Women Pastors part 2

[Archivist]

Of course that's good advice. Nor do I spend time being angry at my friends who belong to denominations that do ordain women. I even attend services in them on occasion.

That's good.

But neither is it the case that the great majority of churches which hold to the traditional view of the matter do so because they think ill of women, that they think women don't preach very well, that the issue is entirely a political thing, or etc.

And I have never made any such claim.

And when it comes to this "just your interpretation" stuff, NO, good scholarship actually does know what's what with most of church history and the meaning of certain passages in scripture. Whether or not the Lord's Supper contains the literal body of Christ may be a matter of endless debate, just like the proper age and conditions for Baptism, but there are also some things that are not in serious doubt and it's not just "a matter of interpretation."

But the ordination of women is a question over which there is debate, and it si a matter of interpretation.

I think you're referring to the "of one wife" passage, which means no serial marriages (which was common in those days), not that no candidate can be acceptable if he's unmarried.

But that is interpretation. The exact words say "the husband of one wife."

It's not as black and white or as simple a matter as that, but sure, we do remove pastors for cause.

But I didn't ask whether you remove pastors for cause. The question was do you remove pastors if their children refuse to obey them?

Sure.

But Paul wrote that women are to be silent in the church.

 

[Albion]

But Paul wrote that women are to be silent in the church.

First, this is what Paul said was his own policy. He did not say that this was God's policy or what everyone else ought to do. Second, the church gatherings in those days were often disorderly, unlike most of those we are accustomed to, and the women congregants were known to be eager to speak out, so that it often became a shouting match. That's the meaning of the "silence" Paul referred to.

 

[Albion]

But the ordination of women is a question over which there is debate, and it si a matter of interpretation.

The fact is that it is largely NOT a matter of interpretation. Lacking any evidence for women clergy from Apostolic (i.e. first century church) history, and having no examples of women clergy in the NT, the advocates of women's ordination most often use the following arguments: 1) God loves everyone, 2) Women can 'do the job,' 3) the Holy Spirit has changed his mind (which in itself admits of "my" interpretation of the NT proofs being accurate). Those are not a matter of "different Bible interpretations."

 

[Archivist]

First, this is what Paul said was his own policy. He did not say that this was God's policy or what everyone else ought to do. Second, the church gatherings in those days were often disorderly, unlike most of those we are accustomed to, and the women congregants were known to be eager to speak out, so that it often became a shouting match. That's the meaning of the "silence" Paul referred to.

But that isn't the plain meaning of the words. That is your interpretation, one that i happen to share.

 

[Archivist]

The fact is that it is largely NOT a matter of interpretation. Lacking any evidence for women clergy from Apostolic (i.e. first century church) history, and having no examples of women clergy in the NT, the advocates of women's ordination most often use the following arguments: 1) God loves everyone, 2) Women can 'do the job,' 3) the Holy Spirit has changed his mind (which in itself admits of "my" interpretation of the NT proofs being accurate). Those are not a matter of "different Bible interpretations."

You conveniently ignore many of the arguments that have been raised in this thread such as: 1) Women held leadership roles in the early church, including deacon and apostle; 2) The first person to preach the good news of Christ's resurrection was a woman; 3) Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that "There is no longer...male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus;" 4) The new Church was growing and expanding, and exact roles and duties were not yet established; 5) Paul's words to a single church do not apply to churches founded by others, nor did they necessarily apply to other churches founded by Paul.

 

[greenguzzi]

The fact is that it is largely NOT a matter of interpretation. Lacking any evidence for women clergy from Apostolic (i.e. first century church) history, and having no examples of women clergy in the NT, the advocates of women's ordination most often use the following arguments [... ...]

So what?
The Bible doesn't mention any Australian Aboriginal or Inuit Bishops either, does that mean we shouldn't have them?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It actually isn't that. It's about the testimony of Scripture....

Please stop saying it's the testimony of scripture when it can only be that the scripture with not a word on either side be called scripture because any thing else is about your interpretation of scripture.

So please just state scripture and then say this is my interpretation.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

bltb

 

[Albion]

So what?
The Bible doesn't mention any Australian Aboriginal or Inuit Bishops either, does that mean we shouldn't have them?

If you can point to some passage in the NT that teaches that the qualifications for being consecrated a bishop necessarily excludes Inuits, perhaps. Got any such?? Me neither. That's not the case with women bishops in the early church.

And the reason we point to Church history is that this is a possible second area of evidence. But again, nothing. There is, in fact, essentially nothing that the advocates of women's ordination can point to as a reason to depart from the Apostolic practice (which they'd laud if this were a different issue) except their own speculation that we can trust God to be in favor of the change because our times are different...or something equally imprecise.

 

[Albion]

Please stop saying it's the testimony of scripture when it can only be that the scripture with not a word on either side be called scripture because any thing else is about your interpretation of scripture.

So please just state scripture....

Well, that's essentially what I have done--offered scripture in response to arguments that have to rely upon "I'm sure God wouldn't mind" for the reason that there isn't any scripture on that side of the issue.

 

[Archivist]

Well, that's essentially what I have done--offered scripture in response to arguments that have to rely upon "I'm sure God wouldn't mind" for the reason that there isn't any scripture on that side of the issue.

Incorrect. Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer...male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

[Archivist]

If you can point to some passage in the NT that teaches that the qualifications for being consecrated a bishop necessarily excludes Inuits, perhaps. Got any such?? Me neither. That's not the case with women bishops in the early church.

And the reason we point to Church history is that this is a possible second area of evidence. But again, nothing. There is, in fact, essentially nothing that the advocates of women's ordination can point to as a reason to depart from the Apostolic practice (which they'd laud if this were a different issue) except their own speculation that we can trust God to be in favor of the change because our times are different...or something equally imprecise.

And, again, we know very little about early church history. For example, we know that there were elders appointed but for the most part we don't know who they were or whether they were male or female. Scripture doesn't tell us. In his letters Paul doesn't even use the term elder until fairly late in his ministry. You earlier said that she was a deaconess, not a deacon, and that a deaconess is not ordained. Yet Paul uses the masculine diakonon in referencing her, and we don't know who was ordained in the early church.

 

[Albion]

And, again, we know very little about early church history.

We know plenty of those who were clergy. None were women. Of course, that's not to say that we know every last clergyman's name, but once again, the point is that the idea that there might have been women priests, etc. is without any evidence from this angle.

You earlier said that she was a deaconess, not a deacon, and that a deaconess is not ordained. Yet Paul uses the masculine diakonon in referencing her

The word itself just means a "servant" (of the church). We do know from the early church that the males who were deacons had quite a different duties and functions from women who were deaconesses--and that's the way it remains in certain denominations yet.

As said, a deacon can read the Gospel in worship, baptize, perform quite a few other functions we associate with priests. Deaconesses were concerned with women and children's activities and, in particular, preparing women for baptism where there was, in the old days, a matter of modest to uphold.

 

[Archivist]

We know plenty of those who were clergy. None were women. Of course, that's not to say that we know every last clergyman's name, but once again, the point is that the idea that there might have been women priests, etc. is without any evidence from this angle.

"We [don't] know every last clergyman's name." Actually we know the names of almost none of the elders.

The word itself just means a "servant" (of the church). We do know from the early church that the males who were deacons had quite a different duties and functions from women who were deaconesses--and that's the way it remains in certain denominations yet.

First, Paul specifically describes Phoebe as being a deacon, not a deaconess. Second, what evidence is there in scripture to show that women who were deacons had a different role

As said, a deacon can read the Gospel in worship, baptize, perform quite a few other functions we associate with priests. Deaconesses were concerned with women and children's activities and, in particular, preparing women for baptism where there was, in the old days, a matter of modest to uphold.

This might be what occurs in your denomination today. What evidence do you have that this was in case in the first-century church?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my post 1601--does your denomination remove pastors if their children refuse to obey them?

 

[Albion]

"We [don't] know every last clergyman's name." Actually we know the names of almost none of the elders.

Not true.

First, Paul specifically describes Phoebe as being a deacon, not a deaconess.

No, he uses the word that described either one.

This might be what occurs in your denomination today. What evidence do you have that this was in case in the first-century church?

Church history and Scripture. What evidence do you have of women clergy? Oh, yes--saying we can't trust either history or Scripture and that maybe something slipped through the cracks in both cases.

 

[Archivist]

Not true.

Then name the elders who are specifically identified.

No, he uses the word that described either one.

No, Paul uses the masculine diakonon in referencing her.

Church history and Scripture. What evidence do you have of women clergy? Oh, yes--saying we can't trust either history or Scripture and that maybe something slipped through the cracks in both cases.

When did I ever say that we can't trust either history or Scripture? You just keep ignoring my arguments.

Scripture: Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer...male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Scripture: Mary Magdalene was the first person to preach the good news of Christ's Resurrection.

Scripture: Paul named Phoebe as being a deacon.

Scripture: Paul named Junia as being an apostle.

Church History: The Society of Friends had female ministers as early as the 1600s.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my post 1601--does your denomination remove pastors if their children refuse to obey them?

 

[Albion]

No, Paul uses the masculine diakonon in referencing her.

That's the point I made to you. The word describes either or both--deacons and/or deaconesses. You cannot tell which gender or position is referred to. It is not possible, therefore, to say with certainty that Phoebe was a deacon, meaning a member of the clergy as we understand deacons, merely because this word form was used. We do know, however, that deacons did a certain set of things for the church and deaconesses did another.

 

[Archivist]

That's the point I made to you. The word describes either or both--deacons and/or deaconesses. You cannot tell which gender or position is referred to. It is not possible, therefore, to say with certainty that Phoebe was a deacon, meaning a member of the clergy as we understand deacons, merely because this word form was used. We do know, however, that deacons did a certain set of things for the church and deaconesses did another.

Actually the term deaconess is not used anywhere in the NT. Only deacon. The divergence in duties that you state is not mentioned anyplace in scripture.

The following might be of interest to you: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research. Please give particular attention to the statement "It is possible that the translation “deaconess” is an attempt to project back into the early church the duties of a deaconess in later centuries."

Oh, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my post 1601--does your denomination remove pastors if their children refuse to obey them? I presume that your failure to answer means that you have no answer.

 

[greenguzzi]

If you can point to some passage in the NT that teaches that the qualifications for being consecrated a bishop necessarily excludes Inuits, perhaps. Got any such?? Me neither. That's not the case with women bishops in the early church.

There is nothing the the Bible that excludes women from being bishops. But this has already been covered in earlier posts.

And the reason we point to Church history is that this is a possible second area of evidence.

Evidence of what? It is evidence that at a certain time in a certain place the "church" behaved in a certain way. I think that church history is important, but we are not bound by it; even if we decided we wanted to be bound by it, then which era and where? This is the same logic the Amish use for their strange practices.

Also, when do we draw the line in history? Today's egalitarian churches (like mine) are becoming part of church history, so why not model future congregations on them? Or did the Holy Spirit stop working in the Church once congregations stopped doing things that you personally demand a church do.

 

[Albion]

There is nothing the the Bible that excludes women from being bishops. But this has already been covered in earlier posts

It's true that nothing excludes them, but that's not the same as saying that they're eligible, especially when the requirements are described.

Evidence of what?

Evidence of what the church of that time understood concerning what was necessary for anyone to be eligible.

It is evidence that at a certain time in a certain place the "church" behaved in a certain way.

Yes. That is evidence.

But an indication that there were no known women clergy in the church during the Apostolic Age is NOT evidence that the church thought this was a purely optional practice, or temporary, or anything of the sort.

Also, when do we draw the line in history? Today's egalitarian churches (like mine) are becoming part of church history, so why not model future congregations on them? Or did the Holy Spirit stop working in the Church once congregations stopped doing things that you personally demand a church do.

It's all history, but the history of the first churches is important because it shows how the church that's described in God's word--the Bible--operated. This was the church that was closest in time to Christ and the start of his church.

The idea that some churches of a much later period departed from this doesn't prove much of anything as far was which practice--women clergy or no women clergy--is right, or even that it matters.