Women as elders in a church?

[Vanellus]

Strong in Him.

Well I thought "it comes out as X said <Bible quotation>" was clear enough. There is an unfortunate genetic fallacy aspect to your #60 along the lines of no one else had ever written what you did so you must be unusual (and so wrong).

Your nitpicking point about "a lack of Bible reference" fails since I had prefaced the passage with "in the previous chapter". Did you miss that? You quoted it. No one else has ever nitpicked with me as you have done here - but aren't we all made unique and so allowed by God to be unique?

Given that you expressed a strong desire to understand the passage in 1 Tim 2, I'm surprised you have not posed a question about it in the Christian scriptures forum as I suggested. Will you do that?

Given that you are adopting an unnecessary confrontational attitude to me I will not communicate with you again in this thread.

 

[Strong in Him]

Strong in Him.

Well I thought "it comes out as X said <Bible quotation>" was clear enough. There is an unfortunate genetic fallacy aspect to your #60 along the lines of no one else had ever written what you did so you must be unusual (and so wrong).

Your nitpicking point about "a lack of Bible reference" fails since I had prefaced the passage with "in the previous chapter". Did you miss that? You quoted it. No one else has ever nitpicked with me as you have done here - but aren't we all made unique and so allowed by God to be unique?

Given that you expressed a strong desire to understand the passage in 1 Tim 2, I'm surprised you have not posed a question about it in the Christian scriptures forum as I suggested. Will you do that?

Given that you are adopting an unnecessary confrontational attitude to me I will not communicate with you again in this thread.

I'm sorry that you saw it as confrontational, when all I wanted were answers to the questions about a passage which you quoted.

I can't help that I didn't immediately get the point you made about quoting posts. It is a fact, however, that I have not come across this in all my time on these forums. I never said you were wrong; that is your interpretation. I was just stating a fact.

And to be honest, if we discussed this for the next couple of years, I doubt it would change anything. That's how debates on women's ministry usually end up - find a church that agrees with your position on the subject.

Goodbye.

 

[Vanellus]

A priest, in the Christian Church, is just an elder. The English word "priest" is a contraction of the Greek presbyteros, elder.

The point of using "the Church of God" is that the Church is bigger than Anglicanism.

No.

No.

I am arguing that if you want to make anything of the gender of the word "man" in that verse (which I don't, particularly) the most precise reading of the Greek would be that the distorters of truth and savage wolves Paul speaks of would be men, specifically. And that to go beyond that would be reading more into the text than is there.

For what it's worth, I think we don't know what the gender mix of the Ephesian elders was; that it is at least possible - grammatically and from what we know from early church practice - that it was not exclusively men; and that gender was not particularly at issue in the point Paul was making here.

Yes you are right that the English "priest" derives from the Greek presbyteros. However, an elder in (say) a Baptist church is regarded quite differently from (say) a priest in the Roman church. The Vatican's catechism looks back to Aaron's priesthood as a prefiguring of the priesthood of the New Covenant. There is another word used for priest in the NT: hiereus and I believe that it is that word, rather than presbyteros, which is generally used to refer to OT priests and Jesus as our high priest. There is a common phrase "priests end elders" or similar in the NT. Apparently the Jewish elders had more of a civil rather than ceremonial role. So it's a pity that the English word "priest" is used for something that isn't a presbyter=elder. It's the Roman idea of a priest that I have doubts about for the Christian church, with it's connotation of making sacrifices. The Vatican's catechism justifies this view by quoting Heb 5:1 "The priests are "appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." Hmm! Those are not priests in the NT church in Heb 5:1! I think sometimes the Anglican church prefers to use the word presbyter rather than priest - a good choice imo.

I agree that the Church is bigger than Anglicanism but are you bigger than Anglicanism? You claimed to be a priest=elder in the Church of God so does that mean you think you are a priest=elder of the Roman church or the Orthodox churches, since the Church of God is bigger than the Anglican church.

You are right that Paul wasn't making a point about gender in Acts 20 but the fact that he was confident that any sized subset of the Ephesian elders, both at the time and in the future, would all be men means the Ephesian elders were all men.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes you are right that the English "priest" derives from the Greek presbyteros. However, an elder in (say) a Baptist church is regarded quite differently from (say) a priest in the Roman church.

That is true, and goes to the point I was making earlier about how offices have changed over time.

That said, I understand my own role to be at least an expression of NT eldership; so when people say "women can't be elders" I do take that as a direct statement on the validity of my own ministry.

I think sometimes the Anglican church prefers to use the word presbyter rather than priest - a good choice imo.

In my experience this is a somewhat archaic usage. It is still printed in prayer books and the like, but no priest I know refers to him or herself as a "presbyter." Probably because that would likely cause us to be confused with our presbyterian colleagues.

I agree that the Church is bigger than Anglicanism but are you bigger than Anglicanism? You claimed to be a priest=elder in the Church of God so does that mean you think you are a priest=elder of the Roman church or the Orthodox churches, since the Church of God is bigger than the Anglican church.

No; but it means that I think valid priesthood is a shared reality between those churches, which are all part of the one Church.

For what it's worth, the term "priest in the Church of God" is a common term in Anglican usage. My licence to minister in my current parish says: "We do... give and grant to you our Licence and Authority to Preach the Word of God, read the Common Prayers and perform all other Ministerial duties belonging to the office of a Priest in the Church of God..." (emphasis mine).

You are right that Paul wasn't making a point about gender in Acts 20 but the fact that he was confident that any sized subset of the Ephesian elders, both at the time and in the future, would all be men means the Ephesian elders were all men.

I think you're reading way, waaaay too much into that.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes you are right that the English "priest" derives from the Greek presbyteros. However, an elder in (say) a Baptist church is regarded quite differently from (say) a priest in the Roman church. The Vatican's catechism looks back to Aaron's priesthood as a prefiguring of the priesthood of the New Covenant. There is another word used for priest in the NT: hiereus and I believe that it is that word, rather than presbyteros, which is generally used to refer to OT priests and Jesus as our high priest. There is a common phrase "priests end elders" or similar in the NT. Apparently the Jewish elders had more of a civil rather than ceremonial role. So it's a pity that the English word "priest" is used for something that isn't a presbyter=elder. It's the Roman idea of a priest that I have doubts about for the Christian church, with it's connotation of making sacrifices. The Vatican's catechism justifies this view by quoting Heb 5:1 "The priests are "appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins." Hmm! Those are not priests in the NT church in Heb 5:1! I think sometimes the Anglican church prefers to use the word presbyter rather than priest - a good choice imo.

I agree that the Church is bigger than Anglicanism but are you bigger than Anglicanism? You claimed to be a priest=elder in the Church of God so does that mean you think you are a priest=elder of the Roman church or the Orthodox churches, since the Church of God is bigger than the Anglican church.

You are right that Paul wasn't making a point about gender in Acts 20 but the fact that he was confident that any sized subset of the Ephesian elders, both at the time and in the future, would all be men means the Ephesian elders were all men.

The Baptist "elder" is usually just a member of the church council or vestry in any other denomination.

 

[Vanellus]

From the 1689 Baptist Confession:

A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.

In my experience it has been the elders who officiated at the Lord's table.

 

[Paidiske]

And in the churches which call their elders "priests," we also have as part of our role, presiding at communion.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Baptist "elder" is usually just a member of the church council or vestry in any other denomination.

Many denominations are composed of individual churches which are organized with boards of directors to manage the secular aspects of the church. Sometimes these folks are called "deacons" (very popular with Congregationalists and many Baptists) and sometimes they are called "elders" (popular with Presbyterians, who generally draw a distinction between "ruling elders" (board members) and "teaching elders" (professional ministers who are hired by the board). In many cases, the pastor or priest or minister is not considered to be an elder or a deacon. Thus, it is reasonable to hire these individuals without cognizance of any biblical restrictions.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

My post has been prompted by a thread in the non-discussion forum, Requests for Christian Advice. The thread question was posed by jameshjr and PloverWing replied, included this statement:

"There appear to have been reasons for Paul to advise Timothy's church to have married men as elders in Timothy's particular church. Whether this restriction applies to churches other than Timothy's, and how to incorporate insights from other writings like Galatians 3 and Romans 16, is a matter of disagreement among Christians."

I was curious about what these reasons (if they exist) are and whether or not the same reasons applied in Titus' church. The relevant Bible passages are:

Timothy:
This is a trustworthy saying: If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not dependent on wine, not violent but gentle, peaceable, and free of the love of money

Titus:
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, having children who are believers and who are not open to accusation of indiscretion or insubordination.

As a more general point, given that the Requests for Christian Advice forum is non discussion (not always adhered to), shouldn't controversial statements of theology be avoided? Otherwise, such a forum could be used to push your own theological viewpoint unchallenged.

God created men and women to have different roles and functions within the marriage, family and the church. Its why elders are referred to as men every time.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Strong in Him]

God created men and women to have different roles and functions within the marriage, family and the church.

And yet, men can be house husbands, nurses, midwives and - if they are widowed - both mother and father. Women can also be the main wage earners in the family. If they are widowed, they, too, will be mother and father to their children.
And God calls some women to serve him as ordained clergy in the church.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

And yet, men can be house husbands, nurses, midwives and - if they are widowed - both mother and father. Women can also be the main wage earners in the family. If they are widowed, they, too, will be mother and father to their children.
And God calls some women to serve him as ordained clergy in the church.

All good except your last sentence .

BTW cultural norms do not equate to biblical truth and principles. My original post still stands true according to scripture which is my basis for truth not the cultural norms.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Strong in Him]

All good except your last sentence .

That's a fact, and you'll have to take it up with God.
I wouldn't want to be the one to tell him that he can't work in certain ways today.

 

[Strong in Him]

BTW cultural norms do not equate to biblical truth and principles. My original post still stands true according to scripture which is my basis for truth not the cultural norms.

And actually, I would say that what was happening in NT times was also a product of culture. Women had few rights and were 2nd class citizens - or not even ranked that highly. Whereas, in OT times they seemed to be more prominent; Deborah was judge over the whole nation, Judges 4:4, several women were prophetesses, Esther was a queen. Ruth was very forward and more or less proposed to Boaz, Ruth 3:7-8.
Abigail intervened after her husband acted foolishly, and saved them from being destroyed by David, 1 Samuel 25:34.
Jesus overturned cultural norms by choosing women to speak for him, learn from him and be his witnesses.

The role of women in ordained ministry is not a Christian doctrine nor a Biblical truth. People interpret, and have interpreted, Scriptures differently over the years. For example, Catherine of Siena, in the 1300s, was asked by the Pope to teach cardinals, was involved in keeping states loyal to the Pope and persuaded the Pope in Avignon to travel to Rome. There are other influential female saints in the church who have founded churches, monasteries and written books.
Some people teach that Scripture does not allow women to teach men and should be silent - yet, clearly, Christians have not always shared that view. If Jesus, God himself, allowed women to proclaim his message, why should that cease today?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

And actually, I would say that what was happening in NT times was also a product of culture. Women had few rights and were 2nd class citizens - or not even ranked that highly. Whereas, in OT times they seemed to be more prominent; Deborah was judge over the whole nation, Judges 4:4, several women were prophetesses, Esther was a queen. Ruth was very forward and more or less proposed to Boaz, Ruth 3:7-8.
Abigail intervened after her husband acted foolishly, and saved them from being destroyed by David, 1 Samuel 25:34.
Jesus overturned cultural norms by choosing women to speak for him, learn from him and be his witnesses.

The role of women in ordained ministry is not a Christian doctrine nor a Biblical truth. People interpret, and have interpreted, Scriptures differently over the years. For example, Catherine of Siena, in the 1300s, was asked by the Pope to teach cardinals, was involved in keeping states loyal to the Pope and persuaded the Pope in Avignon to travel to Rome. There are other influential female saints in the church who have founded churches, monasteries and written books.
Some people teach that Scripture does not allow women to teach men and should be silent - yet, clearly, Christians have not always shared that view. If Jesus, God himself, allowed women to proclaim his message, why should that cease today?

There is biblical truth regarding roles and positions of men and women in marriage and the church . Then there is cultural relativism which you are promoting. Elders/ Pastors/Apostles are men in the NT.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Strong in Him]

There is biblical truth regarding roles and positions of men and women in marriage and the church .

Being a husband is not the same as being a Minister.
A Minister can move between churches, go to another church, retire or be sacked - a husband can't; unless you divorce them.

Then there is cultural relativism which you are promoting.

No, I'm not.
The woman at the well told the men in her town that she had found the Messiah. The first witness to the resurrection, who was given the job of telling others, was a woman.
Jesus did not teach that women were forbidden from preaching the Gospel.

Elders/ Pastors/Apostles are men in the NT.

But Phoebe was a deacon who took Paul's letter to the church at Rome.
Just because men, mostly, had those roles then, doesn't mean it is God's command that only men have those roles now - or he would not call women to serve him in this role.
God doesn't change but he does work in new ways.
And things written in the NT are affected by culture - e.g a man divorcing his wife. Jesus doesn't teach that a woman cannot divorce her husband, because such a thing was unheard of then. The NT does not say that women have to stay at home with the children and not have a career - because that was not possible.
There is no need to teach that something must not happen if you don't think there is any likelihood of it ever happening. The early church did not say "you must turn your mobile phones off in church" or "you should spend less time on your laptops." They didn't have such things then, so the Bible doesn't teach about them.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Being a husband is not the same as being a Minister.
A Minister can move between churches, go to another church, retire or be sacked - a husband can't; unless you divorce them.

No, I'm not.
The woman at the well told the men in her town that she had found the Messiah. The first witness to the resurrection, who was given the job of telling others, was a woman.
Jesus did not teach that women were forbidden from preaching the Gospel.


But Phoebe was a deacon who took Paul's letter to the church at Rome.
Just because men, mostly, had those roles then, doesn't mean it is God's command that only men have those roles now - or he would not call women to serve him in this role.
God doesn't change but he does work in new ways.
And things written in the NT are affected by culture - e.g a man divorcing his wife. Jesus doesn't teach that a woman cannot divorce her husband, because such a thing was unheard of then. The NT does not say that women have to stay at home with the children and not have a career - because that was not possible.
There is no need to teach that something must not happen if you don't think there is any likelihood of it ever happening. The early church did not say "you must turn your mobile phones off in church" or "you should spend less time on your laptops." They didn't have such things then, so the Bible doesn't teach about them.

Actually, many churches have gotten around this ticklish issue, as well as others, by designating their hired preachers as "ministers". In the New Testament deacons (Διάκονοι) translates as ministers (a transliteration which is frequently employed is deacons). Thus, "ministers" have no qualifications from the Bible which they need to conform to at all. As a result, some denominations are perfectly comfortable in hiring ministers regardless of gender, sexual orientation, sexual practices, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Strong in Him]

Actually, many churches have gotten around this ticklish issue, as well as others, by designating their hired preachers as "ministers". In the New Testament deacons (Διάκονοι) translates as ministers (a transliteration which is frequently employed is deacons). Thus, "ministers" have no qualifications from the Bible which they need to conform to at all. As a result, some denominations are perfectly comfortable in hiring ministers regardless of gender, sexual orientation, sexual practices, etc., etc., etc.

My Greek dictionary says that that word can be translated as servant, deacon or Minister. It's not really a ticklish issue. Phoebe was Diakonos; in my experience, anyone who is unhappy with the idea of female ministers, emphasises that this means 'servant'. Yet the same word is used of Paul, and sometimes Bibles translate that as "Minister". So it's ok for Stephen, Philip or Paul to be Deacons or Ministers, but when used of a woman, of course it means only servant.

In the mainstream churches at least, anyone called to ordained ministry certainly studies and has qualifications.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My Greek dictionary says that that word can be translated as servant, deacon or Minister. It's not really a ticklish issue. Phoebe was Diakonos; in my experience, anyone who is unhappy with the idea of female ministers, emphasises that this means 'servant'. Yet the same word is used of Paul, and sometimes Bibles translate that as "Minister". So it's ok for Stephen, Philip or Paul to be Deacons or Ministers, but when used of a woman, of course it means only servant.

In the mainstream churches at least, anyone called to ordained ministry certainly studies and has qualifications.

In the mainstream churches there is seminary training and ordination procedures. As for ordination requirements, it is much easier to term the ordinand as a minister (aka deacon) than as a priest, which carries connotations of such Catholic stipulations as gender-specificity and celibacy) or even an elder, which does have biblically-stipulated characteristics. Thus, the rather bland word "minister" can be broadly applied to almost any individual.

 

[Paidiske]

That depends very much on what church or tradition one is in, I suspect. (Said by a non-Catholic, woman, married priest).

 

[bbbbbbb]

That depends very much on what church or tradition one is in, I suspect. (Said by a non-Catholic, woman, married priest).

Quite true. It is almost impossible to establish any consistent theology on this issue, because there are so many differences among the various Christian denominations.