WONDERFUL WOMEN AND CHURCH LEADERSHIP
By Steve Behlke
August 5, 2008
I don't know how many of you read the comments in my recent post "CHRIST IS EVERYTHING," but someone accidentally and inadvertantly opened up a huge can of worms (Gabe, you know who I'm talking to). It's kind of fun, actually, but very serious and worthy of further inspection, conversation, humility, and prayer.
Really, a whole line of questioning emerged from this thread of comments. On the surface these questions relate to maleness and femaleness. Are men more important to God than women or more gifted than women? Of course not! So, in this enlightened day and age, why shouldn't women be ordained as pastors or elders or leaders in Biblically-conservative, Christ-loving, God-fearing churches? This is how the questions seem to present themselves.
But the deeper issues seem to relate to other things like ecclesiology and biblical hermeneutics, that is, a theological understanding of the church and of interpreting God's Word.
In presenting the underlining questions in writing, I am tempted to ask each of you what you think? In your following comments I will discover your opinions and I'll be thrilled to read them. But in the path to truth, the truth that transcends human reasoning and lies in Christ Himself, I want to cut past what you think to what God thinks and Christ did and the Word says.
The reality is all of us — male and female — are products of our fallen environment and our various upbringings and family biases and personal prejudices and experiences and hurts and all of that other stuff that we currently call "baggage." We all have loads of baggage that unwittingly shapes and twists our thinking and our motives. Add to that our human zeal to prove ourselves right, and our religious sense of wanting to rubber stamp God's confirmation on our tightly-held beliefs, which most certainly are true and best and enlightened compared to others, right or wrong regardless at times of God's revealed Word.
And indeed, there is a right and a wrong, at least, if we believe in the God of Jesus Christ.
And I do.
So, in this light, my question is not really what do you think but what does God think? What did Jesus do? And what does Holy Writ actually say on this matter?
Here are some of the implied questions to ponder that were recently raised in your comments:
- Are women to be made "pastors" in a Bible-believing, Jesus following, God-fearing church?
- Why or why not?
- Are women to be made "elders" in God's church? Why or why not?
- What then is a pastor? Or what is an elder?
- What if the men are spiritual couch potatoes and a woman is the most gifted and passionate person in the church to be the pastor or elder; is she to be made the lead pastor or elder? Should she step aside when a male is ready to step up to the plate?
- What did Jesus teach in this regard? Or what did Jesus do in this regard? Which women did He set over the church as elder? Does it matter?
- What does the New Testament teach about this? What was it's practice? Which women were set up in the churches to be pastors or elders? Does this matter?
- Are the biblical statements, some of which seem to limit women from such roles, merely cultural? If so, explain how Jesus and even Paul honored such cultural traditions when they seemed to break them in every other case?!
- If you are convinced from God's Word that women are not to become ruling elders or primary teaching pastors, then what do we allow women to do? Simply serve in the nursery and put up flannel graph Jesus' in the preschool classes?
- So, what about women leadership in the church? What about incredibly gifted women? Where are they most needed? Best able to serve God and others? What about the many godly women who are also gifted to lead, to teach, to shepherd?
Clearly, Abba Almighty is not anti-woman. He created woman with man as co-equals in God's image. His plan of salvation includes men and women. He loves each, no more than the other.
The Holy Spirit is certainly not prejudiced in this matter. He calls us to Christ, male and female. He gifts each of us, male and female, black and white, rich and poor, Republican and Democrat, French and Iraqi.
Jesus Christ is the most clearly and obviously unbiased in this regard. He was a liberator not an oppressor. He did not subject Himself to cultural biases and prejudices. Christ, I am told, in every New Testament encounter with a woman broke one or more of His culture's norms.
Don't go overboard and associate Jesus with feminists, but in Christ, there is no pecking order, no sex is better than any other. Rather than oppressing women, actually, Christ liberated women. Jesus reached out to women. At least two of his BFFs were women...
... But did Jesus set any woman up in church leadership?
Sure, Jesus received love and clothes and food and worship and foot-cleanings and prayers from women, and He gave abundant and shocking grace to women, and He protected women and honored women...
... But did Jesus confer upon any woman leadership, eldership, rule and authority in the church?
... Does that matter?
My question, What do the New Testament writings say about women as primary pastors and elders with teaching authority and rule in the church?
Please, don't right lengthy tomes. Only a few people read long comments. But get out your concordances, open your bibles, and seek God's Word and His expressed will on these matters, as best you can, and tell us, ever so briefly, realizing others will respond, what you have found: chapter and verse and brief explanation.
Do me a favor. Keep the gloves on. Love one another. Don't take this personally. Speak what you believe to be the truth in love — I hate to utilize it, but realize I do have the right to post your comments or not. 
And GUYS, you may be wise to hold off for a few days and let the women theologues discuss this first!
It is sad how such a wonderful post on how "Christ is EVERYTHING" has soured into another wornout women's lib debate. Apparently, for many of us, Jesus Christ is NOT EVERYTHING until we can do everything and more that a man can do. I understand this from my mother, I really do, but for me Jesus is all I want and will ever need.
Reply to this
It will not be a women's lib thing if we focus on God's word. I think the issue is that sometimes we don't care for what God's word tells us.
Lets see what comes out of the Bible on this subject.
Reply to this
Pastor Steve, I really appreciate your tone here. I think this post is a really great example of how issues like this should be addressed- carefully, thoughtfully, and humbly.
I'm not prepared to respond but I look forward to this and future discussions and insights on this blog. I dig it, I feel like this is good stuff, it's in the light!
Reply to this
I totally cracked up when I saw your picture of Rosie a few seconds ago! Glad I'm in a remote part of the library. Funny, Steve. I hope I was clear about the reasoning that's problematic when it comes to justifying missionaries' conduct in my last comment. A "feminist" agenda is always as wrong- headed as a misogynistic agenda. I'm really glad you made clear it's not about what we think, but about what God thinks.
Fruity Girl hasn't exactly kept the gloves on with her comments. If this is portrayed as "a wonderful post. . .soured into another worn out women's lib debate" then Steve is wasting his time, and people won't be bothered to nobly search the Scriptures. It's clear that people like teacher and Cecelia are needing a respectful forum for examining Scripture as to whether or not God actually calls women to be, as Steve put it, "primary pastors."
I'm new to CC so I don't know what the policy is about missionaries, and that's why I asked. Is that a relevant question to list? Or do you figure it falls under the "do they step aside when a male is ready" category?
Steve, are you eventually going to give us your answers to these questions? I mentioned 1 Cor 12:28 because the lack of gender specificity confuses matters. It doesn't seem right when people "go by their gut" and picture a female with administrative gifts, a male "worker of miracles," etc. I'd love to eventually know what you think Scripture says about leadership roles outside of pastoring. . .
I like that you're a good sport and confident of Scriptural revelation!
Reply to this
Blessings to all,
Isn't Jesus so direct and gentle with us all. This is the spirit and tone I'd like to write in. To find out if there were women leaders in the church in the New testament. I studied and found Romans 16. Women such as Tryphena and Tryphosa, Phoeba, Pricilla, and Acquilla are described by Paul as women that have "worked hard in the Lord; " "servants of the church" "risked their lives for me and for the church of the gentiles". Paul speaks of them as equals without division of leadership in this passage in advancing the church at this time. I was amazed at Paul's tone and grace toward these women here.
Additionaly my study showed Paul also addressed Euodia, and Synthche in Philp.4:3 as leaders and was trying to encourage the resolution of a misunderstanding.
Paul's admonition's to churches that appear derrogatory to woman in my opinion are to set norms for behavior in situations that were unruly due to sin or culture. I could be very wrong on this one. So don't stone me the jury is still out!
One last note in our differences let God have all the glory. My study revealed to me the women with Jesus were taking care of their financial needs independently, his physical needs, they ran to the tomp at 12:00 noon, although afraid because he said he would rise. They wept for him. They stood by him, even from a distance. when he was dying. They prayed, alot. (Mt27:55;Mt28;8;LK:8:3;Acts 1:4)
Thanks
Reply to this
I'm so glad Tryphena and Tryphosa got some attention. If we ever had twin girls, I always wanted to name them Tryphena and Tryphosa (seriously!), but for some reason my wife always opposed it.
Here's where we're at so far:
In Romans 16 Paul writes to many friends and Christian co-workers in Rome, male and female. He honors several women in the church as "servants of the church" who've "worked hard in the Lord" and "risked their lives" for Paul and the church and the gospel.
Nothing on this list in Romans 16 is insignificant. I would venture to say that none of these women felt like second-class ministers or servants or leaders! Each of these ministries and each of these women were important to Paul and to Christ and to the church.
But are any of these wonderful and sharp and godly and gifted women actually church "elders" or "pastors" or "overseers"?
Phoebe of Cencrea is a "servant" of the Lord, the same word could be translated deaconess. She was "a helper to many," (awesome!) but she is nowhere called an "elder" in the church.
Prisca is a "fellow worker in Christ Jesus." Along with her husband they hosted a church in their homes. She is an godly woman and leader for sure, but not necessarily an "elder" or pastor or bishop over churches.
And yes, all those Mary's were the first to go to Jesus' tomb. They fed Jesus in his life, met his needs, wept for him, stood by Him and tended to his dead body and were the first to see Him resurrected. They were relentless in their devotion to Jesus and way bolder than the many "manly" male disciples.
So far, it's been shown that women can and must participate in the life and ministry and service of the church. But what does God's Word say about women as "elders", or overseers, bishops; i.e., primary authorities, primary leaders, or primary pastors of churches?
Also, what do we learn about the significance and importance of all these other ways of "serving Christ" and "working hard in the Lord" and "risking life and limb" for the church and the gospel besides being a pastor or elder of a church?
Plus, there are still more passages to explore!
Reply to this
Polly is a wise woman!
Your summary is clear. No female elders or overseers; got it.
Are you hinting at something to come with your frequent use of the word "primary"? Are you going to talk to us about husband and wife co-pastors, or women in leadership under men? I'd like to hear what you have to say.
I went to visit the local Vineyard Church once, and they seem to be co-pastoring. I don't actually know, but there they were, both at the pulpit passing the microphone back and forth as they preached the sermon together. I don't know if he's the head pastor, the whole thing was wrong or what, but it was something to see. The love and unity was certainly beautiful to behold.
In all my years of attending healing conferences, I've had maybe hundreds of prayer partners lay hands on me. I was always excited when I saw I was assigned a prayer team made up of a husband and wife. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "better" than the same sex friends who were prayer partners, but again there's nothing like it. They reflect something about God that goes beyond their unity in the flesh when they're praying together for someone.
I was once a part of a search committee for a Pastor, and we never received an application from a woman. I don't know what would have happened, since the church once had a female Associate Pastor. When we were discussing questions to ask the interviewees, I suggested we ask if they prayed with their wives. I thought it was an interesting question that might tell us something, anything. I was forbidden to ask it because none of the others (I was the only single) prayed with their spouses. One person even took me aside and primly told me "not to put my standards for marriage onto other people." If I hadn't been so shocked and had my tongue in my head, I would have told them my standards weren't the ones they needed to worry about.
So. Unity amongst marrieds in service is pretty rare. Can we put this in the mix?
Reply to this
We've got the Greek words...
episkopos (bishop or elder),
presbyteroi (council of elders)Acts 11:30 and 15:22
presbuteros (Elder)- we get presbyter and abbv. "priest" in English.
Titus chapter one outlines what the qualifications for a elder/bishop/episkopos. "husband of one wife." etc. (a man)
1 Timothy chapter 3 - also outlines both the qualifications for episkopos and deacons. Both say "husband of one wife". (once again a man)
In first century early Christian writings presbuteros and episkopos are believed by some scholars to be the same office. Second century writings, seem to indicate they are split into two offices.
"Presbyter", in modern usage, it is distinct from bishop and synonymous with priest, pastor, elder, or minister in various Christian denominations.
Reply to this
See Steve's message above in relation to Phoebe. The words for elder and overseer/bishop are always referring to men, but the word for deacon can be found referring to women.
Some churches make things confusing by talking about deacons and elders as if they were synonymous, but they're not. A denomination can ask a group of deacons to function like a group of elders, but they're usually playing with semantics in order to allow female "elders." Elders have a very particular role, and deacons have a very particular role.
We have only to look at Stephen--who was appointed deacon to serve the widows-- to see how it is in no way an inferior position for inferior characters. A deacon full of grace and power who did wonders and miraculous signs whose face shown like an angel. Phoebe is spoken highly of as well, but there's less description than for Stephen.
Reply to this
I am reading I Timothy 2:9-15 I think some of you women may not like this passage, but it needs to be read prayerfully and not dismissed as irrelevant for the 21st century. This whole Bible is our help and our map in this world until Jesus comes again. What Paul tells us in this passage is not just for a Greek culture, it is for all mankind. That isn't gender mankind it is humans in general.
"Women Instructed
9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."
Sorry girls, it is in the Bible.
Reply to this
I'm not sorry it's in the Bible.
I do think that it would be helpful if you (and perhaps Steve) would talk (a little) more about our tendency to single out the bit about women not teaching or having authority, and skipping over the bit about braids and gold jewelry and pearls and costly garments. I sometimes wear a French braid, to church even, and I have all the above in my closet and jewelry box, and we've all seen in them on women at CC.
Most people (outside of the Amish and certain Pentecostals) roll their eyes at discussing this passage for fear of straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Or they think restrictions on female adornment like Paul here advocates is legalistic at this time. They figure the definition of modesty has changed, but what Paul has not allowed in terms of teaching has not changed.
I've befriended some of the local Lubavitchers, and I can tell you that it's no fun for me or the bored women on the other side of the screen during worship services. The dudes get to read the Scriptures, sing, everything. The women have a hard time and often talk amongst themselves. This firsthand experience confirms for me that when first century Jewish/Gentile women were finally allowed to participate, it must have been chaotic as they tried to catch up on Scriptural knowledge. Yeah, they probably should have been quieter and more submissive to their husbands. I've known more than my share of Adams who were deceived, in spite of their Y chromosome and order of creation.
What do you say about being preserved through the bearing of children for those of us who can't or who've never had the opportunity through marriage? Is it really a metaphor?
I'm not saying this passage is irrelevant or can't be understood in contemporary terms. I'm just saying we're not always so keen on examining and acknowledging our tendency to pick and choose what we consider outdated.
Reply to this
Yes.
Gen 3:16 "To the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.'"
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.
A Word to Husbands
7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
After Paul talks about marriage and celebacy (singleness)...
1 Co 7:17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.
These things in combination with the other verses above, clearly show God's view on a woman's role.
God never changes, and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is outside of time. Just because our perception of time changes, are we suposed to conform God to our lifestyle (our image), or conform our lives to God's (His Image)?
Reply to this
My whole Christian journey began with an article "How Jesus treated women", which brought me to tears and placed the desire in my heart to seek out the One who has always loved me.
Women are by no means "less than" in the gospel message. However, Jesus chose 12 men as diciples/later as apostles sent out as representives of Him and His Body (the Church). We can't all be fingers or eyes, we each have our part.
Men are to love their wifes as Jesus loved the Church. Wives are to respect their husbands and men love their wives. But this does not mean that one gender is less important.
In Luke, 1:48b...Mary says, "For behold, henceforth all genereations will call me blessed". Anna, served God in the temple with fastings and prayers night and day. (Luke 2:37)
Of the woman who pours oil on Jesus' feet, He says of her "Assuredly, I say to you, where ever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her." The women were the first at the tomb, and to tell the apostles of the resurection. WOW!
In my chuch, we have women who are nominated and serve on the churh council, as representives of the congregation. We have women who serve who to provide food and acts of charity to those who are sick, new moms or those in need. However, only men are ordained.
The pastor's wife holds special honor as being "one-flesh" with her husband, and is thus treated with the same respect. Her job is perhaps one of the hardest, sharing her husband with everyone, and taking those 2am crisis calls while managing a family and home with her husband often away.
I was once a church secretary...and the wonderful, humble, Jesus-loving, pastor
He was right. Later after examining my heart, my "need" to prove myself as strong enough, was not really trusting God in making me a woman, and dishonoring His image in me.
It is unfortunate that the bible has been misused by men to opress women, but this is contrary to what the bible teaches. Jesus absolutely treated women with love.
Reply to this
Firstly, so many churches have different structures that it is difficult to say the definition of God's church- the government of each church is subject to their own interpretation of how they interact with God's word. Do we judge a church if they do have women elder's like the Anglican or Methodist churches?
One suggested reading- it's heavy and academic but very good is "God's Word to Women" by Katherine Bushnell. She lived 1856-1946 and was probably one of the most influencial Christian women of this country's history...petitioned the government and headed up prayers and fasting to establish laws against prostitution. A personal hero of mine. She is a biblical scholar and very good to look into in bringing the questions to the table.
I would love to see more women in true leadership, eldership and even as pastors, but I also feel that any person that fits the role need to be looked at for their heart, their understanding and relationship to Christ. If someone like Katherine Bushnell walked in, led by the Lord and God sent them to us I hope we would not put our traditional cultural cloaks on and miss what blessings that God had for us in having a leader and teacher such as that.
If we look back at our history even as a church the last 2008 years how has culture and women's place changed dispite our interpretation of the bible. Jewish services are still segregated in many sects. Like those times of Paul, do we interpret the word's of Paul without it's present cultural context? Head coverings, and laws relating to ritual cleansing all point to the Law not grace. Jesus freed us from the law AND head coverings ; ) (Praise God) yet some Amish still devoutly use that as traditional and cultural context. ( It's still beautiful to me but in a different way) How has the churched in it's structure and form changed over 2000 years? I mean according to Paul braids and earings are out- even the term modest and decent have changed over the thousands of years.
I think when Jesus spoke and taught that he did not ever use a gender specific term, because his grace was for all humankind. Deciples, teachers, what we now call pastors in modern times, Jesus doesn't really specify restrictions in that way. During Christ's time culturally children were to be seen and not heard he corrected his disciples on how important children should have open access to Him. If women's roles as elders and pastors would point people to Christ and relationship with Him I would tend to weigh that as affirming God's plan.
Reply to this
Hey Parishionette--nice name. I'm wondering how you figure Jesus freed us from head coverings, since Paul said women ought to have them.
It's confusing that you can have passages like 1 Cor 11:1-16, and 1 Tim 2:9-15, and people end up saying some of the verses are metaphoric, some are to be updated according to cultural changes, and some are to be taken literally and obeyed timelessly.
I'm pretty sure Paul didn't see it that way. Do we really have the authority to pick and choose, and who gets to decide?
It seems logically problematic if we uphold to the verse about women not teaching men, but we're cool about women with short hair and pearls and the absence of kerchiefs and veils. Anyone?
I'm not trying to be contentious. I really want to know the Biblical basis for why I don't have to cover my head when Paul says I do. Please don't tell me my covering is the hair I already have. I've read those interpretations, and the whole "bald shrine prostitute" cultural thing is pretty flimsy. Paul talks about the disgrace of women praying/prophesying with their heads uncovered. You know he wasn't addressing a bunch of baldies. The ladies already had hair, except for maybe any former bald shrine prostitutes who recently met Jesus and left their former lifestyles.
Reply to this
If you have a chance to do some reading check this link out
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/veils.stm
It has some good background as to cultural context to head coverings. I found it very interesting and I guess I sort of align or think along similar lines of how to approach something like this.
I think there are lots of areas that really in a literal way we don't uphold perhaps ideals that Paul or the base traditions that came out of the early church, is is any wonder head coverings are any different? Not all churches uphold the verse about women not teaching men, there are ordained women in other churches... we had one in my past church, but we also had wine for communion a tradition that faded or for some reason is not in our litergical set up for what reason I don't see biblical base. Also baptisms in some are full emersion, others sprinkler style.
Churches also looked different, did they origionally have open bishops or pastors? I beleive they were like house churches lest be eaten by Rome's collesuim lions. Chrisitans met in secret without pomp and circumstance until much later- thanks so good ol Constantine in 300ad.
He also chose the first Pope-
I think we do have some right to intrepret with intelligent and spiritual lead reason. Think how people have abused or distorted the Constitution with the Right to bear arms? Does that mean a hunting gun or a flame thrower in the middle of the street? I think the same must be done when interpreting Paul's words. Me personally I do think that there is a cultural spin on writings that long ago, however I don't think people who take Paul's words are more literal are wrong.
Who am I to judge? People choose things all the time, sadly it is what breaks the church into lots of denominations, but what counts is what is in our hearts and how we live out Christ is what counts.
My Mom would not let me get my ears pierced because of a little verse in Deut., and how about all those tatooed people out there. Also, what about burial rites verses cremation. I once had a issue in speaking with how a cremation was justified vs burial and my then Rector said, what about all the martyrs burned at the stake? If God can raise them he will raise this person.
I think PSteve probably hit such a hot topic because of the town in which we live.
For me the covering is Christ.
Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus-- Galatians 3:25-28.
Reply to this
Parishionette, you make a great point. Too many churches pick and choose what is right according to their liking. Some say wine is biblical, use it. Jesus did. The early church did. We should. Others connotate wine with excess, immorality, and feel that too many will be tempted or sucked under, so in love don't use wine. And too often, the same associate their view with a "biblical" rather than a "nonbiblical" justification.
Likewise, as you said, some churches do full immersion baptisms, which is what the Gk word "baptizo"literally means. Other churches sprinkle and oppose immersion. So you're right, we do pick and choose and in doing so, we often classify our reasons as right and biblical and what Jesus would do. We need to watch ourselves here...
However...
(1) I read the article that you cited and found no basis from it for Paul telling female Christ-followers to wear their hair up or to veil their hair under. The author's point seemed to be "this was the customary way or this was how pagan worshipers and vestal virgins wore their hair." But this would be meaningless to Paul and to Christ! Neither Jesus or Paul were captive to local custom and tradition. Each was the first to break said norms.
I agree that women don't have to wear veils on their head for good reason (later)... but notice that the primary point is associated with the universal and timeless truth of 1 Co 11:3. "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." We cannot say male headship was merely cultural when it is tied to Christ as the head of every man and Abba being the eternal head of Christ.
(2) You correctly wrote, "Not all churches uphold the verse about women not teaching men..." True, but that's not a valid argument for us to do it, no more than saying our church shouldn't allow women to teach men because many other churches don't allow this.
The point that needs to be proven beyond a doubt is WHY NOT uphold New Testament teachings to churches as not being valid for churches today?
Why are verses like that in Scripture in the first place? What was the reason, the point, the application for today??? We're they put in their to uphold pagan traditions or to uphold neandertholic notions of male domination and the dimunition of women? To this, we must categorically say NO! God forbid. But then why were these statements put into Scripture?
(3) Again, regarding women being Lead Pastors, Elders, or Bishops over Christ's church, no one has convinced me from the Creation Accounts or from the Practice or Teachings of Christ or the New Testament Teachings or from the Practices of the New Testament churches. Fact is, some have quoted passages suggest the opposite and yet, I've seen as much argument against these passages as for them.
Reply to this
Steve,
I am thankful for your explanations and your perspective as a pastor and PhD. I think one really NEEDS to have a PhD to sort this all out these days and this is sad because the bible wasn't written by PhD.s and I would guess it's orginal audience wasn't meant to be only the most highly educated. But for as many Bible scholars as you have, you'll get a different interpretation from each Christian denomination. Therefore, to me the average person, it all seems so unspecific and so random. I came to know Christ at College Church because it was the first time anyone explained the Gospel in a way that made sense, and because it was presented to me that we could be saved by asking Jesus into our hearts, asking him to forgive our sins, and accepting him as Lord and Savior. It was specific, and it made sense, and my heart was moved. I would never have been able to makes sense of something so vague as "trusting Jesus". But some can, and they will come to know Christ through a different message than I came to know him by. It works. I cling to the Gospel, and know Christ as Lord and Savior. The other beliefs of our church such as interpreting specific scriptural passages I just have learned that there are no absolutes. Heavens, even our pastors past and present don't agreee with each other on interpretation of some things and that is within the same church!!! How can we mere mortals figure it out or be expected to believe whatever is the belief of our most current pastor, etc. Live and let live, we are all in Christ, I don't judge anyone or condemn anyone for believing differently than me. Thank you for your insights, at least now I understand why the elders at CC believe as they do.
Reply to this
Hi Teacher,
I don't think having a [DMin] has anything to do with what I've written so far.
Also, I don't know what you've inferred about why the elders at CC believe as they do... I'm not even sure I know what each of the elders at CC believe on this? So I'm not sure how I shed light on this subjecte...
... I have only been asking one consistent question: "What does the Bible say on the matter of women as elders, or lead pastors, or bishops, or overseers?"
It's really important to me to know what God's Word says. And, so far, from the verses supplied by readers, I haven't seen direct biblical support for equating elders with women.
That's just where we're at so far...
Reply to this
Psteve, I do think there is a biblical view vs cultural view however I think on the biblical justification, my point is- we underestimate how cultural shifts change even our biblical interpretations on things. (You were schooled to interpret scripture a certain way right?)
I think all too often the verses regarding homosexuality on the fundamental side are used like this, and on the opposite sides of cultural reasoning will even ordain priests or leaders that are openly living a gay lifestyle.
I think the traditions born out of the law, Jesus respected and followed them under his parents roof (like Kosher, etc) but when things that held people in bondage he freed them such as healing on the sabboth and also to make the point that traditons had to not stand in the way of love (to the Pharasees). But I have a sneaking thought that he didn't run out and eat pork chops out of living outside of the customs and traditions just because he could. And Paul also taught to sit and minister to the Gentiles, not judge them for what they eat, wear for the same reason. The age old Grace vs Law!
On point 2- I don't know what the argument scripturally behind ordaining women in the episcopal church is, but I plan on emailing my old rector and finding out. (His wife is ordained) I have a feeling it will be a cultural one, but I maybe he has a scriptural take on it.
My main point was there are lots of verses that if take them apart you can fashion any kind of flavor church a society wishes, which is exactly what our culture and history has done.
This can be both bad and good depending on how you look at it.
If we tried to recreate the early church exactly what would it look like?
I think the scriptures when written were to be kept whole (like letters), and statements did contain cultural influences but like any letter Paul wrote the purity and wholeness of translation has been kept over history for context and not sensored. I think my main point is that why do we pick and choose what aspects of culture and biblical interpretations to amend and change? Cults have done that, other religions have done that with scipture. There are so many things in the bible that I would like to ask...why is that in there? Especially in Gen and Rev.
I don't think we will get to a beyond a doubt with lots of things in scripture,that's part of the mystery. Kind of like the Creation and Universe philosphical questions.... but one thing is for sure....Jesus is Everything! : )
I am looking forward to other peoples take on this!
Reply to this
The point that needs to be proven beyond a doubt is WHY NOT uphold Paul's teachings as valid for churches today.
Yup. I'm with you. Looking forward to hearing the good reasons you have for the whys and why nots when we navigate these passages.
Reply to this
I want to say, first, Pastor Steve, when I asked you about this a couple of weeks ago, I had not read the blog and did not know this was brewing. ]
Second, I guess the scriptures we have to look at are 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1-which lays down the "requirements" for a bishop, or pastor, and an elder. I am not going to focus on one particular verse, but, they all reference a male as the person who holds these positions.
Also, as Edwina pointed out, 1 Timothy 2 has some pretty strong words on women and authority.
I must say that my flesh doesn't always like this. But, also, I must say that just because these are not positions I or other women can hold, that does not mean, nor do I ever see, God trivializing the gifts and the ministries that women do have. I think sometimes we make such a case out of not being able to hold the "important" roles in the church, we miss out on seeing opportunities where we can minister and reach out.
I am a woman. God has a special role for me in His church. And, if I can get past my flesh, and at times rebellious nature, He can show me that plan, and I can be content in Him.
Reply to this
True confession: I don't think women should be priests. I don't think men should be priests, either. I think the New Testament supports this.
Paul always appointed elders(male) when he was establishing churches. He never put a single man in charge. We do this in the western church, even though there's no support for it in the NT. A lot of places try to pad the leadership through boards of elders or deacons, but the fact remains that we like the OT "Moses" model and keep one person in authority. Remember when Steve told us about someone reminding him that the gym was like a sanctuary, the table like an altar, he like the high priest, no bikinis or visible abs allowed? Sorry, Charlie. We like the metaphor, but the church isn't "like" the temple. We're the temple. We just happen to have a building where the church assembles.
I've seen some fancy footwork that says that elder is just a euphemism for Pastor, but I'm not buying what they're selling. I've known Pastors who were actually apostles, and I've known pastors who were actually evangelists. It isn't all that often that Pastors are actually pastors. We've made this problem for ourselves by bungling the NT model. Am I the only Jesus Freak who thinks this?
Can we explore 1 Cor 12, Steve? The appeal is to all the body, but I've known churches to put restrictions according to gender on the gifts, some of which are clearly leadership gifts.
Reply to this
When I read this comment I was moved to speak. For years I struggled with being a woman, I hated the idea that I was an afterthought of creation that I was the "weaker vessel". I became a fierce, dominant, striving woman and although I accepted pretty much everything else the Bible had to say, I couldn't accept what I THOUGH God's stance was on womankind. Then I read a book called, "What Paul Really Said About Women" and I was completely enlightened and have felt an enormous amount of healing in my life. I suggest anyone read it.
The essential points I feel moved to express are that we as women do not have to be content in lesser roles simply because some argue that men should hold the higher ones. I believe this is a plow of the enemy to keep wonderful, on fire for Christ women out of the places where they could best further the kingdom. Many of the verses that are held over women as cues that we are less are taken out of cultural context and the proper translations are not explored. In Paul's time a major shift came into play and women were leading churches. The whole "braiding hair" controversy comes from the fact that during that time only prostitutes braided their hair and lavishly adorned themselves - Paul is essentially saying don't dress in a way that makes you look sleezy. The book far more eloquently explains God's roles for women that is deeply rooted in scripture. Please, anyone if you are struggling with this concept at least read this book, its short. In the end we are free to decide what we will think, but at least round out your view by looking at scripture in context
Reply to this