Women Elders?

[_TK]

Your church sounds awesome, danny. we are part of the evangelical friends, eastern region. I can immediately tell that your church is more connected to "quakerism" than mine. We hardly ever hear the word quaker mentioned. our youth pastor is a woman, and many women teach classes(that men attend). there is one girl from our church in college studying to be a pastor. I guess the next logical step was to nominate women as elders.

TK

[Guest]

To me, this all comes down to a matter of following the living Spirit behind the text rather than the just the letter of the text, which is rooted in a time and a culture.

Are you suggesting that none of the stated requirements in 1 Timothy now have any prescriptive value to us in our different "context?" That turns the bible into the so-called "nose of wax," doesn't it ?

[Guest]

Are you suggesting that none of the stated requirements in 1 Timothy now have any prescriptive value to us in our different "context?"

Of course not! What I'm saying is that we have to deep deeper than just a flat reading/application of the text. We have to endeavor to understand what the text meant to those who originally heard it (in this case, Timothy). Then we can extrapolate from that (with the Holy Spirit's guidance) how the text applies to us.

Case in point: In 1 Timothy 3:2 Paul states that a prospective elder should be "the husband of one wife". To this day, people argue about what Paul meant. Was he disqualifying polygamists? Was polygamy a common practice in that place and time? Or was he disqualifying men who had been divorced and remarried? Or maybe if we look beyond the letter to the Spirit of the text we can see that Paul is simply painting a picture of faithfulness and integrity in marriage and other relationships. Some churches would disqualify a fantastic teacher like Steve Gregg on the basis that he has been married more than once. They are unable to get beyond the letter, and it would be their loss. Paul lived in a culture where women generally could not divorce their husbands and where adultery on the part of a woman was a serious crime. If a divorce occurred therefore, it was almost always at the behest of the man and to the woman's detriment. A divorce, in Paul's day, left a woman with no means of support, since women generally didn't have careers. So in Paul's context, a divorce carried with it all kinds of issues regarding justice and fairness towards the woman and the integrity of the man. In our culture these issues may not apply to a divorce situation.

[Guest]

Are you suggesting that none of the stated requirements in 1 Timothy now have any prescriptive value to us in our different "context?"

Of course not! What I'm saying is that we have to deep deeper than just a flat reading/application of the text. We have to endeavor to understand what the text meant to those who originally heard it (in this case, Timothy). Then we can extrapolate from that (with the Holy Spirit's guidance) how the text applies to us.

Case in point: In 1 Timothy 3:2 Paul states that a prospective elder should be "the husband of one wife". To this day, people argue about what Paul meant. Was he disqualifying polygamists? Was polygamy a common practice in that place and time? Or was he disqualifying men who had been divorced and remarried? Or maybe if we look beyond the letter to the Spirit of the text we can see that Paul is simply painting a picture of faithfulness and integrity in marriage and other relationships. Some churches would disqualify a fantastic teacher like Steve Gregg on the basis that he has been married more than once. They are unable to get beyond the letter, and it would be their loss. Paul lived in a culture where women generally could not divorce their husbands and where adultery on the part of a woman was a serious crime. If a divorce occurred therefore, it was almost always at the behest of the man and to the woman's detriment. A divorce, in Paul's day, left a woman with no means of support, since women generally didn't have careers. So in Paul's context, a divorce carried with it all kinds of issues regarding justice and fairness towards the woman and the integrity of the man. In our culture these issues may not apply to a divorce situation.

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying (avoid the wooden literal and get to the contextual meaning of what was being taught), but your application of this principle seems a bit disturbing to me and prone to gross error if applied in that way throughout scripture.

We all have oxen we would prefer weren't gored by specific teachings, and would prefer to contextualize some of the specific directives, but I'm not sure you have warrant to do this without something in the scripture itself (or at least early apostolic practice) to suggest this was the meaning or to negate the specific New Testament teaching.

Of course not! What I'm saying is that we have to deep deeper than just a flat reading/application of the text. We have to endeavor to understand what the text meant to those who originally heard it (in this case, Timothy). Then we can extrapolate from that (with the Holy Spirit's guidance) how the text applies to us.

More particularly, to this point, I believe this is a sound approach when expanding holiness principles to various aspects of our lives that were not addressed by a particular passage, but not to escape specific teachings (without significant warrant).

[Guest]

Mort, you wrote:

Paul lived in a culture where women generally could not divorce their husbands and where adultery on the part of a woman was a serious crime.

Are you suggesting that adultery was not a serious crime, or is your point that it was "only" serious when a woman did it?

Thanks, dmatic

[Guest]

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying (avoid the wooden literal and get to the contextual meaning of what was being taught), but your application of this principle seems a bit disturbing to me and prone to gross error if applied in that way throughout scripture.

Either way, gross error is possible. Whether we stick to the words on the page alone; without regard to original context, or whether we try to understand the original context, there are no guarantees. However, I would think being cognizant of the original context (cultural, historical, linguistic, etc.) as well as seeking consistency in our interpretation with the revealed character of God in Christ, is the safest way to go.

We all have oxen we would prefer weren't gored by specific teachings, and would prefer to contextualize some of the specific directives, but I'm not sure you have warrant to do this without something in the scripture itself (or at least early apostolic practice) to suggest this was the meaning or to negate the specific New Testament teaching.

You seem to be assuming that my goal was to negate scripture which I disagree with by "contextualizing" it. If this is your assumption, it is incorrect. Rather, my goal (with any scripture) is to come to an accurate understanding of what the author was saying then and what the application is now, in this time and culture. The two may or may not be one and the same. We have a great many tools at our disposal to help us sort this out and, most importantly, we have the living presence of the Holy Spirit to guide us.

More particularly, to this point, I believe this is a sound approach when expanding holiness principles to various aspects of our lives that were not addressed by a particular passage, but not to escape specific teachings (without significant warrant).

The whole point is not to escape specific teachings but to correctly understand and apply specific teachings. This is especially important when a misunderstanding could marginalize a large group of people (like, um, half the human race).

So, assuming you are not in favor of women having equal status within the church, I have a few questions:

1. What do you think it is about women that disqualifies them from teaching or having authority within the church? Is it because Eve was deceived? Is it because they they are weaker in some sense? Is it because "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"?

2. Do you believe that limitations upon the function of women in the church should be extended to the world at large? If a woman shouldn't be a pastor, should she be a CEO? What do you see as the difference?

[Guest]

Hi dmatic,

Are you suggesting that adultery was not a serious crime, or is your point that it was "only" serious when a woman did it?

From what I've studied of ancient Semitic and Greco-Roman cultures, women suffered much more severe legal punishment for committing adultery than men did. In the Roman culture of Paul's day, for example, it was not at all unusual or scandalous for men to have sexual dalliances outside of the marriage bed. Women, on the other hand, could be put to death for adultery.

[Guest]

So, assuming you are not in favor of women having equal status within the church, I have a few questions:

Well, no, not status -- just position/role (big difference).

1. What do you think it is about women that disqualifies them from teaching or having authority within the church? Is it because Eve was deceived? Is it because they they are weaker in some sense? Is it because "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"?

More the latter than the former, but not in a blind dogmatic sense. I do think there are aspects of all of these things, but it is clear that God made man and woman in different ways, made them in a different order, used them in different ways, and even had a difference in position between the Son and the Father and made a strong connection between that positional relationship and the relationship of Christ (the head) to the Church (the bride). Positional headship and authority in the "male" is such a clear concept that Paul's teachings with respect to women just fits without the need to escape the immediate context.

2. Do you believe that limitations upon the function of women in the church should be extended to the world at large? If a woman shouldn't be a pastor, should she be a CEO? What do you see as the difference?

Well, first I don't believe there is scriptural authority for "pastor," but to the extent you mean one of the "elders," then the church and marriage are creations of God, and reflect on God and His creative plan (at least for Christian marriages -- I don't care much how secular "unions" organize themselves). Secular organizations do not share that particular feature, and I see no reason why a woman can't be CEO. God did not establish secular governments or secular commercial entities and I see no reason pragmatism and fairness can't govern in that arena. Spiritual institutions established by God should remain as God intended them and should do everything they can do to elevate God's will and plan and point to Him and His kingdom in a way that may seem foreign to the secular world focused on pragmatism, fairness and equity above all else.

[Guest]

Positional headship and authority in the "male" is such a clear concept that Paul's teachings with respect to women just fits without the need to escape the immediate context.

When you say it's a "clear concept", are you basing that upon the number of times scripture reflects a male dominated culture? Are you extrapolating from that cultural basis that it must be a reflection of God's ideal? Scripture is consistently tolerant of slavery as an institution. Do you think tolerance of slavery is God's ideal also?

I would still be curious to hear your explanation of why you believe God's plan is that women be disqualified from headship and authority. Is it arbitrary? Is it due to some shortcoming in women?

Secular organizations do not share that particular feature, and I see no reason why a woman can't be CEO.

How about a Christian organization that is not a church? Where does the line of exclusion get drawn? Should a woman who runs a Christian organization and exercises authority over men Monday through Friday then be submissive to them on Sunday at church?

Spiritual institutions established by God should remain as God intended them and should do everything they can do to elevate God's will and plan and point to Him and His kingdom in a way that may seem foreign to the secular world focused on pragmatism, fairness and equity above all else.

On this we all agree, I'm sure. Where we differ is on our understanding of what God's will and plan are.

[Guest]

I don't think women have any particular shortcomings -- I wouldn't call it "arbitrary" really -- I think God has His reasons.

How about a Christian organization that is not a church? Where does the line of exclusion get drawn? Should a woman who runs a Christian organization and exercises authority over men Monday through Friday then be submissive to them on Sunday at church?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian organization." I don't believe a woman should have any degree of spiritual authority over a man, whether that is in a home group meeting or from the pulpit. I don't have a problem with a woman security guard exercising physical authority over a man in either church or work. The best boss I ever had was a woman (and a later one was the worst), but she never held any spiritual authority over me.

You might want to check out these audio snippets from Steve on "Audio Doctrine."

http://audiodoctrine.com/downloads/TNP0 ... ctions.mp3
http://audiodoctrine.com/downloads/TNP0 ... astors.mp3
http://audiodoctrine.com/downloads/TNP0 ... isters.mp3
http://audiodoctrine.com/downloads/TNP0 ... ce_pt2.mp3
http://audiodoctrine.com/downloads/TNP0 ... ilence.mp3
http://audiodoctrine.com/downloads/TNP0 ... ership.mp3

You may also find this site/article interesting....

http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Sermons/M ... enesis-1-3