bible.

The passage in Luke says NOTHING about "the family unit," nor about men trying to be women, or women trying to be men

The text indicates why Jesus used the text, which has NOTHING TO DO with Bachelor's misuse of it.

The text actually refers to the routine actions of life, and says nothing at all about the matters you and Batchelor appear to want to talk about.

This is abuse of Scripture.

[there buster]

Quote:

It's certainly implied in the text concerning Sodom, considering what happened there. Jesus said that when He returns, it will be like Sodom. We know what happened in Sodom. For one thing, people were ignoring the gender lines. Doug's point is that this is what's happening now.

No, it is not implied. Jesus explicitly states the similarities between Sodom and the End He has in mind:

28Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

Read the list. Eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, and building-- according to you, this somehow 'implies' something about gender confusion.

I guess all of us who want to be 'straight' had better be careful about eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, and building-- wouldn't want anyone to think we were gay.

Such a reading is a clear indication of confusion, but it has nothing to do with gender.

That's nothing more than 'free association;' I say a word, you say whatever pops into your head. It's questionable therapy, and it's absurd hermeneutics.

[olger]

Very well Ed. Remember, the great problem with the Sodomites was not that their watches were off, but that their moral compass was broken.

oG

[there buster]

Quote:

I'll be glad to show you, my friend.

Deut. 22: 5 is related to Luke 17: 28-30 in terms of the gender lines being confused. Luke 17 says that just before Christ returns, it will be like it was in Sodom, where, you will remember, men were raping men. Deut. 22: 5 says that God wants us to keep the gender lines clear.

My friend,

Luke 17:28 says:

28Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

Luke 17 says NOTHING at all about gender being confused. On the contrary Jesus explicitly states what the similiarities will be : "they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded";

This is reinforced by the previous verse

27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage,

Quote:

Sodom, where, you will remember, men were raping men.

Whether I remember that or not is immaterial. It is not referenced in Luke, and Jesus explicitly states other, unrelated conditions.

Neither you nor Doug Batchelor is free to put words in the mouth of either Luke or Jesus.

Since there is NO REFERENCE to gender in the Luke passage, the Numbers passage has NO RELEVANCE.

Again, this is 'free association' hermeneutics. I say "Sodom," you say, "gender confusion."

Someone else might think of 'fire and brimstone' and lead the discussion in a whole different direction NEITHER OF WHICH HAS ANY RELEVANCE.

I challenge you: If you're so concerned about 'gender confusion' are you ready to lead a crusade to do away with choir and baptismal robes that are the same for men and women?

[John317]

Should Women Be Church Officers?

Most systematic theologies have not included a section on the question of whether women can be church officers, because it has been assumed through the history of the Christian church, with very few exceptions, that only men could be pastors or function as elders within the church. But in recent years a major controversy has arisen within the evangelical world, and specifically within the SDA church: may women as well as men be pastors? May they share in all the offices of the church?

We must affirm at the outset that the creation narrative in Genesis 1: 27 views men and women as equally created in the image of God. Therefore, men and women have equal value to God, and should be seen by us as having absolutely equal value as persons, and equal value to the church. Moreover, Scripture assures men and women of equal access to all the blessings of salvation (see Acts 2: 17-18; Gal. 3: 28). This is remarkably affirmed in the high dignity and respect which Jesus accorded to women in his earthly ministry.

We must also admit that evangelical churches have often failed to recognize the full equality of men and women, and thereby have failed to count women equal in value to men. The result has been a tragic failure to recognize that God often gives women equal or greater spiritual gifts than men, a failure to encourage women to have full and free participation in the various ministries of the church, and a failure to take full account of the wisdom that God has given to women with respect to important decisions in the life of the church. If the present controversy over women's roles in the church can result in the eradication of some of these past abuses, then the church as a whole will benefit greatly.

Yet the question remains, should women be pastors or elders in churches? (Or should they fill roles equivalent to that of an elder in non-SDA churches that have alternate forms of government?) While I personally have not come to a firm conclusion on this issue, I must say that it's clear the vast majority of churches in various societies throughout history have concluded the Bible does not permit women to function in the role of pastor or elder within the church. I am tending in the direction of opposition to women's ordination, because thus far I see the weight of Bible evidence as supporting that viewpoint fairly strongly. The reasons that seem to me to be most persuasive in answering this question are the following (the first one of which will be dealt with on this post, to be followed by other reasons later as I have time to add them):

1. 1 Timothy 2: 11-14. The single passage in Scripture that addresses this question most directly is 1 Timothy 2: 11-14:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

Here Paul is speaking about the church when it is assembled (see vv. 8-9) In such a setting, Paul says, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men" (. 12). These are the functions that are carried out by the elders of the church, and especially by what we know as a pastor in contemporary church situations. It is specifically these functions unique to elders and Paul prohibits for women in the church.

Next I'll look at some of the major objections that have been brought against this position.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[there buster]

Quote:

Very well Ed. Remember, the great problem with the Sodomites was not that their watches were off, but that their moral compass was broken.

They may not be the only ones with that problem.

And those who distort the Scripture to make a point weaken the ability of the Word to reach those who need it.

[there buster]

Quote:

You stopped your analysis prematurely. You only dealt with the first few paragraphs of his essay and did not say anything at all about the primary sections of it where Doug discussed 1 Tim 2: 12 and others. Why? Please go ahead and deal with the following, which you completely ignored for some reason:

Because it's a waste of time so long as 'free association' hermeneutics is your procedure.

The rest of the 'analysis' is a hodge-podge of OT and NT texts with only notional connections, as demonstrated repeatedly.

What Batchelor has done is start with a conclusion, and then assemble texts to support the position. Working that way, almost anything is possible, even patently absurd doctrines like the secret rapture.

You are using such a proof-texting approach, rather than the careful, detailed approach you claimed to want.

The burden of proof here is on those who want to bar women from ordination.

The ordination of ministers in the SDA church has little relationship to the 'laying on of hands' in the NT. Essentially, ordination lies in the hands of the conference presidents.

The early pioneers brought this about because some were going around claiming to be Adventist preachers when they were not teaching what the church believed. Ordination came about to clarify that.

The Bible knows nothing of conferences or conference presidents. That's something that we invented to deal with a situation the church faced. The church, having invented it, is free to change it.

Any actual study of 'laying on of hands' in the NT would not yield a systematic approach, because there was no such approach.

In Acts 13, a local congregation lays hands on a group and sends them out as missionaries. Does that mean that local congregations should have the power to ordain ministers?

Paul, without further official sanction, layed hands on elders in various places. Does that mean that charismatic evangelists should have the power to ordain ministers?

To try and make a direct connection between the NT and today is not possible-- well, except with 'free association hermeneutics.' But then, anything is possible that way.

[John317]

Quote:

I'll be glad to show you, my friend.

Deut. 22: 5 is related to Luke 17: 28-30 in terms of the gender lines being confused. Luke 17 says that just before Christ returns, it will be like it was in Sodom, where, you will remember, men were raping men. Deut. 22: 5 says that God wants us to keep the gender lines clear.

My friend,

Luke 17:28 says:

28Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

Luke 17 says NOTHING at all about gender being confused. On the contrary Jesus explicitly states what the similiarities will be : "they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded";

This is reinforced by the previous verse

27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage,

Quote:

Sodom, where, you will remember, men were raping men.

Whether I remember that or not is immaterial. It is not referenced in Luke, and Jesus explicitly states other, unrelated conditions.

Neither you nor Doug Batchelor is free to put words in the mouth of either Luke or Jesus.

Since there is NO REFERENCE to gender in the Luke passage, the Numbers passage has NO RELEVANCE.

Again, this is 'free association' hermeneutics. I say "Sodom," you say, "gender confusion."

Someone else might think of 'fire and brimstone' and lead the discussion in a whole different direction NEITHER OF WHICH HAS ANY RELEVANCE.

Jesus said that when He comes it will be like Sodom. It therefore behooves us to study to see what Sodom was like. What does the Bible say Sodom was like? Jude 7 makes clear that the people of Sodom gave "themselves over to sexual immorality" and went after strange flesh, an obvious reference to the men who wanted to have sex with the "men" who came as guests to Lot's house.

Jesus' statement means that just like those people of Sodom did not expect to be destroyed at that moment, so those living when Christ returns will not expect to be destroyed. They will be going about business as usual. But the record in Genesis and Jude 7 give us a good picture of what "business as usual" meant in Sodom. It clearly meant doing things that God condemns, such as "gender-bending," etc. .

Best regards,

"John 3: 17"

[there buster]

Quote:

When Jesus said that when He comes it will be like Sodom, we have to look to see what Sodom was like.

Only because you overlook what He explicitly states the likeness to be, and reinforced it with the previous verse.

There were many things associated with Sodom. Fortunately, Jesus told us exactly which ones he had in mind.

You called for a detailed examination, and now you attempt to ignore the details.

[John317]

Quote:

When Jesus said that when He comes it will be like Sodom, we have to look to see what Sodom was like.

Only because you overlook what He explicitly states the likeness to be, and reinforced it with the previous verse.

There were many things associated with Sodom. Fortunately, Jesus told us exactly which ones he had in mind.

You called for a detailed examination, and now you attempt to ignore the details.

I'm not attempting to ignore anything. See below.

On the other hand, you are ignoring most of Doug Batchelor's essay, having stopped prematurely, without discussing the main section of it where he dealt with 1 Tim. 2: 11-14, etc.

Jesus' statement means that just like those people of Sodom did not expect to be destroyed at that moment, so those living when Christ returns will not expect to be destroyed. They will be going about business as usual. But the record in Genesis and Jude 7 give us a good picture of what "business as usual" meant in Sodom. It clearly meant doing things that God condemns, such as "gender-bending," etc. .

[John317]

Quote:

You stopped your analysis prematurely. You only dealt with the first few paragraphs of his essay and did not say anything at all about the primary sections of it where Doug discussed 1 Tim 2: 12 and others. Why? Please go ahead and deal with the following, which you completely ignored for some reason:

Because it's a waste of time so long as 'free association' hermeneutics is your procedure.

Discuss 1 Tim 2: 9-15 and 1 Cor. 14: 34.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

You stopped your analysis prematurely. You only dealt with the first few paragraphs of his essay and did not say anything at all about the primary sections of it where Doug discussed 1 Tim 2: 12 and others. Why? Please go ahead and deal with the following, which you completely ignored for some reason:

...You are using such a proof-texting approach, rather than the careful, detailed approach you claimed to want...

See below for the beginning. I intend to study and examine every text referring to diakonos, diakonia, sunergon, presbuteros, episkopon, etc., including Romans 16: 1 and any other text anyone wants to bring up on the subject of women role in the church.

Should Women Be Church Officers?

Most systematic theologies have not included a section on the question of whether women can be church officers, because it has been assumed through the history of the Christian church, with very few exceptions, that only men could be pastors or function as elders within the church. But in recent years a major controversy has arisen within the evangelical world, and specifically within the SDA church: may women as well as men be pastors? May they share in all the offices of the church?

We must affirm at the outset that the creation narrative in Genesis 1: 27 views men and women as equally created in the image of God. Therefore, men and women have equal value to God, and should be seen by us as having absolutely equal value as persons, and equal value to the church. Moreover, Scripture assures men and women of equal access to all the blessings of salvation (see Acts 2: 17-18; Gal. 3: 28). This is remarkably affirmed in the high dignity and respect which Jesus accorded to women in his earthly ministry.

We must also admit that evangelical churches have often failed to recognize the full equality of men and women, and thereby have failed to count women equal in value to men. The result has been a tragic failure to recognize that God often gives women equal or greater spiritual gifts than men, a failure to encourage women to have full and free participation in the various ministries of the church, and a failure to take full account of the wisdom that God has given to women with respect to important decisions in the life of the church. If the present controversy over women's roles in the church can result in the eradication of some of these past abuses, then the church as a whole will benefit greatly.

Yet the question remains, should women be pastors or elders in churches? (Or should they fill roles equivalent to that of an elder in non-SDA churches that have alternate forms of government?) While I personally have not come to a firm conclusion on this issue, I must say that it's clear the vast majority of churches in various societies throughout history have concluded the Bible does not permit women to function in the role of pastor or elder within the church. I am tending in the direction of opposition to women's ordination, because thus far I see the weight of Bible evidence as supporting that viewpoint fairly strongly. The reasons that seem to me to be most persuasive in answering this question are the following (the first one of which will be dealt with on this post, to be followed by other reasons later as I have time to add them):

1. 1 Timothy 2: 11-14. The single passage in Scripture that addresses this question most directly is 1 Timothy 2: 11-14:

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

Here Paul is speaking about the church when it is assembled (see vv. 8-9) In such a setting, Paul says, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men" (. 12). These are the functions that are carried out by the elders of the church, and especially by what we know as a pastor in contemporary church situations. It is specifically these functions unique to elders and Paul prohibits for women in the church.

Next I'll look at some of the major objections that have been brought against this position.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

When Jesus said that when He comes it will be like Sodom, we have to look to see what Sodom was like.

Only because you overlook what He explicitly states the likeness to be, and reinforced it with the previous verse.

There were many things associated with Sodom. Fortunately, Jesus told us exactly which ones he had in mind.

Yes, Jesus was saying they will go on about their lives as if nothing unusual was happening. It will be business as usual. What was their "business as usual"? What were their lives like? Gen. 19 and Jude 7 give the answer loudly and clearly: they were committing abominations to God. They were disregarding God's arrangement for men and women. Men were using men for sex. Jesus compared the time when He returns to the time when Sodom was destroyed.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[there buster]

Quote:

What was their "business as usual"?

He tells us. We need not guess. And he reinforces it in the same passage.

So we have a choice: Jesus explicit words, or your speculation.

[there buster]

Quote:

you are ignoring most of Doug Batchelor's essay

I am unaware that his essay has been elevated to the status of Scripture-- which is what you said you wanted to examine.

[there buster]

So, show me somewhere that the NT addresses these issues:

What does the Bible say about organizing the church by conferences with conference presidents.

Also address the situation in Acts 13 where a local congregation laid hands on a group and sent them out as missionaries.

Is it your position that local congregations should have the power to ordain ministers?

Paul, without further official sanction, layed hands on elders in various places. Does that mean that charismatic evangelists should have the power to ordain ministers?

That's what actually happened in the NT concerning 'the laying on of hands.'

If we're prepared to adopt that model of 'ordination,' then whether they ordained women might be of interest. Or if ordination as we practice it is the invention of the Adventist church, then we need to recognize that, and deal with that reality.

[there buster]

Quote:

Next I'll look at some of the major objections that have been brought against this position.

Well, you go right ahead. But recognize that you're rehashing someone else's discussion, not actually examining the text.

[John317]

So, show me somewhere that the NT addresses these issues:

What does the Bible say about organizing the church by conferences with conference presidents.

Also address the situation in Acts 13 where a local congregation laid hands on a group and sent them out as missionaries.

Is it your position that local congregations should have the power to ordain ministers?

Paul, without further official sanction, layed hands on elders in various places. Does that mean that charismatic evangelists should have the power to ordain ministers?

That's what actually happened in the NT concerning 'the laying on of hands.'

If we're prepared to adopt that model of 'ordination,' then whether they ordained women might be of interest. Or if ordination as we practice it is the invention of the Adventist church, then we need to recognize that, and deal with that reality.

Those are not subjects under discussion here. Our discussion here is woman's role in the church. You've brought up topics that would be good on another thread.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[olger]

They may not be the only ones with that problem.

Could be, comrade. Did you have a point with this?

Thanks,

[Tom Wetmore]

...Next I'll look at some of the major objections that have been brought against this position.

It is time you stopped posting and started reading as you have repeatedly assured me you would. I have posted aplenty about the the references in the NT to female elders, ministers, apostles and disciples.

Tom

[John317]

Quote:

Next I'll look at some of the major objections that have been brought against this position.

Well, you go right ahead. But recognize that you're rehashing someone else's discussion, not actually examining the text.

Stay with us-- this is just the beginning. We'll be looking closely at about 100 verses, and any others that you want to discuss related to the subject of women's role in the church. In the meantime, would you like to share what your understanding is of 1 Tim. 2: 9-14 and 1 Cor. 14: 34, etc. ?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

...The ordination of ministers in the SDA church has little relationship to the 'laying on of hands' in the NT. Essentially, ordination lies in the hands of the conference presidents.

The early pioneers brought this about because some were going around claiming to be Adventist preachers when they were not teaching what the church believed. Ordination came about to clarify that.

The Bible knows nothing of conferences or conference presidents. That's something that we invented to deal with a situation the church faced. The church, having invented it, is free to change it.

Any actual study of 'laying on of hands' in the NT would not yield a systematic approach, because there was no such approach.

In Acts 13, a local congregation lays hands on a group and sends them out as missionaries. Does that mean that local congregations should have the power to ordain ministers?

Paul, without further official sanction, layed hands on elders in various places. Does that mean that charismatic evangelists should have the power to ordain ministers?

You might go to a good university library and check out two or three well-respected systematic theologies, which have chapters on church government. They will show you that the principles laid down in the NT for church government allow for several forms of government. There is nothing in the SDA form of church government that contradicts the Bible, unless it is that SDAs make women pastors and elders. There were no female pastors and elders in the NT church.

Maybe this is a subject we could take up further at some point on a separate thread dealing with church organization.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Tom Wetmore]

...Elders were to be husbands (men). "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…." 1 Timothy 3:2. "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife…." Titus 1:6. (Note: The terms for bishops and elders were interchangeable.)...

Originally Posted By: John317

There were no female pastors and elders in the NT church.

Oh yes there were...

The very same qualification of being a "husband of one wife" is listed by Paul for the diakonos, or ministers of the church. And as has repeatedly been pointed out, Phoebe, a woman, was a diakonos of the church.

Either this female minister of the church recognized and recommended to the believers in Rome by Paul is in direct violation to that with Paul's blessing or that phrase means something else. As I have suggested, the literal Greek idiomatic phrase was "one man woman". The syntax would suggest that either the word "one" is modified by the two words together "man woman" or that the number "one" modifies both words "man woman" together. This is the oneness of marriage as God created it as Jesus indicated. It is about monogamy that applies equally to both the man and the woman.

And as I have also already posted, Paul also refers to the female elders of the church at Ephesus. And as you have said, the terms for bishops and elders are used interchangeably. That would mean that the female elders in the Ephesus Church were either in violation of that male only rule or that it meant something else.

Tom

[John317]

...I agree with your assessment in your other post that it may not be necessarily helpful to use strong or inflammatory language in this topic. But I seldom hear that admonition from one of similar persuasion directed at comments by one who is like-minded. That sort of comment is almost always hurled at the other side and usually after a well placed strike on the Achilles heal of the protesting side. If that sort of comment is met with any reaction from the like-minded, it is ususally applauded or otherwise affirmed.

As a moderator, it doesn't matter whether I agree with someone's view point-- if they say something inappropriate, such as making personal attacks on others, I ask them to delete, and they always cooperate. I honestly haven't seen any of the kind of comments you are referring to from those opposed to WO, at least on the threads I moderate. I would appreciate it if you would copy and paste a couple of examples and send them to me by PM so I can see what you are referring to. Also, any time you see one, let me know. I don't mind.

By the way, I have to go to work in a little while but I will be back tomorrow to continue this discussion. I'm reading some of what you wrote on the other thread concerning, for instance, Romans 16: 1.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"