I didn't ignore them, I chose to answer another point/Scripture first intending to return to them later, and I forgot.
Ignoring implies deliberate intent - that was not the case, and you have no idea of my thoughts and intentions anyhow.
To answer that now; a) Scripture says they should be the husband of one wife - ONE, rather than several as some people had. Overseers need to set an example. b) If overseers/deacons/Ministers have to be a husband, they have to be married - someone want to tell the pope and catholic clergy they are disobeying Scripture? c) These verses also say that overseers should be able to manage their children, so they have to have kids and have to be able to control them. Any Minister married to a barren wife or who has unruly teenagers had better resign from the Ministry pretty quickly. d) This passage also says that these people should not like money or get drunk, not be argumentative etc etc. Presumably then, anyone with any of the above qualities or characteristics should not be a Minister? Maybe that is the case in some churches in which case, I applaud their consistency. But it seems clear to me that many people overlook these later verses. They read the verse which says that a deacon should be the husband of one wife and say "Scripture says a Minister should have a wife; a woman can't have a wife so this verse proves that a woman can't be a minister."
It doesn't prove it at all, and if you are going to apply one of the qualities in that passage to clergy, you have to apply them all. So like I say, get rid of anyone who is unmarried, childless etc.
I do apply all those qualifications to all deacons/elders. If they break any one of the qualifications, they are not fit for their job.
If I go to a restaurant and a waitress comes up to me and asks "what would you like to eat?", and I say "1 double cheese-burger with mushrooms and swiss cheese", the waitress (if she's doing her job) will bring me exactly what I ordered without asking "so not american cheese? and not a triple burger right? and you didn't want 17 burgers right?". My point is that she doesn't need to know what I DONT want, she just needs to know what I WANT. Likewise, imagine us asking God: "what do you want in a deacon/elder?" -- His answer inherently excludes anything He didn't ask for. HE ASKED FOR A HUSBAND, NOT A WIFE--therefore all deacons and elders must ONLY BE MEN. There is no discussion on this, no offense (seriously), but this is simple language analysis which can be comprehended by a 5th grader.
God asked for a man with children, who is hospitable, etc. etc...if a man does not fit EVERY SINGLE requirement, he cannot serve as that office!
In order for my wife to work at the hospital as a respiratory therapist, there are certain age, experience, and testing/certification requirements. If she does not fulfill ALL requirements, she can not legally work at the hospital.
Jesus set us an example and showed us how to live as his followers and as salt and light in the world; that doesn't include instruction about marriage, children and domestic arrangements. He wasn't married.
He taught on marriage in Mat. 19. But regardless, God has given us examples throughout the OT and NT or proper marriaged.
Yes, and none of those addressed the matter of marriage and home life. The disciples, who were the wage earners as fishermen and tax collectors, left their families and paid jobs to follow Jesus; what does that say?
The point was that just because it's not commanded directly, doesn't mean it's not necessary. We can reason with scripture that is given to us and make inferential conclusions.
That doesn't excuse deacons/elders from having wives/families. Sometimes there are 2 good/right things to be doing, but one must choose the greater of the responsibilities. Also, Paul states in 1 Cor. 9:5 that they may take along a wife during their ministries, and therefor they can also receive of the monetary blessings provided by the church to the preacher.
1) it says older women; what about the younger ones? 2) Going out to work does not dishonour the word of God. 3) women had no rights at that time and in that society and could do nothing except stay at home and create, and care for, the family. Where does it say it has to be women who do this today?
The older are to be an example, so that that the younger ones follow suit.
The problem is when women put their work ahead of their family. For example, daycare should not be raising the children--the mother should be the primary raiser along with the father when he's available.
It doesn't have to say that it "has" to be a certain way, to be a certain way. Or at the very least an
ideal.
Young widows.
Like I say, women had no rights then, so if a woman lost her husband, she had no income or means of support. Paul says nothing about asking if marriage is God's will for them - and in 1 Corinthians 7 he wished that everyone would remain unmarried so they could serve the Lord better - neither does he say anything about love or marrying for love. He just encourages women who have lost their husband to go and find another one!
Right, 1 Cor. 7 is a very important passage to balance this idea...but it's suggesting to the ones who cannot live outside of sin to get married and keep house. But you're right, it's not required that they get married...but if they do, they need to put their family as their primary "job".
Because it was written in a male dominated society; that's not what men did then.
Today, there are occasions where men are out of work and/or their wives have better paid jobs. In such cases the couple may well decide that it makes more sense for the man to be at home while his wife worked. Such a situation could not happen in Bible times; women could not learn and did not have highly paid jobs. So there is no Scripture which addresses the issue. It's a bit like looking in the Bible for advice about whether to buy an ipad/iphone, or what kind of car to buy. These things weren't even dreamed of in Bible times, so it's not surprising that there is no teaching at all on the subject.
As I mentioned, Proverbs 31 proves that women some women were regarded as being intellectual, crafty, and capable of a certain level of independence and generating income/goods for the family.
One's immediate society should never influence how apply scripture. God's commands/examples go above and beyond whatever society's norms are.
If society directed the church today, then it would be perfectly acceptable to to wear bikinis to worship services. It's everyday attire in the summer time in places like Tucson around college campuses.
American culture has crept much too far into the various churches--and not just with modesty or marital roles, with how money is spent, and what kind of distractions are provided that draw our focus away from God. But that's all a different discussion.
So what does that mean for us today?
Not all men are farmers or manual workers. Not all women have pain in childbirth, or at least, they may have varying amounts of pain. It certainly isn't the case that women are saved only if they have children - we are saved by Jesus, not childbirth.
Of course we are saved by Jesus, but since that verse uses strong language, it might be a little important to consider.
We're still the same creation as Adam and Eve. God created society, men have manipulated it for the worse. The principal or idea we can extract is that as men we should be diligent hard workers to provide for our family. That is the burden given to us because of the curse. That's our pain, whereas the women have pain in child bearing. You don't have to be a manual laborer to be in toil.
That's how it was then, and how it may be, mostly, today; certainly the bit about women bearing the children. It doesn't mean that God has commanded that men should have paid jobs and not stay at home. Some men do both and have paid jobs as nannies, carers or midwives - doing jobs that were always, traditionally, seen as "women's work", yet being paid for them. Scripture does not forbid, or address, this issue either.
The creation story is often referenced throughout scripture to discuss eternal principals. In Mat. 19, Jesus condemns the Jews because they were divorcing their wives for any ol' reason...He says "Moses gave you a certificate of divorce ...but from the beginning, this was not so". What He's saying is that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR TEMPORARY SOCIETY ALLOWS, God's definition of marriage still stands.
When you downplay the importance of creation order, and even the curse to follow...you can easily end up completely opposing God. People (in the church) use political correctness and the changing face of "human rights" to get away with sin...such as homosexual marriages. It's a shame.
Like I said, the NT domestic arrangements were not necessarily as they are today.
That doesn't make it right. That doesn't mean that it isn't God's ideal to have it a different way.
The problem is we're all lazy and we think we're entitled to certain things because of our society. God says in Luke 17 that we are to do what is right, and still consider ourselves "unworthy slaves".
