History of Women Elders and Pastors

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

...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.

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

Where do you find that Paul refers to female elders of the church of Ephesus? What is the Greek word used to specify them? Is it the same word as used in Acts 20: 17; 11: 30; 14: 23; Matt. 16: 21?

I will be more than happy to discuss Romans 16: 1 as well as others tomorrow after work.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[there buster]

Quote:

We'll be looking closely at about 100 verses

The next one you do will be the first one.

So far, you've avoided what the verse actually says in favor of speculation.

[there buster]

Quote:

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,

Non-responsive. If I want to get a good systematic theology, I would simply go to my bookcase. Since I have several good friends who have taught at the seminary, and I update my library on a regular basis, I don't lack for such resources.

No systematic theology is going to change the history of the SDA church. Our system of ordination is our invention. To say 'it is not contradictory' is a little disingenuous. Of course it isn't. As Bart Ehrmann and others have been demonstrating with their scholarship, the notion that there was one church structure that everyone followed is simply mistaken.

And the history of the church in Acts confirms this.

You keep dodging the evidence IN THE BIBLE ITSELF.

You've got the whole question backwards, anyway. There are clear indications of women in leadership, in both the OT (Deborah) and the NT. The fact that ANY examples exist in male-dominated cultures is enough to indicate that God is OK with it.

[olger]

Quote:

Where do you find that Paul refers to female elders of the church of Ephesus? What is the Greek word used to specify them?

He is probably referring to Titus 2:3, where Paul warns older women to not be gossips.

[John317]

Quote:

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,

Non-responsive. If I want to get a good systematic theology, I would simply go to my bookcase. Since I have several good friends who have taught at the seminary, and I update my library on a regular basis, I don't lack for such resources.

No systematic theology is going to change the history of the SDA church. Our system of ordination is our invention. To say 'it is not contradictory' is a little disingenuous. Of course it isn't. As Bart Ehrmann and others have been demonstrating with their scholarship, the notion that there was one church structure that everyone followed is simply mistaken.

And the history of the church in Acts confirms this.

Friend, this is a subject to be taken up on a different thread, having to do with church forms of government, not with women's role in the church.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

Where do you find that Paul refers to female elders of the church of Ephesus? What is the Greek word used to specify them?

He is probably referring to Titus 2:3, where Paul warns older women to not be gossips.

OK, maybe so, but Tom mentioned that Ephesians mentions female elders. But I do not find it, and I am wondering where he thinks he sees it there.

In Titus 2: 2 and 3, Paul is instructing Titus to teach "older men" and "older women," not officers in the church. Verse 4 speaks of the "younger women." The word for "older women," presbutis, occurs only here in the entire NT. It is Strongs # 4247. It means "old woman." See Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT. The word occurs numerous times in extra-biblical literature where it always simply means "old woman." The context of Titus 2: 3 also shows that it is referring to old women, not officers of the church. A good hint that this is so is the fact that not a single competent translation of the Bible translates it by any other words than "older women" or "aged women," etc.

By the way, if Paul meant a female "elder" he would have simply used the word presbuteres, a word that, however, does not occur in the NT. The masculine form of the noun, referring to male officers in the church, is presbuteros, which occurs many times

Thank you, olger.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Beryl]

Quote:

You've got the whole question backwards, anyway. There are clear indications of women in leadership, in both the OT (Deborah) and the NT. The fact that ANY examples exist in male-dominated cultures is enough to indicate that God is OK with it.

You are correct. I am just completing the reading of a book, printed by the Review and Herald (Autumn House Publishing by Richard Coffen), "Wake Up Your Bible Study - Getting the Most From Your Time with God." Richard Coffen takes us right back to the cultural changes that take place, naturally, through the centuries -- and how God deals with them, and works with the individuals and His people through the changes in the culture.

I am also reading my Bible through, from cover to cover, and picking up things that I had not noticed before. For instance, we read through those books as though it is just a continuing story. However, in one instance we find that 300 years had gone by! How much does culture (and knowledge) change in that time?

We are about to enter the year 2008. 300 years ago it was only the year 1708! How much has our culture and knowledge changed since then? Do we still "do church" the same as we did back then? Have our methods pf communication changed? Yes. Have we, as a church, used the changes in order to proclaim the gospel to the world? Yes, we have.

Back in 1708 women in general were still being denied education, the vote etc. There was not much a woman could do but get married -- whether or not real love was involved, and have a large family, and, if the husband was abusive -- well, that was his right!

Do you want us to go back to those days? NO! and God doesn't either. Today we have a different culture. Today IN THE HOME the husband is still head of the household, as God decreed, and as in Paul's day (see my last posting under "Women in Ministry"), but in our dealings with society we are treated equally -- we have voting rights, we can have our own bank accounts, we can climb to the heights of wherever we want to go. We live in a culture where women are accepted in any role they wish to serve.

We have women who have felt the call to serve in the ministry -- they KNOW that God has called them. I have heard their stories -- and seen the results of their work.

There are female Pastors in other denominations. Our own lady ministers cannot use that title, legitimately, unless they have been "commissioned (ordained, in fact)". They are looked upon as being of a lower standard of education, etc. in conparison to the female Pastors of other denominations. THAT SHOULD NOT BE! Our female ministers, in the majority of cases, have a much higher level of theological education than the female ministers of other churches. They need to be able to be accepted on at least a level footing as other ministers.

We do not have a 2-tiered level of eldership in this Division as you have in America. Australians in general have a problem with the USA mixup of titles -- church elder and ordained elder. When they hear the word "elder" they immediately think of a church elder.

The title "Pastor" is understood by society as one who has been ordained, commissioned, (or whatever other name you like to give it) by their church organisation. Our wonderful lady ministers SHOULD be able to be ordained (which they are in reality in the commissioning service, only you can't use the word "ordained"!). It is time that we scrapped the make-belief and treated a woman minister as she should be treated -- co-workers with the men.

Beryl

[John317]

Quote:

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,

Non-responsive. If I want to get a good systematic theology, I would simply go to my bookcase. Since I have several good friends who have taught at the seminary, and I update my library on a regular basis, I don't lack for such resources.

OK, then, I don't mean to be rude, but if that is true, why are you asking me this kind of question? That is the kind of thing you should know by the time you finish your second year of theology. At least you should be able to know where to find the information that will give you the correct information about forms of church government. The NT does not lay down many exact rules about the form of church government. It lays down principles. There are church governments that follow more closely the Bible pattern than others, but as long as the church is not doing something in opposition to the directions of the Bible, churches are free to form governments as they find necessary to fit the situation. But as I said, this is really a subject that we should discuss in greater detail on another thread.

Quote:

You keep dodging the evidence IN THE BIBLE ITSELF.

See below, taken from a recent post you may not have seen:

In Titus 2: 2 and 3, Paul is instructing Titus to teach "older men" and "older women," not officers in the church. Verse 4 speaks of the "younger women." The word for "older women," presbutis, occurs only here in the entire NT. It is Strongs # 4247. It means "old woman." See Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT. The word occurs numerous times in extra-biblical literature where it always simply means "old woman." The context of Titus 2: 3 also shows that it is referring to old women, not officers of the church. A good hint that this is so is the fact that not a single competent translation of the Bible translates it by any other words than "older women" or "aged women," etc.

By the way, if Paul meant a female "elder" he would have simply used the word presbuteres, a word that, however, does not occur in the NT. The masculine form of the noun, referring to male officers in the church, is presbuteros, which occurs many times

Quote:

You've got the whole question backwards, anyway. There are clear indications of women in leadership, in both the OT (Deborah) and the NT. The fact that ANY examples exist in male-dominated cultures is enough to indicate that God is OK with it.

I'll be discussing this later in a separate post devoted to the subject of women leadership in the Bible, but right now, let me answer you briefly by saying this. Deborah and Huldah were prophetesses, just as Ellen White was a prophetess. God, not the church, chooses a prophet. The church did not choose Ellen White. The church does not elect a prophet. The prophet speaks for God to the world and the church. The prophet is God's mouthpiece. She was not an officer of the church. The church elects officers of the church. The officers speak for the church to the church.

But yes, there were rare exceptions to the overwhelming pattern of male leadership in the Old Testament. Notice that neither Deborah and Huldah prophesied privately, not publicly to a congregation of people. But again, notice they were not priests, a position comparable to pastor or elder in the church.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

You've got the whole question backwards, anyway. There are clear indications of women in leadership, in both the OT (Deborah) and the NT. The fact that ANY examples exist in male-dominated cultures is enough to indicate that God is OK with it.

You are correct.

I'll be discussing this later in a separate post devoted to the subject of women leadership in the Bible, but right now, let me answer you briefly by saying this. Deborah and Huldah were prophetesses, just as Ellen White was a prophetess. God, not the church, chooses a prophet. The church did not choose Ellen White. The church does not elect a prophet. The prophet speaks for God to the world and the church. The prophet is God's mouthpiece. She was not an officer of the church. The church elects officers of the church. The officers speak for the church to the church.

But yes, there were rare exceptions to the overwhelming pattern of male leadership in the Old Testament. Notice that neither Deborah and Huldah prophesied privately, not publicly to a congregation of people. But again, notice they were not priests, a position comparable to pastor or elder in the church.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[Taylor]

Well put Beryl, but the problem is that there are people who think that No women should be a pastor under any circumstance, no matter if they are ordained or not. There are many pastors, (male) who aren't ordained...as it takes time to get to "ordination". They are not ordained right our of seminary but it takes a few years, usually. They are still working as pastors. However, some who oppose ordination of women oppose any women pastors whether they are ordained or not. Others jut oppose ordination but have no problem with women pastors. Why we have to split hairs I shall never understand. But since we seem to have to do...then at least the GC is supportive of women eldesr and full time employed women pastors. Thankfully they have recognized God's calling on these women and they want to not only nurture it but provide employment where they can be of service. I am sure ordination will follow but if it doesn't, they can still fulfill their calling that God has given them.

[there buster]

Quote:

why are you asking me this kind of question?

Because you refuse to answer. And given your penchant for ignoring what a text says, in favor of speculation, I have no idea what sort of answer you're going to provide, if you ever do.

Quote:

The NT does not lay down many exact rules about the form of church government. It lays down principles. There are church governments that follow more closely the Bible pattern than others, but as long as the church is not doing something in opposition to the directions of the Bible, churches are free to form governments as they find necessary to fit the situation. But as I said, this is really a subject that we should discuss in greater detail on another thread.

Irrelevant.

The point is simple. The SDA church defines ordination within the church. What we defined, we can change. No excursion into 'church organization' will change that simple fact.

Quote:

In Titus 2: 2 and 3, Paul is instructing Titus to teach "older men" and "older women," not officers in the church. Verse 4 speaks of the "younger women." The word for "older women," presbutis, occurs only here in the entire NT. It is Strongs # 4247. It means "old woman." See Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT. The word occurs numerous times in extra-biblical literature where it always simply means "old woman." The context of Titus 2: 3 also shows that it is referring to old women, not officers of the church. A good hint that this is so is the fact that not a single competent translation of the Bible translates it by any other words than "older women" or "aged women," etc.

Fascinating. Now we have an excursion into what "Paul didn't say."

Nevertheless, we have a clear record in Acts.

Paul and others received the laying on of hands from the congregation in Antioch.

So do you favor letting individual congregations ordain ministers--as Antioch did? That's a scriptural example.

We have decided, for better or worse, to give that power to conference presidents. Where do you find a scriptural precedent for that?

We don't need a long thread about church government. All we need is to examine the actual history of ordination in the SDA church. We invented it; we can change it.

[John317]

Beryl,

It's interesting to discuss societal changes, but this is really irrelevant unless one believes that Paul's writings about women's role was culturally conditioned. Do you believe Paul wrote what he did about this because of the condition of the society of his time?

I believe the issue can only be solved theologically, not culturally.

If we say that Paul wrote about women's role in the church as he did because of the condition of culture, what's to keep us from making the same argument with the same results about homosexuality? As you must realize, that is an argument that is already being made, and with effective results in a number of churches. In fact, I recently read one post on CA making that suggestion about homosexuality.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

If you want to discuss the subject of women's ordination and what the Bible says about it, I'll be glad to discuss it.

Off to work now. Good night. Be back tomorrow.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[John317]

Quote:

In Titus 2: 2 and 3, Paul is instructing Titus to teach "older men" and "older women," not officers in the church. Verse 4 speaks of the "younger women." The word for "older women," presbutis, occurs only here in the entire NT. It is Strongs # 4247. It means "old woman." See Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT. The word occurs numerous times in extra-biblical literature where it always simply means "old woman." The context of Titus 2: 3 also shows that it is referring to old women, not officers of the church. A good hint that this is so is the fact that not a single competent translation of the Bible translates it by any other words than "older women" or "aged women," etc.

Fascinating. Now we have an excursion into what "Paul didn't say."

Do agree with the above analysis of Titus 2: 3? If not, feel free to weigh in on what Paul is saying in Titus 2: 3.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[there buster]

Quote:

Deborah and Huldah were prophetesses, just as Ellen White was a prophetess. God, not the church, chooses a prophet. The church did not choose Ellen White. The church does not elect a prophet. The prophet speaks for God to the world and the church. The prophet is God's mouthpiece. She was not an officer of the church. The church elects officers of the church. The officers speak for the church to the church.

The church does not elect pastors either. So that entire paragraph says nothing about how pastors get ordained.

Quote:

But again, notice they were not priests, a position comparable to pastor or elder in the church.

I was hoping you'd get to that. A priest is one who stands between the worshiper and God.

In the OT, the worshiper could not enter the Holy Place or the Most Holy Place. So the priest went in as his representative. In theological terms, the priest is the mediator; he mediates the benefits of salvation to the worshiper.

Jesus, as our High Priest in Heave, intercedes with God for us.

You say that priesthood is comparable to being a pastor. So, I take, it, you mean that a pastor stands between the worshiper and God, and the pastor is the worshiper's representative.

You might as well answer these questions right away, because I'm going to insist on an answer.

Is it your position that a pastor is the mediator between the worshiper and God?

Is it your position that a pastor is the worshiper's representative to God?

Another point.

Did that old system pass away at the cross or did it not?

Are we still bound to make those sacrifices, maintain a temple, celebrate the feast days, and so on?

Priests offered the sacrifices, carried the incense, tended the lamps, blew trumpets--

What part of a pastor's duties are 'comparable?'

[John317]

The point is simple. The SDA church defines ordination within the church. What we defined, we can change. No excursion into 'church organization' will change that simple fact.

Of course the church has the power to change it its form and structure.

Quote:

...Paul and others received the laying on of hands from the congregation in Antioch.

So do you favor letting individual congregations ordain ministers--as Antioch did? That's a scriptural example.

I support the way our church has decided to do it. I don't support the power of local congregations to ordain their own ministers apart from the authorization of the conferences.

Quote:

We have decided, for better or worse, to give that power to conference presidents. Where do you find a scriptural precedent for that?

We don't need a long thread about church government. All we need is to examine the actual history of ordination in the SDA church. We invented it; we can change it.

Yes, the church could change it, but it would need to be changed through the proper channels, that is, by a vote of the world church in general conference.

Gotta go off to bed now.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[there buster]

Quote:

Do agree with the above analysis of Titus 2: 3? If not, feel free to weigh in on what Paul is saying in Titus 2: 3.

Why don't we look at Titus 2:9. All part of the same discussion which begins with verse 1:

1You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

He then says

9Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

Whaddya think? Is any of that 'culturally conditioned?' Or is it all equally applicable today, in the most literal sense?

[Taylor]

Beryl,

It's interesting to discuss societal changes, but this is really irrelevant unless one believes that Paul's writings about women's role was culturally conditioned. Do you believe Paul wrote what he did about this because of the condition of the society of his time?

I believe the issue can only be solved theologically, not culturally.

If we say that Paul wrote about women's role in the church as he did because of the condition of culture, what's to keep us from making the same argument with the same results about homosexuality? As you must realize, that is an argument that is already being made, and with effective results in a number of churches. In fact, I recently read one post on CA making that suggestion about homosexuality.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

Homosexuality is a sin..that is very clear in many places of the Bible. We are to love the people but hate the sin. Women being pastors is not a sin. The two things are not comparable in any way. That is like saying that because there are men that are pedifiles then a man should never be a teachers or have any contact with children. One fact or problem doens't exclude the beautify of ministry that man can do as a teacher. If it is a sin for women to be pastors, then it would be interesting because God has called many of them (I won't say all of them because that would elevate pastors' to a level of somehow being right all the time or something...and they are humans and can make mistakes too.). Tom has presented much evidence from scripture which make this clear and there are EGW quotes that also say that women should prepare for the ministry. He posted those quotes about a year ago as well.

Some things are cultural and some things are missunderstood, and some things are laws that only applied to certain times such as some of the levitcal laws. If nothing is cultural and nothing is for a specific purpose and nothing is for a specific time than all women should wear head coverings and all men and women should wear robes and men should wear beards etc. Tom has pointed out many times many texts and the meanings, Beryl has posted the why Paul said for "women to be quiet" and many others have posted that the GC is in support of women pastors becuase they do understand that to be Biblical.

But just the same, we love you guys that are against women pastors. We know you are sincere and that you have studied it out and you are absolutley convinced this is the truth with no other option. Just please accept that there are many on the opposite side of the fence from you who are equally sincere and have studied it out as well and are following the Lord to the very best of their heart, mind and soul. Of course that doens't make either one of us (on either side of the fence) infallable. We could both be wrong, but at least we can all rest in the Lord knowing He is the judge and that we are both wanting to do his will with our whole hearts.

[John317]

Quote:

Deborah and Huldah were prophetesses, just as Ellen White was a prophetess. God, not the church, chooses a prophet. The church did not choose Ellen White. The church does not elect a prophet. The prophet speaks for God to the world and the church. The prophet is God's mouthpiece. She was not an officer of the church. The church elects officers of the church. The officers speak for the church to the church.

The church does not elect pastors either. So that entire paragraph says nothing about how pastors get ordained.

Yes, it is the church (humans) who elect or select the pastors and elders and deacons. This is in contrast with prophets, who are selected directly by God. For instance, no one voted to make Ellen White a prophet. No one voted or decided to make Samuel or Isaiah prophets. This is what I mean.

Reply,

"John 3: 17"

[there buster]

Quote:

I support the way our church has decided to do it. I don't support the power of local congregations to ordain their own ministers apart from the authorization of the conferences.

I see. So the church in Antioch -- even though their action is recorded approvingly in Scripture, and even though it resulted in great benefit to the church-- is not our example.

Or, put another way, we are not bound to the various procedures described in the NT.

[Taylor]

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Beryl,

It's interesting to discuss societal changes, but this is really irrelevant unless one believes that Paul's writings about women's role was culturally conditioned. Do you believe Paul wrote what he did about this because of the condition of the society of his time?

I believe the issue can only be solved theologically, not culturally.

If we say that Paul wrote about women's role in the church as he did because of the condition of culture, what's to keep us from making the same argument with the same results about homosexuality? As you must realize, that is an argument that is already being made, and with effective results in a number of churches. In fact, I recently read one post on CA making that suggestion about homosexuality.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

Homosexuality is a sin..that is very clear in many places of the Bible. We are to love the people but hate the sin. Women being pastors is not a sin. The two things are not comparable in any way.

You may have misunderstood me. It was probably my fault. Let me try to be clearer. What I am saying is that if we argue that Paul's statements about women's role in the church is due to the culture, we can also argue that Paul's statements about homosexuality are due to culture. I am certainly not comparing women as pastors to homosexuality.

I am comparing arguments. I am not comparing women to gays.

Thanks for helping me clarify this.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[there buster]

Quote:

no one voted to make Ellen White a prophet. No one voted or decided to make Samuel or Isaiah prophets

No one votes to ordain pastors. No matter how many signatures we got on a petition, no matter how many votes someone might get at constituency, no votes will make someone a pastor.

[Taylor]

Ok Thanks that is helpful. I still think one thing is clearly societal and one thing is clearly sin. I just don't see women pastors as a sin in any context but homosexuality is a sin in every context..at least that is way I understand it. And I don't think you can ever find scriptural support for homosexuality but Tom has posted much support from both the Bible and EGW for women in ministry.

[there buster]

Quote:

I completely understand why the church took the position it took as they would like to remain united on as many issues as possible. That is admirable.

Yes and no. The vote was not directly on women's ordination. It was whether to let different world divisions make their own choice in these matters.

And the overwhelming vote was that there could be no variation.