Women Pastors part 2

[Archivist]

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.

Except that the "requirements" that you keep mentioning also set requirements for men that you apparently don't follow.

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

But these statements by Paul weren't the understanding of "the church" at the time. We don't know what was done in churches founded by others.

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.

But there were female deacons, apostles and preachers.

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.

But we know very little about the operation of the early 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.

The Quakers have had female clergy for the past 400 years, just as female clergy existed in the early church. It's nothing new.

BTW you are very good at ignoring posts that you apparently can't answer.

 

[greenguzzi]

Thank you Albion for that very honest reply. There is only one minor point where I disagree with you. Other than that one point I reckon I could agree with what you wrote, and still be confident that my egalitarian congregation is totally within God's will by having a female pastor.

What's the minor point of disagreement? It is when you say: "...that's not the same as saying that they're eligible, especially when the requirements are described."

Back in the late 1970s and early '80s my dad worked as a toolmaker for a Sydney motorcycle repair shop called AllParts, they specialised in British bikes. As you might expect, it was an all-male workplace. But one day this woman applied for a job there. The boss was quite taken aback by the female applicant. It's not that he was sexist (although he may have been), it was just that it never occurred to him that a woman might apply for the job. His first reaction was to say that she couldn't be considered for the job because they didn't have a women's toilet (crapper). She challenged this, and eventually got the job.

Eligibility verses like 1 Timothy 3:12 and 1 Timothy 3:1-2 have the same problem as my dad's female workmate. If female bishops (or mechanics) are rare, then the job conditions (and job descriptions) that include them are going to be absent.

Every time you assert that there were no female bishops in the early church, I am more convinced that the eligibility verses are not talking about gender.

After some basic analysis I think it's pretty clear that these scripture aren't about the gender of the candidates. They are not even about their marital status.
No, these scriptures are about the character and purity of the candidates.

Character and purity are obviously important. Gender and marital status are obviously not important. QED.

 

[Albion]

What's the minor point of disagreement? It is when you say: "...that's not the same as saying that they're eligible, especially when the requirements are described."

I hate to quibble when we say we're in agreement on much, but we can't approach the Bible, which we Christians say is the inspired word of God, as though it were just ordinary document left over from the first century.

We have those as well, but this is Scripture we're talking about, and we're not being very consistent with our Christian faith to talk as though the New Testament is only meant for the people of that sexist era or was intended by God to be altered as the church saw fit in each century thereafter, etc.

 

[greenguzzi]

but this is Scripture we're talking about

Exactly, and because it's scripture we have to handle it with care. We can't just treat it like a book of magic words. We can't just read it literally with our western minds and biases without doing a lot of work first.

we're not being very consistent with our Christian faith to talk as though the New Testament is only meant for the people of that sexist era

It's odd, I again find myself agreeing with your words, but I don't see the logic that leads from these words and thoughts to your conclusions. We have to understand the cultural context of scripture before we can apply it to our context.

or was intended by God to be altered as the church saw fit in each century thereafter, etc.

It can't be any other way. We are not first century Christians. We live is a different world, we have a different way of thinking. It's not a worse way, it's not a less Christian way; it's just different (and in many ways better). We can't just lift the words naively off the page and expect it to make sense. it's not that the Word is being altered by this analysis, it's that the Word is being understood.

As I see it we have three choices:
We can put our knowledge and reason to one side, and read the scripture literally, and treat it like a book of magic words and inscrutable rules;
we can live as they did "back then" like the Amish do;
or we can critically analyse the scripture to find how best to apply it to our lives today.

I now choose to do the latter because it's the only choice that has any intellectual integrity for me. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in making scripture say anything I want it to say. On the contrary, I have found this approach much more challenging and exacting. The Bible has stopped being a list of rules on which to base my religion, and is now a living Word that forms an important part of a relationship with God.

 

[Archivist]

I hate to quibble when we say we're in agreement on much, but we can't approach the Bible, which we Christians say is the inspired word of God, as though it were just ordinary document left over from the first century.

We have those as well, but this is Scripture we're talking about, and we're not being very consistent with our Christian faith to talk as though the New Testament is only meant for the people of that sexist era or was intended by God to be altered as the church saw fit in each century thereafter, etc.

but you have been picking and choosing verses throughout this thread. "The husband of one wife?" Well, according to you that doesn't mean he has to be married, although the words sound pretty clear to me. "See that his children obey him?" Well, you certainly wouldn't remove a minister just because of that. And you continue to ignore the plain words elsewhere in scripture "nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

[Strong in Him]

Well, there's no such problem in this case. There's more than a little evidence to support the male-only clergy.

The words "clergy" and "ordination" are not used in Scripture, and whether "husband of one wife" is proof that God intends all Ministers to be male, is a matter of interpretation.

Again, the issue is not women in church "leadership."

It is if you're using 1 Timothy 2:12 - women taking authority over men - as a reason not to ordain women.
You may not be; some do.

He called only men to be the first bishops of his church, even though there were women who were close to him and favored by him in other roles.

He only called Jews to be his 12 closest disciples; does that mean that clergy today have to be circumcised?

 

[Strong in Him]

Obviously I cannot comment on that without knowing what was said

What is said is that 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 are both Scripture, show that women should be silent in church, not teach or have authority over men and that God commands that this should be so.
Even then, there is disagreement. I have seen a post from someone whose wife does not even sing in church because it would be disobedience to these verses. Many concede that Paul does not mean it that literally - silence does not mean abstaining from worship - yet a woman still can't preach. Still others say that, yes, a woman is allowed to preach, just not to be ordained. So some are applying Scripture literally to the church today, others seem to be applying part of a verse, or teaching, but ignoring the rest.

Right. And I've agreed to that several times here.

Agreed.
Which tells me that you don't accept 1 Tim 2:12 as "proof" that women cannot do these things.

 

[Albion]

The words "clergy" and "ordination" are not used in Scripture

No, but I base no argument on that fact, just as I don't buy the argument that anti-Trinitarians use when they say that "Trinity" isn't in the Bible so it must be an erroneous concept.

We both know what our use of these and similar words refer to.

and whether "husband of one wife" is proof that God intends all Ministers to be male, is a matter of interpretation.

Possibly. However, this issue, like most matters of Scriptural interpretation, doesn't rest upon a single piece of evidence.

Going against the conclusion you want us to reach with this phrase are these facts: every other passage in the NT that speaks of the matter is male-oriented, Jesus chose 12 men and men only for his first "clergypersons," and there were no women deacons, presbyters, or bishops in the early church. The weight of the evidence, as they say, is clear.

 

[Albion]

What is said is that 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:12 are both Scripture, show that women should be silent in church, not teach or have authority over men and that God commands that this should be so.

I see. Well, the answer is that I don't accept that argument and it plays no part in my thinking that the historic/traditional Christian view concerning an all-male clergy is correct.

Even then, there is disagreement. I have seen a post from someone whose wife does not even sing in church because it would be disobedience to these verses. Many concede that Paul does not mean it that literally - silence does not mean abstaining from worship - yet a woman still can't preach. Still others say that, yes, a woman is allowed to preach, just not to be ordained. So some are applying Scripture literally to the church today, others seem to be applying part of a verse, or teaching, but ignoring the rest.

Yes...some say. However, more people belong to churches that say women are not to be ordained but do not agree with the reasoning you've outlined there. IOW, this "keep silent/be in submission" argument that's usually associated with fundamentalist churches is peculiar to them and doesn't do anything to counter the view of the matter taken by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, traditional Anglicanism, confessional Lutheranism, etc.

Agreed.
Which tells me that you don't accept 1 Tim 2:12 as "proof" that women cannot do these things.

Not those things, no. I am addressing only the issue of women as deacons, presbyters, and/or bishops.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

..Jesus chose 12 men and men only for his first "clergypersons," and there were no women deacons, presbyters, or bishops in the early church. The weight of the evidence, as they say, is clear.

Who are those 12 men to judge in comparison to what the church is to judge? Conclusions based on incomplete evidence is partial truth.

 

[Archivist]

Possibly. However, this issue, like most matters of Scriptural interpretation, doesn't rest upon a single piece of evidence. Going against the conclusion you want us to reach with this phrase are these facts: every other passage in the NT that speaks of the matter is male-oriented, Jesus chose 12 men and men only for his first "clergypersons," and there were no women deacons, presbyters, or bishops in the early church. The weight of the evidence, as they say, is clear.

And Jesus chose a woman to be the first person to preach the Good News of the Resurrection. And yes, scripture references a female deacon and a female apostle, you just want to keep ignoring that just as you pick and choose what verses apply to male clergy.

 

[Albion]

Who are those 12 men to judge in comparison to what the church is to judge? Conclusions based on incomplete evidence is partial truth.

I didn't say anything about the Apostles judging. I referred to Christ's will and intentions when he chose men only to be his first "clergy" and endowed them with the duties the church has long associated with ordained clergy.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I didn't say anything about the Apostles judging. I referred to Christ's will and intentions when he chose men only to be his first "clergy" and endowed them with the duties the church has long associated with ordained clergy.

They were in pattern to the tribes and that is who they are to judge.

 

[Strong in Him]

Going against the conclusion you want us to reach with this phrase are these facts: every other passage in the NT that speaks of the matter is male-oriented, Jesus chose 12 men and men only for his first "clergypersons," and there were no women deacons, presbyters, or bishops in the early church. The weight of the evidence, as they say, is clear.

No, it's not.
To return to my original point; who says that because that's how it was then, it's how it has to be now? Where does Jesus say, "I will build my church; the leaders must be male and must only have these particular titles?"

Jesus chose 12 Jews to be his disciples - do all clergy today have to be former Jews?

 

[Albion]

No, it's not.

Well, you haven't denied any of it, I see. So if it's unclear to you, let's work on that before you change the subject.

To return to my original point; who says that because that's how it was then, it's how it has to be now?

People who believe the Bible to be divine revelation (the Bible itself says so) and that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Of course this doesn't mean anything to a Deist or non-Christian, for example, but among Christians such as ourselves, this should carry weight.

If, however, there were an indication that the information was meant to apply only to a particular moment in time--or we have the fact that the church operated differently during the Apostolic Age, we'd have something to consider. None of that is the case, though.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Well, you haven't denied any of it, I see. So if it's unclear to you, let's work on that before you change the subject.

People who believe the Bible to be divine revelation (the Bible itself says so) and that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Of course this doesn't mean anything to a Deist or non-Christian, for example, but among Christians such as ourselves, this should carry weight.

If, however, there were an indication that the information was meant to apply only to a particular moment in time--or we have the fact that the church operated differently during the Apostolic Age, we'd have something to consider. None of that is the case, though.

It is the case when the church has not progressed beyond the letter of the law.

 

[Archivist]

Well, you haven't denied any of it, I see. So if it's unclear to you, let's work on that before you change the subject. People who believe the Bible to be divine revelation (the Bible itself says so) and that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Of course this doesn't mean anything to a Deist or non-Christian, for example, but among Christians such as ourselves, this should carry weight. If, however, there were an indication that the information was meant to apply only to a particular moment in time--or we have the fact that the church operated differently during the Apostolic Age, we'd have something to consider. None of that is the case, though.

But you have said that you don't follow all of what Paul wrote regarding male elders.

 

[Strong in Him]

If, however, there were an indication that the information was meant to apply only to a particular moment in time--or we have the fact that the church operated differently during the Apostolic Age, we'd have something to consider. None of that is the case, though.

The church today - as a whole - is in no way operating as it did in the Apostles' day.
The apostles confirmed the Gospel with signs and wonders, were united in heart and mind, broke bread daily, baptised believers, spoke in tongues, put prayer at the heart of their lives and were prepared to stand up, and go to prison, for their beliefs.
The church today has many denominations, some of whom seem to insist that they alone are the true church; is divided, argues about how to baptise, will only let certain people break bread/preside at the Lord's Supper and gives the impression that compromise or bowing to political correctness is the way to go. we have many translations of scripture, and can reach people with the Gospel through tv, radio, film and the internet. Bibles can become Apps and downloaded onto a variety of devices - all of which would have been the stuff of fantasy for the early church.
How is it we can have, do and benefit from all this, but when it comes to leadership say "well they didn't adopt this practice in the early church, so we can't either"?

 

[Albion]

Are you saying that all of this you actually think of as beneficial or correct??

 

[Strong in Him]

Are you saying that all of this you actually think of as beneficial or correct??

There is obviously nothing wrong with using modern ways, and technologies, to preach the Gospel, and we do. We use what we have to reach out to our neighbours and spread the Good news.
Scripture doesn't instruct on the use of such things - they didn't have them then. There are also a number of programmes and practices today that are not found in Scripture - Sunday school, Gospel services, Mums and toddlers groups etc - as well as things like robed choirs, and only allowing ordained clergy to preside at communion.

So it is not consistent to be silent on such issues, but as soon as it comes to female leadership, say "oh, it's not Scriptural".
Either order all your services, and ministries, exactly as in Scripture - including speaking Greek, wearing robes and only using the OT; or don't. But it doesn't seem right that churches adopt Scriptural patterns of worship when it suits them.