A Biblical Primer on Women in Ministry (Part 4)
______________________________________
Part 1: History and Confessions
Part 2: Priesthood of the Believer
Part 3: Spiritual Gifts
Part 4: Offices in the Church
Deacon
A gray area tends to exist with reference to the differences between “ministry” and “deacons” in the New Testament. In English and in the practice of the church there is generally a clear distinction between “ministers” and “deacons,” especially where the subject of ordination obtains. This distinction breaks down in the Greek. The word most often rendered “ministry” is diakonia, simply a cognate of diakonos, which may be rendered “minister” or “deacon.” The Greek word diakonos appears as a technical term in 1 Tim. 3:8, 12, designating an office that of “bishop” and/or “presbyter” (1 Tim. 3:1; cf. Titus 1:5, 7, for interchange of “bishop” and “presbyter”). Even here the term is not fixed, for Timothy is a diakonos (1 Tim. 4:6). Another ambiguity appears in 1 Tim. 3:11, where gynaikos can mean “wives” or women,” i.e., wives of deacons or women as deacons. Outside the Pastorals, the term diakonos is so fluid that it may be used for anyone who serves in any way. Among those called “deacon” in the New Testament are included anyone who serves (Mt. 20:26), the servants who drew the water at the Cana wedding (Jn. 2:5), political rulers (Rom. 13:4), Christ (Rom. 15:8), Apollos and Paul (1 Cor. 3:5), and Timothy (1 Thess. 3:2). During the course of the first century and the realization of a more distant parousia, the term gradually acquired a technical usage for a specific church office (1 Tim. 3:8, 12; 4:6).
In Romans 16:1-2 we read: “Phoebe, who is a deaconess of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” Paul called Phoebe a diakonos. She is called a “deacon,” not a “deaconess.” The reference to Phoebe is unique, however, in two aspects.
First, Paul refers to her using the specifically masculine noun form diakonos, rather than some feminine alternative reflecting the more general idea of service. The term “deaconess” does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, the designation “deaconess” did not develop until the late third or early fourth century. This is significant because in Paul’s reference to women in 1 Timothy 3:11, the apostle does not use the word deacon (diakonos). His choice of a feminine noun (gynaikas) opens the possibility that he was referring either to women office holders or, less likely, to the wives of male deacons. If in the first century there existed no word for “deaconess” but only “deacon” (a word Paul applies to Phoebe), then to distinguish between men and women deacons Paul would have been without a word. Furthermore, if Paul had intended to speak of deacon “wives” he had a word to use which would not have been gynaikas.
Second, Paul places Phoebe’s ministry within a specific congregation, for she is a diakonos “of the church at Cenchreae.” This is the only New Testament occurrence of the word followed by a genitive construction linking a person’s service directly to a local church. Usually Paul uses the genitive appellation to denote a broader application as a “minister of Christ” (Col 1:7; 1 Tim 4:6). The idiosyncrasies of his commendation provide strong evidence that Paul intended to designate Phoebe as serving in some important official capacity in the Cenchrean church. She was a deacon, an office to which a congregation could appoint both men and women.
In reviewing Romans 16:1-2, a number of fascinating conclusions and questions emerge. “Phoebe, who is a ‘deaconess’ of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” 1) Phoebe is a “deaconess” of her church. 2) The Roman church is commanded by Paul to receive her in a Christian manner. 3) The Roman church is to help her in her ministry in whatever matter she may have need of them. If this be the case, then if she asks something of them are they to obey? Does obedience imply submission to authority? Does Phoebe, having been sent by an Apostle, have authority over the Romans? Obviously Paul implicitly trusts the judgment and decision making abilities of Phoebe. Why should he not? She has helped Paul and Paul knows her. 4) She has been a helper of Paul, now the Romans are to help her.
A further thought emerges: It is not impossible that the carrier of the Epistle to the Romans, the magnum opus of the Pauline Scriptures, the ultimate systematic treatise of grace and faith, the document that influenced Luther and Calvin and launched the Protestant Reformation to save Christianity from the Catholic Church, the Scripture that influenced Barth and launched the Neo-Orthodoxy movement to save Protestantism from German Liberalism, was entrusted to a deaconess named Phoebe. Obviously, Paul trusted her. Obviously, God trusted her.
McBeth’s argument that the expansion of ministry roles has led to the expansion of roles for women offers an intriguing and hopeful outcome to the debate about women’s ordination. Women who now serve in an unordained capacity are filling the roles that have opened as the ministry has expanded. All Christians are called to serve and some actually recognize this call. Ordination is like a baptismal ceremony. A Baptism does not make a person a believer; only the Holy Spirit makes a person a believer. Similarly, ordination is only a symbolic recognition for the church of what the Holy Spirit has already done or is doing. Whether or not the church ceremonially ordains women or not, the Holy Spirit will ordain who He wants and no tradition will impede.
Elder/Overseer/Pastor
Now we come to the heart of the argument of this paper: women can be pastors. Complementarians might welcome the conclusion that the New Testament church appointed women as deacons, which would be in keeping with their perspective on a woman’s place in God’s order – those called to serving/helping ministries. For complementarians, however, the possibility that women acted as elders is more problematic. Without question, women serving in this office would entail the “exercise of authority” that they would find incompatible with the male leadership principle.
From her study, Mary Evans concludes, “There is no woman anywhere in the New Testament who is ever described as and elder or a bishop.” This seems to confirm the complementarian contention. Evans and complementarians may be technically correct. With the possible exception of 1 Timothy 5:2, nowehere does a biblical author uses either of the Greek designations for this office (episkopos or presbyteros) in conjunction with specific women. But this must be placed within the context of two other considerations. As Evans herself then adds, “No man is ever described as being a bishop and the only men who are specifically referred to as elders are Peter (1 Peter 5:1) and the writer of 2 and 3 John, both of whom refer to themselves in this way.” As a result, we cannot build a case against women elders from the lack of personal designations in the texts. In addition, as with other “doctrines” of ordination, the New Testament nowhere directly prohibits the appointment of women to this office. Therefore, persons who would exclude women from the eldership on biblical grounds must develop their case from inferences.
It has generally been the case among Baptists that terms such as elder (presbyteros), overseer (episkopos), and pastor (“shepherd”) are synonymous terms for the same office or function within a local congregation. This view is based upon the Acts 20:17, 28. While many people and many denominations might separate the terms into separate offices, Baptists have tended to view the separate terms as describing a single office. This is much like the numerous names attributed to Jesus (the Christ, the Son of Man, the Second Adam, the Prince of Peace, etc.) All these designations refer to the same person but attribute to him different “functions.” If we then say an elder is a pastor is an overseer then we have at least simplified the discussion.
The term elder (presbyteros) (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17-18; Tit 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1-4) could refer either to chronological age or to a specific ministry within the community. The name suggests spiritual oversight, for elders fulfilled certain ministries such as anointing the sick (Jas 5:14) as well as preaching, teaching, admonishing and guarding against heresy (Tit 1:9).
The designation bishop (episkopos) means “one who supervises” (see Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9). Hence this office is “almost always related to oversight or administration.” Bishops directed the ongoing functioning of the congregation in the various aspects of its corporate ministry. They were to “shepherd” or guide the people of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). And by providing administrative leadership, they coordinated congregational ministry (1 Tim 3:5; 5:17).
The primary function of the elders is to be responsible for the caring and the teaching of the congregation. As “leaders” they give guidance and direction to the church. As teachers they oversee the life of the church, to preserve its faithfulness. Titus 1:9 say that the elder “must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to refute those who contradict it.” Elders are also the governing overseers. 1 Timothy 5:17 says, “Let the elders who rule well (or govern or oversee or manage well) be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching." So it is evident that there exists a diversity of functionality among elders. All must be able to handle the word of God and be able to recognize false doctrine and correct error; but some “labor especially in preaching and teaching.”
It is apparent from Scripture that there always existed more than one elder in each local congregation. In Jerusalem: Acts 15:22, "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church to choose men and to send them to Antioch." In Ephesus: Acts 20:17, "And from Miletus [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church." In all the towns of Crete: Titus 1:5, "This is why I (Paul) left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." In all the churches James wrote to when he said, "To the twelve tribes of the dispersion": James 5:14, "Is any among you sick? Let him call the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" (assuming that there are elders in every church). In all the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia that Peter wrote to: 1 Peter 5:1, "So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed." Finally, in all the churches Paul founded on the first missionary journey (and presumably on the other journeys as well): Acts 14:23, "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed."
It would appear that most churches today are unbiblical in that they have a single pastor or a single elder in final authority. This concept is completely foreign to the New Testament church. They always had pastors (plural) and elders (plural). No one person was ever given a final voice of authority. Elders reached unanimous decisions after much prayer and deliberation as to what the final teaching of the Scriptures meant.
W.B. Johnson, the first President of the Southern Baptist Convention (1845), wrote in 1846: “In a review of these Scriptures, we have these points clearly made out:
1. That over each church of Christ in the apostolic age, a plurality of rulers was ordained, who were designated by the terms elder, bishop, overseer, pastor, with authority in the government of the flock.
2. That this authority involved no legislative power or right, but that it was ministerial and executive only, and that, in its exercise, the rulers were not to lord it over God's heritage, but as examples to lead the flock to the performance of duty ...
3. That these rulers were all equal in rank and authority, no one having a preeminence over the rest. This satisfactorily appears from the fact that the same qualifications were required of all, so that though some labored in word and doctrine, and others did not, the distinction between them was not in rank, but in the character of their service...
4. That the members of the flock were required to follow and imitate the faith of their rulers, in due consideration of the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever...”
Southern Baptists as a whole have significantly departed from Mr. Johnson's summary of New Testament teaching on this matter. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit is able to work around and even through our ecclesiastical interpretations. Just as there are many who serve as deacons but are not recognized or ordained as deacons, so are there many who serve as elders put are not recognized as such. If complementarians and egalitarians can agree on anything it should be that the epistles of Timothy and Titus tell us that the qualifications for appointing elders has nothing to do with professional skills or degrees. The qualifications all regard personal character and morality. Those elders who do lead, teach and preach well are due more respect, but it is not a necessary qualification. In short, eldership is based on spiritual maturity. While it may be common that an elder is of advanced age this is not necessarily so. Take a young church plant that has only young adults as members. If there are a few members who have been believers longer than the rest and exhibit spiritual maturity, even if they are in their late thirties, they are the elders. And length of belief may not necessarily be a factor. Some believers mature very quickly and might be looked upon by other believers who are older and have been believers longer. What is common in these two scenarios is that believers will be able to discern those who by their spiritual maturity are the elders of a church. Whether or not these people are officially recognized as such by the church is of no great spiritual matter. Like deacons, they fulfill their function despite contemporary ecclesiastical standards. This is why even if current Baptist standards to do not recognize the Biblical standard the Holy Spirit, despite our ignorance, makes the church go as He pleases.
Now with this in mind, if we go to 1 Timothy 5, we see both elders (presbutero) and elderess (presbuteras). In Titus 2, we have a slightly different word for elder (presbutas) and elderess (presbutidas). Both are adjectival forms of the terms of 1 Timothy 5. There is much debate on whether these words signify “elder” or merely the “aged.” In the context of the Pastoral Epistles and with regard to the similarity between the requirements of both the 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 2 chapters, it is safe to say that Paul is speaking of the same function. Therefore, a woman can be and elder. If we then assert the plurality of eldership expressed in the Bible and then assert the notion that elder, overseer, and pastor all refer to the same office, then we must assert that the Bible clearly teaches that women can be pastors.
We must further note that, as with the deaconship, whether or not women are recognized as elderesses by the church in the symbolic recognition of ordination, they are already serving the elder/pastor function. The Holy Spirit moves despite the contemporary traditions of men.
Part 1: History and Confessions
Part 2: Priesthood of the Believer
Part 3: Spiritual Gifts
Part 4: Offices in the Church
Deacon
A gray area tends to exist with reference to the differences between “ministry” and “deacons” in the New Testament. In English and in the practice of the church there is generally a clear distinction between “ministers” and “deacons,” especially where the subject of ordination obtains. This distinction breaks down in the Greek. The word most often rendered “ministry” is diakonia, simply a cognate of diakonos, which may be rendered “minister” or “deacon.” The Greek word diakonos appears as a technical term in 1 Tim. 3:8, 12, designating an office that of “bishop” and/or “presbyter” (1 Tim. 3:1; cf. Titus 1:5, 7, for interchange of “bishop” and “presbyter”). Even here the term is not fixed, for Timothy is a diakonos (1 Tim. 4:6). Another ambiguity appears in 1 Tim. 3:11, where gynaikos can mean “wives” or women,” i.e., wives of deacons or women as deacons. Outside the Pastorals, the term diakonos is so fluid that it may be used for anyone who serves in any way. Among those called “deacon” in the New Testament are included anyone who serves (Mt. 20:26), the servants who drew the water at the Cana wedding (Jn. 2:5), political rulers (Rom. 13:4), Christ (Rom. 15:8), Apollos and Paul (1 Cor. 3:5), and Timothy (1 Thess. 3:2). During the course of the first century and the realization of a more distant parousia, the term gradually acquired a technical usage for a specific church office (1 Tim. 3:8, 12; 4:6).
In Romans 16:1-2 we read: “Phoebe, who is a deaconess of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” Paul called Phoebe a diakonos. She is called a “deacon,” not a “deaconess.” The reference to Phoebe is unique, however, in two aspects.
First, Paul refers to her using the specifically masculine noun form diakonos, rather than some feminine alternative reflecting the more general idea of service. The term “deaconess” does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, the designation “deaconess” did not develop until the late third or early fourth century. This is significant because in Paul’s reference to women in 1 Timothy 3:11, the apostle does not use the word deacon (diakonos). His choice of a feminine noun (gynaikas) opens the possibility that he was referring either to women office holders or, less likely, to the wives of male deacons. If in the first century there existed no word for “deaconess” but only “deacon” (a word Paul applies to Phoebe), then to distinguish between men and women deacons Paul would have been without a word. Furthermore, if Paul had intended to speak of deacon “wives” he had a word to use which would not have been gynaikas.
Second, Paul places Phoebe’s ministry within a specific congregation, for she is a diakonos “of the church at Cenchreae.” This is the only New Testament occurrence of the word followed by a genitive construction linking a person’s service directly to a local church. Usually Paul uses the genitive appellation to denote a broader application as a “minister of Christ” (Col 1:7; 1 Tim 4:6). The idiosyncrasies of his commendation provide strong evidence that Paul intended to designate Phoebe as serving in some important official capacity in the Cenchrean church. She was a deacon, an office to which a congregation could appoint both men and women.
In reviewing Romans 16:1-2, a number of fascinating conclusions and questions emerge. “Phoebe, who is a ‘deaconess’ of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” 1) Phoebe is a “deaconess” of her church. 2) The Roman church is commanded by Paul to receive her in a Christian manner. 3) The Roman church is to help her in her ministry in whatever matter she may have need of them. If this be the case, then if she asks something of them are they to obey? Does obedience imply submission to authority? Does Phoebe, having been sent by an Apostle, have authority over the Romans? Obviously Paul implicitly trusts the judgment and decision making abilities of Phoebe. Why should he not? She has helped Paul and Paul knows her. 4) She has been a helper of Paul, now the Romans are to help her.
A further thought emerges: It is not impossible that the carrier of the Epistle to the Romans, the magnum opus of the Pauline Scriptures, the ultimate systematic treatise of grace and faith, the document that influenced Luther and Calvin and launched the Protestant Reformation to save Christianity from the Catholic Church, the Scripture that influenced Barth and launched the Neo-Orthodoxy movement to save Protestantism from German Liberalism, was entrusted to a deaconess named Phoebe. Obviously, Paul trusted her. Obviously, God trusted her.
McBeth’s argument that the expansion of ministry roles has led to the expansion of roles for women offers an intriguing and hopeful outcome to the debate about women’s ordination. Women who now serve in an unordained capacity are filling the roles that have opened as the ministry has expanded. All Christians are called to serve and some actually recognize this call. Ordination is like a baptismal ceremony. A Baptism does not make a person a believer; only the Holy Spirit makes a person a believer. Similarly, ordination is only a symbolic recognition for the church of what the Holy Spirit has already done or is doing. Whether or not the church ceremonially ordains women or not, the Holy Spirit will ordain who He wants and no tradition will impede.
Elder/Overseer/Pastor
Now we come to the heart of the argument of this paper: women can be pastors. Complementarians might welcome the conclusion that the New Testament church appointed women as deacons, which would be in keeping with their perspective on a woman’s place in God’s order – those called to serving/helping ministries. For complementarians, however, the possibility that women acted as elders is more problematic. Without question, women serving in this office would entail the “exercise of authority” that they would find incompatible with the male leadership principle.
From her study, Mary Evans concludes, “There is no woman anywhere in the New Testament who is ever described as and elder or a bishop.” This seems to confirm the complementarian contention. Evans and complementarians may be technically correct. With the possible exception of 1 Timothy 5:2, nowehere does a biblical author uses either of the Greek designations for this office (episkopos or presbyteros) in conjunction with specific women. But this must be placed within the context of two other considerations. As Evans herself then adds, “No man is ever described as being a bishop and the only men who are specifically referred to as elders are Peter (1 Peter 5:1) and the writer of 2 and 3 John, both of whom refer to themselves in this way.” As a result, we cannot build a case against women elders from the lack of personal designations in the texts. In addition, as with other “doctrines” of ordination, the New Testament nowhere directly prohibits the appointment of women to this office. Therefore, persons who would exclude women from the eldership on biblical grounds must develop their case from inferences.
It has generally been the case among Baptists that terms such as elder (presbyteros), overseer (episkopos), and pastor (“shepherd”) are synonymous terms for the same office or function within a local congregation. This view is based upon the Acts 20:17, 28. While many people and many denominations might separate the terms into separate offices, Baptists have tended to view the separate terms as describing a single office. This is much like the numerous names attributed to Jesus (the Christ, the Son of Man, the Second Adam, the Prince of Peace, etc.) All these designations refer to the same person but attribute to him different “functions.” If we then say an elder is a pastor is an overseer then we have at least simplified the discussion.
The term elder (presbyteros) (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17-18; Tit 1:5; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1-4) could refer either to chronological age or to a specific ministry within the community. The name suggests spiritual oversight, for elders fulfilled certain ministries such as anointing the sick (Jas 5:14) as well as preaching, teaching, admonishing and guarding against heresy (Tit 1:9).
The designation bishop (episkopos) means “one who supervises” (see Acts 20:28; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9). Hence this office is “almost always related to oversight or administration.” Bishops directed the ongoing functioning of the congregation in the various aspects of its corporate ministry. They were to “shepherd” or guide the people of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). And by providing administrative leadership, they coordinated congregational ministry (1 Tim 3:5; 5:17).
The primary function of the elders is to be responsible for the caring and the teaching of the congregation. As “leaders” they give guidance and direction to the church. As teachers they oversee the life of the church, to preserve its faithfulness. Titus 1:9 say that the elder “must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to refute those who contradict it.” Elders are also the governing overseers. 1 Timothy 5:17 says, “Let the elders who rule well (or govern or oversee or manage well) be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching." So it is evident that there exists a diversity of functionality among elders. All must be able to handle the word of God and be able to recognize false doctrine and correct error; but some “labor especially in preaching and teaching.”
It is apparent from Scripture that there always existed more than one elder in each local congregation. In Jerusalem: Acts 15:22, "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church to choose men and to send them to Antioch." In Ephesus: Acts 20:17, "And from Miletus [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church." In all the towns of Crete: Titus 1:5, "This is why I (Paul) left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." In all the churches James wrote to when he said, "To the twelve tribes of the dispersion": James 5:14, "Is any among you sick? Let him call the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" (assuming that there are elders in every church). In all the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia that Peter wrote to: 1 Peter 5:1, "So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed." Finally, in all the churches Paul founded on the first missionary journey (and presumably on the other journeys as well): Acts 14:23, "And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed."
It would appear that most churches today are unbiblical in that they have a single pastor or a single elder in final authority. This concept is completely foreign to the New Testament church. They always had pastors (plural) and elders (plural). No one person was ever given a final voice of authority. Elders reached unanimous decisions after much prayer and deliberation as to what the final teaching of the Scriptures meant.
W.B. Johnson, the first President of the Southern Baptist Convention (1845), wrote in 1846: “In a review of these Scriptures, we have these points clearly made out:
1. That over each church of Christ in the apostolic age, a plurality of rulers was ordained, who were designated by the terms elder, bishop, overseer, pastor, with authority in the government of the flock.
2. That this authority involved no legislative power or right, but that it was ministerial and executive only, and that, in its exercise, the rulers were not to lord it over God's heritage, but as examples to lead the flock to the performance of duty ...
3. That these rulers were all equal in rank and authority, no one having a preeminence over the rest. This satisfactorily appears from the fact that the same qualifications were required of all, so that though some labored in word and doctrine, and others did not, the distinction between them was not in rank, but in the character of their service...
4. That the members of the flock were required to follow and imitate the faith of their rulers, in due consideration of the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever...”
Southern Baptists as a whole have significantly departed from Mr. Johnson's summary of New Testament teaching on this matter. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit is able to work around and even through our ecclesiastical interpretations. Just as there are many who serve as deacons but are not recognized or ordained as deacons, so are there many who serve as elders put are not recognized as such. If complementarians and egalitarians can agree on anything it should be that the epistles of Timothy and Titus tell us that the qualifications for appointing elders has nothing to do with professional skills or degrees. The qualifications all regard personal character and morality. Those elders who do lead, teach and preach well are due more respect, but it is not a necessary qualification. In short, eldership is based on spiritual maturity. While it may be common that an elder is of advanced age this is not necessarily so. Take a young church plant that has only young adults as members. If there are a few members who have been believers longer than the rest and exhibit spiritual maturity, even if they are in their late thirties, they are the elders. And length of belief may not necessarily be a factor. Some believers mature very quickly and might be looked upon by other believers who are older and have been believers longer. What is common in these two scenarios is that believers will be able to discern those who by their spiritual maturity are the elders of a church. Whether or not these people are officially recognized as such by the church is of no great spiritual matter. Like deacons, they fulfill their function despite contemporary ecclesiastical standards. This is why even if current Baptist standards to do not recognize the Biblical standard the Holy Spirit, despite our ignorance, makes the church go as He pleases.
Now with this in mind, if we go to 1 Timothy 5, we see both elders (presbutero) and elderess (presbuteras). In Titus 2, we have a slightly different word for elder (presbutas) and elderess (presbutidas). Both are adjectival forms of the terms of 1 Timothy 5. There is much debate on whether these words signify “elder” or merely the “aged.” In the context of the Pastoral Epistles and with regard to the similarity between the requirements of both the 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 2 chapters, it is safe to say that Paul is speaking of the same function. Therefore, a woman can be and elder. If we then assert the plurality of eldership expressed in the Bible and then assert the notion that elder, overseer, and pastor all refer to the same office, then we must assert that the Bible clearly teaches that women can be pastors.
We must further note that, as with the deaconship, whether or not women are recognized as elderesses by the church in the symbolic recognition of ordination, they are already serving the elder/pastor function. The Holy Spirit moves despite the contemporary traditions of men.
posted by Wade Burleson | Wednesday, March 26, 2008
109 Comments:
I applaud you on a well written series.
Tim Dahl
Remember, Tim, not mine! Part One will explain when you read it. I will give information about the author - a graduate of SWBTS - at the end of the series.
The post is to show that conservatives can have different interpretations on this issue.
Your position is certainly unambiguous I will say that much. I’m with you on the deacons but not on the elders. In fact, if this is a position that you believe is worth pursuing then I too believe its worth pursuing from the other side of the aisle. I’ve never had any desire to attend a state or national convention but will do so to protect the office of elders/pastors that is reserved for men. Is the tent wide enough for both men and women elders/pastors in the SBC...no it’s not. I would love to see the day where I can say madam president (just not in this election) but I don’t want to see the day where the SBC allows women to become elders/pastors.
John in St. Louis
This would explain some elements with the letters to Timothy that are obscure about women. It is obvious that the letters are probably in response to a previous questions Timothy had to Paul. I do think that there can be a woman elder to the women in the church but not the men. Discipleship in formative intimate training requires a man whereas informational or an expertise such as teaching a language should not be problematic.
anonymous wrote:"Discipleship in formative intimate training requires a man whereas informational or an expertise such as teaching a language should not be problematic."
Discipleship and training should be direct works of the Holy Spirit. Is it possible IYO that the Holy Spirit is unable to use women to the same degree that He uses men?
Wade,
This author has given us some obfuscatised moorings from which to ascertain the meaning of “presbuteros” for the elderly women of 1 Timothy 5:2 as that of 5:17. In fact, there is no proof of connection except for the spelling. The author has taken an apple and put an orange beside it while referring to them as one and the same. Most hermeneutics professors would claim foul, not because of the aspiration of wanting to make the apple appear to be the same as the orange, but because there is a change in arriving at that decision, when compared to other decisions.
This perceived connective argument in 1 Timothy 5:2 was believed on by a friend of mine, you and I have both known… now leading in another convention, yet interesting enough he said his hermeneutic had to change in order for him to believe this to be true based upon his experience in the field. I certainly continue to consider him a friend, and at least he is honest that his hermeneutical processes must be changed in order to arrive at the finding, but none-the-less, I believe his findings are simple to refute given the full counsel of scripture that is available to us. Men and women should not be so easily swayed by an Apple posing as an Orange.
This author is up to old tricks…. :)
Blessings,
Chris
Wade,
With your stated point of the series, I still wonder whether or not you support the author and his conclusions?
http://www.farfromneutral.com/exodus/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/o_rly.jpg
Tim,
Are you reading the posts?
I would not have asked had I not. Do you or do you not support the author and the conclusions?
Wade,
The question is serious since you on several occassions have stated in the past that you "do not" think women should serve as Pastors, are now saying it is ok if they do.
I am wondering which of the statements, thus authors, you support?
This will apparently surprise some readers, but just because Wade holds one opinion doesn't mean he won't allow differing opinions to be heard or the holders of those opinions to cooperate in fellowship; or, to be heard from here. I understood that to be true the first time I came here.
Spring Greetings from Hoptown.
It certainly seems that with each successive post, the author has less and less scripture and makes weaker and weaker arguments. IMO
To call the complementarian view point on this matter a point of "inference" is not only false, but paradoxical considering this is exactly what the author is doing.
Wade says that... "The post is to show that conservatives can have different interpretations on this issue." Clearly this not the premise or the purpose of this post. Wade's true feelings were expressed to me in comments made earlier. Wade wrote of his calling and this post... "I will take it as my calling to stretch my fellow complementarians past their comfort zones and continue to help them avoid theological smugness." In other words... Wade likes to keep the pot stirred and the spotlight on him (my inference on the subject).
Joe W.
I would not have asked had I not. Do you or do you not support the author and the conclusions?
Thu Mar 27, 01:01:00 AM 2008
It is like the 1930's in Germany here. Wade cannot even offer another view on a secondary doctrine without being charged with supporting that view!
It has not escaped my notice that most are not engaging content. Just the same old tired insults.
Tim:
Is it possible to hold to one viewpoint, but to be able to understand how someone can have a different viewpoint?
Here is another view of 1 Tim 3. The whole article is here:
rest of article here
"So let’s review why the “husband of one wife” cannot be used to disqualify women from leadership. I think the answer will become evident from asking other relevant questions.
1. Do we stop a single male from being a pastor?
2. Do we force a pastor to resign if his wife dies and he is no longer married?
3. Do we stop a married man from being a pastor if he does not have children? After all the same passage says in 1 Timothy 3:4
He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
We know of no church that disallows single men from being a Pastor. We also know of no church that disallows married men with no children from being a Pastor. Why is that? It is because we can understand from the passage that there is a principle being set forth. The principle is that if a person wants to be an Elder/Pastor/Overseer they must have their children under control (that is “if” they have children); they must not be a polygamist (that is “if” they are married and “if” they are a man).
The problems with interpreting 1 Timothy 3 as forbidding women from being an elder is:
1. There is nothing in the passage that says that a woman cannot be an elder in exactly the same way as there is nothing in the passage that says that a man cannot be an elder if he is single.
2. The Greek is written in such a way that allows both men and women to aspire to being a Pastor/Elder/Overseer.
1 Timothy 3:1 says: Trustworthy [is] the word: If anyone aspires to [the] position of overseer [Gr. episkope], he desires a good work. (Analytical-Literal Translation)
The Greek word used is NOT “aner” which would mean “If any male aspires…” Instead of the Greek word for males, the generic Greek word for”anyone” is used which is “tis”. “Tis” means men or women and has the exact same Greek grammatical structure as “anyone” in John 6:51 and every other passage concerning salvation.
John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever”
All of the salvation verses are just like 1 Timothy 3:1 and they are singular masculine in the Greek grammar but all of them use the generic Greek wording which includes men and women. If we dispute that the Greek can include men and women because the grammar is singular masculine, then we must also be consistent and disallow women to be saved since all of the salvation passages are written in the same way as 1 Timothy 3:1 with generic words having a singular masculine tense in the Greek.
3. 1 Timothy 3:12 also says that Deacons must be the husbands of one wife and this term clearly did not disqualify women because Phoebe was a Deacon of the church of Cenchrea.
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;
The word that the NASB translates as “servant” is “diakonos”which means Deacon. If Phoebe could be a Deacon of the church at Cenchrea and the term “husband of one wife” did not disqualify her, then why would we think that this same term would disqualify a woman from being an elder/pastor/overseer?
So the next time that someone tells you that 1 Timothy 3 forbids women from being a Pastor, you make sure to ask them if the same passage forbids single men and married men without children from being Pastors. If a person is going to be a literalist without considering the standard that is actually being set forth, then they must also follow through with the same standards for single men and married men without children. To fail to follow through with applying the principle across the board would be hypocritical."
"In other words... Wade likes to keep the pot stirred and the spotlight on him (my inference on the subject)."
Joe, It also has not escaped my notice that Wade NEVER insults you back.
Hey, Hey.
Glad to see that my church, which was a church start in 1992, and has elders, is considered by this author to be the correct position.
Too bad lots of folks think that because we have elders that we are Presbyterian.
I did not find the argument about women persuasive, but I did find it a good faith attempt by someone who treats the scripture with respect.
Louis
Sister Lin,
I am not at all saying you believe these things…. but the authors of this segment of info and the one you have referenced have exercised old arguments that are not convincing hermeneutically.
It kinda reminds me of a jockey that is entered into the Kentucky Derby riding backwards. He feels the wind at his back, but he is watching the wrong part of the race.
Blessings,
Chris
Lin,
I was not trying to insult Wade, just making an observation. I guess an insult is in the eye of the beholder. Was my statement worse than Wade's, when he suggested that I was a "theologically smug complementarian"?
You may agree with Wade's assessment, while others may agree with mine. Since Wade himself is a complementarian, one is left to wonder about the motive behind these posts. I offered my opinion, and noted it as such. I was under the impression that people were allowed to express their beliefs and opinions on this blog...
Joe W.
"I am not at all saying you believe these things…. but the authors of this segment of info and the one you have referenced have exercised old arguments that are not convincing hermeneutically."
Chris, that is not good enough. You sound like you are quoting your seminary professor. Where's the beef? :o)
"Was my statement worse than Wade's, when he suggested that I was a "theologically smug complementarian"?"
I would say that is tame compared to:
"In other words... Wade likes to keep the pot stirred and the spotlight on him (my inference on the subject)."
You DID judge motive here. You are saying that Wade is trying to make trouble and doing it so he can get attention. How do you know this?
He responded to your comments which ARE smug. Your comments speak for themselves. I cannot speak to your motive.
Why not engage content?
Lin,
You say... "You are saying that Wade is trying to make trouble and doing it so he can get attention. How do you know this?"
I know this because Wade has said as much. Wade views this as "His calling"... to quote... "stretch my fellow complementarians past their comfort zones". Wade Burleson and Benjamin Cole seek to stir the pot, that is not an insult or a guess, that is a fact.
As far as engaging content goes, to be honest, there really wasn't that much content to engage. The author begins with this statement... "Now we come to the heart of the argument of this paper: women can be pastors." The author then follows that monumental statement up, with 1,603 words proving the plurality of elders in the early church. Then concludes the argument with this statement... "Therefore, a woman can be and elder. If we then assert the plurality of eldership expressed in the Bible and then assert the notion that elder, overseer, and pastor all refer to the same office, then we must assert that the Bible clearly teaches that women can be pastors."
I guess that settles it... :)
Joe W.
Thanks Joe, for the explanation.
Joe W:
Why would you say that Wade is trying to keep the spotlight on himself? That's a mighty strong charge. Do you know Wade's heart and intentions?
Tom,
I wrote... "Wade wrote of his calling and this post... "I will take it as my calling to stretch my fellow complementarians past their comfort zones and continue to help them avoid theological smugness." In other words... Wade likes to keep the pot stirred and the spotlight on him (my inference on the subject)."
You wrote... "Why would you say that Wade is trying to keep the spotlight on himself? That's a mighty strong charge. Do you know Wade's heart and intentions?"
Only God knows the heart, as far as intentions go, I gave a quote from Wade and my opinion (and I noted it as such). I don't think it is out of bounds or out of line to call attention to a persons stated intentions, especially in the light that this post is not written by Wade, and this position is not held by Wade.
From where I am standing "it seems" like he likes the spotlight. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the "tongues" issue, even the IMB issue with baptism, but now he is just stoking the fire and stirring the pot. He is creating an issue here, where one does not exist. Again this is my opinion, you don't have to agree with me, you don't have to like it, but it is what I believe.
Joe W.
"I am not at all saying you believe these things…. but the authors of this segment of info and the one you have referenced have exercised old arguments that are not convincing hermeneutically.
It kinda reminds me of a jockey that is entered into the Kentucky Derby riding backwards. He feels the wind at his back, but he is watching the wrong part of the race."
My brother Chris, Comments like these are meant to be 'conversation stoppers'. They are used all the time if you read comp/patriarchy blogs much. Perhaps you have been taught it is sin to engage a woman in a doctrinal discussion? So you have to condescend with such conversation stoppers.
I sometimes wonder if there is a class in seminary titled: How to stop any discussion on secondary doctrines in an insulting way using big words to intimidate your opponent. After all they are not 'seminary' educated. And we all know the Holy Spirit would NEVER illuminate truth to a woman or someone who does not have an M.Div. :o)
Sigh. One wonders why Jesus chose the uneducated Peter to build His church. Or why he chose Paul, the educated Jew, to take the Gospel to the Gentiles.
Lucy
As to the post and argumentation, it seems to me that the real issue is about authority and measuring greatness. We look at the positions of pastor/elder/deacon as roles of power. Jesus was very clear that being great in His reign was not about such issues. It was rather about sacrificial service. Would we be having this discussion if we understood the roles of pastor/elder/deacon as positions of sacrificial service rather than hierarchical authority/power?
If we took Mark 13:32-45 to heart, no one would be concerned with women in positions of visible ministry. Many arguing against women in ministry might actually be the first ones to push them into those roles.
Joe W:
Thank you for your well stated opinion. I believe we can agree to disagree and I mean this sincerely.
"Or why he chose Paul, the educated Jew, to take the Gospel to the Gentiles."
Lucy,
Paul was one of the most educated Jews in Israel, a Pharisee of Pharisees. That's probably not the entire reason God chose him, but it's not correct to use him as an example of an uneducated man who is more effective than an educated one. Perhaps you meant Barnabas?
"My brother Chris, Comments like these are meant to be 'conversation stoppers'."
Lucy, your posts in response to David and Chris seem like they are meant to be conversation stoppers to me.
Chris Harbin, You are right on target!!! That is the whole issue in a nutshell. And it all goes back to Gen 3 and the result of the fall. Pride and Power=Sin.
Lucy
"Paul was one of the most educated Jews in Israel, a Pharisee of Pharisees. That's probably not the entire reason God chose him, but it's not correct to use him as an example of an uneducated man who is more effective than an educated one. Perhaps you meant Barnabas?"
Anon, You have missed the point entirely. Yes! Paul was a very educated Jew. That IS MY POINT. Why send the educated Jew to the Gentiles, who could care less about his Rabbinical education, while Peter, the uneducated Jew, was sent to Jews?
Maybe this is why:
1 Corin 1
26For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
Because God gets the Glory! Praise HIM!
"My brother Chris, Comments like these are meant to be 'conversation stoppers'."
Lucy, your posts in response to David and Chris seem like they are meant to be conversation stoppers to me.
Thu Mar 27, 01:05:00 PM 2008
I am Sorry. I certainly did not mean to 'stop' any conversation. I have tried to engage content.
Lucy
God was not above using Rahab (harlot, pagan, woman) to communicate trust in YHWH's victory to Joshua's spies. God was not above using Balaam's ass to speak gospel truth to this male prophet. God was not above engaging a woman at the well in Sychar (Samaritan, loose reputation, and female) as emissary of the gospel of Messiah's coming to the townsfolk. God was not above use women as the first to announce the good news of Jesus' resurrection. God was not above calling both Mary and Martha to learn at Jesus' feet (position of a male disciples, responsible for teaching others what was being taught) rather observe the social conventions of the day.
It was the Jewish religious leaders who could not accept being taught by a man blind from birth. His faith in Jesus undermined the authority of their traditions. When we argue over who is qualified to serve God, it is due to the fact that we fear for our institutions and traditions. God is not threatened. In fact, we are all called to serve the world with the gospel of Christ Jesus.
In Acts 2:18, Peter reminds the crowds that God had promised through Joel to lavish His breath/Spirit upon all flesh, including women, servants, and slaves, that all might profess the message of God.
Why do we ignore this larger context of Scripture in our concerns to protect our traditions, cultural structures, and norms?
Sister Lucy,
I was not aware those words were "conversation stoppers". (sorry)
As far as the discussion on this subject....it really is not difficult to see that a different hermeneutical path is necessary to reach the proffered intended conclusions.
Many people will choose to take that path.
At this point the onus to produce evidence is on the authors, ….I am willing to listen, but have not heard any evidence that works within a consistent hermeneutical boundary.
I really was not trying to be coy….
Blessings,
Chris
Joe,
From what little I know about cooking, I think stirring the pot is a good thing. It keeps us from being under cooked on top and burned on bottom.
When we settle down with the satisfaction that we have arrived at all Truth, we have ceased to learn. I enjoy the pot being stirred.
Suffice to say, your or I would not be on this blog if Wade was not stirring the pot. None of us build our houses in Boresville.
I disagree with Lin's position of ordaining women Pastor's, but you probably disagree with my position that a Pastor must be married since it is a family type of work, and married to only one spouse at a time as a preventive against the Near East's tendency toward polygamy (Jacob, David, Solomon, and modern Muslim world). I think it has nothing to do with divorce and remarriage.
If Lin were an ordained woman pastor, I would treat her with the same respect I would treat any other Pastor. I do not have to agree with her to like her, I do not have to agree with her to respect her, and I do not have to agree with her to work with her.
I would give her every right in the world to disagree with me if she wanted to be wrong-- for I am always right, just don't ask my wife.
What does my wife know? I was told at Seminary she is not allowed to teach a man anything anyway. Right? Right.
I am glad we agree. So don't ask my wife. She in not allowed to teach you or be a referee in a man's game. Her job is to just stay pregnant and rear the kids. My job is to kill those doggone mastodon's and mammoths and get the meat off to the house.
Phil in Norman.
"As far as the discussion on this subject....it really is not difficult to see that a different hermeneutical path is necessary to reach the proffered intended conclusions."
What is your hermeneutical path?
Lucy
"I disagree with Lin's position of ordaining women Pastor's,"
Ironically, I am uncomfortable with a woman pastor but not for the reasons you may think. The church today resembles very little of the NT church which met in homes. When they met in Lydia's home, does anyone really believe she was silent? Do we really believe she was serving tea and crumpets and not engaged in the worship or telling what Christ has done in her life? Do we think a man coming to her home told her she could not speak or be engaged in the worship?
I believe we have institutionalized the Body and within our organizational structure today, I am uncomfortable with a woman pastor but I would not think it is sin to have one. And just like a male pastor, I would insist she be doctrinally correct on the essentials.
Think of the differences today in church and in the NT church...there were no pulpits, and it was not a spectator situation where ONE person was preaching. Most everyone was involved in some way in the NT church. And Paul said, let several speak and the others judge. There was a reason for that.
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea;
The word that the NASB translates as “servant” is “diakonos”which means Deacon. If Phoebe could be a Deacon of the church at Cenchrea and the term “husband of one wife” did not disqualify her, then why would we think that this same term would disqualify a woman from being an elder/pastor/overseer?
Lin, the comment this excerpt is from was very well thought out. As a point of logic and analysis, I find it precise.
Phil in Norman,
Your comments about Mastadons and Mammoths made me laugh.
Let me make 2 quick comments.
1) You say... "I do not have to agree with her to like her, I do not have to agree with her to respect her, and I do not have to agree with her to work with her."
I ask... Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
2) You say... "I think it has nothing to do with divorce and remarriage."
I would not be so quick to write divorce and remarriage off as a possibility. The culture at that time (much like ours) allowed for a bill of divorcement over the simpliest of matters. Certainly, I don't believe Pastors should have more than one wife, but I also do not believe Paul was saying just have one at a time either.
Now... I am off to kill one last Behemoth before dinner.
Joe W.
Joe W.--
"I ask... Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" That is probably one of the most misused and abused verses of the last decade.
Amos was talking about walking together down the road (same pace, same direction, waiting for one another, sharing stopping points, etc.). He had no thought of doctrine, politics, sports team affiliations, or bodies of knowledge. Do you agree to walk together? That is the concern in the context.
If we must agree on all things to cooperate, there will be no cooperation, ever.
Jesus prayed that all believers might be united as one. Your questions at heart seeks division and separation, not unity. "As far as it depends upon, you, live at peace with one another." That is more along the line of the challenge of the gospel of Christ to walk together.
Lin,
My wife was also averse to a woman as pastor. During seminary, we met women who were on a feminist mission to prove their worth. We also met women who quietly prepared for ministry as did other male students. She came to say, "Not as My pastor." We came across other women whose ministry we could not help but support and aid. We encountered others whose ordination we had to affirm for having seen God minister effectively through them. Last year, our church asked to ordain her, as well.
1 Timothy was never the issue, as the Greek just does not say what our traditions dictate. Galatians 5 has the command for submission in verse 21, where it speaks to all the body, not to women. The commands to preach good news and disciple the nations are given to all believers without exception.
All along the process, God has led her to take one small step after another in following and obeying God's call over the dictates of tradition, heritage, and custom.
Such is ministry. It is not about our druthers, but our obedience beyond the limits of our personal comfort. I asked her recently what else she has said she would "never" do. Never be a missionary, never be a pastor's wife, never preach, never be ordained, ...
The problem has been that God is a master of surprises, calling us to leave all that behind and simply obey in faithful service.
Sister Lucy,
Thanks for asking....
I follow the hermenuetic of "Historical-Gramatical" (Contextual)pattern of interpretation.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris Harbin,
As Barnes notes in his commentary... "Sacred parables or enigmas must have many meanings. They are cast on the mind, to quicken it and rouse it by their very mystery. They are taken from objects which in different lights, represent different things, and so suggest them."
You say... "That is probably one of the most misused and abused verses of the last decade."
I do not think I have misused or abused this text. Here in the text the question is asked and answered. Two cannot walk together except they be agreed. The two in the parable are just two people, the spiritual context is God and Israel, but the overall factual statement must still stand... unless two meet together, at the appointed time and place, when and where they set out, agree on what road they will take, and where they will go... without such agreement it cannot be thought they should walk together.
Thus... in response to my brothers statement... "I do not have to agree with her to like her, I do not have to agree with her to respect her, and I do not have to agree with her TO WORK (emphasis mine) with her." This text in Amos 3 most certainly applies.
I agree with your statement... "If we must agree on all things to cooperate, there will be no cooperation, ever."
We do not have to agree on everything... that is why the Southern Baptist has a consensus statement (the BF&M 2000) that has been approved and seconded with the Garner Motion as a sufficient grounds for fellowship. The BF&M states... "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."
I thank the Lord more each day for the leadership and foresight God gave to the late Dr. Adrain Rogers.
Joe W.
Of course you know I meant "Adrian Rogers" not Adrain. That is what happens when you do not proof read twice.
Joe W.
Joe W:
Very few people attend the SBC meetings and sadly people who might have different viewpoints than the majority stay home. The 2000 BF&M should never have included the statement--" While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." While some will conclude that is what the Bible declares, others will conclude that women are called by God to be pastors. I think it is very important for women to take notice of where it looks like the SBC is headed.
Two points I'd like to address here...
First, are we really saying "God, I know that you can create the universe with nothing but a word; that you can form dirt into a body and breath life into it; that you can cause a virgin to conceive; and that you can save me from my sin with Jesus' sacrifice on the cross; but you can't use a woman to preach your word!" Wow, I didn't know I could put limits on God! :-D (Some here listed several women who spoke for God, so I think Paul's words to Timothy should be the ones questioned when compared to the numerous examples of God using women for ministry in Scripture).
Second, Charlie Daniels once sang, "And we may have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us alone
Cause we'll all stick together and you can take that to the bank
That's the cowboys and the hippies and the rebels and the yanks." I think that is a great example of people who walk together agreeing on a primary point while disagreeing on secondary issues. Jesus called us to 'agape' love, not 'phileo' love. That is, He called us to love all, not just those who are like us. Making everyone agree on every issue in a rigid, dogmatic, lock-step fashion and telling them "don't think, just accept what you are told" is not agape.
Joe W.--
The BF&M 2000 was not a consensus statement, regardless of the rhetoric behind it and the way it has been applied. The vote in 2000 was not unanimous. There was not open discussion of the statement along the lines of 1963, when it was run in state papers, considered by seminary professors across the denomination, and subject to months of scrutiny before being presented for debate at the convention.
It was a statement that a slim majority at one gathering managed to pass and subsequently enforce on SBC entities.
The denominational agencies are now using the document as a wedge issue to force conformity, not unite people in agreement.
As to Amos, your question posed to Phil, presumes that he must agree with the ordination of a woman in order to work with her. That does not seem so different from forcing agreement on issues other than the one at hand--traveling together along the road of faith, despite our differences.
Tom,
By and large the SBC (national entity) has been abandoned by the rank and file Southern Baptist just as the national SBC has abandoned its local expression. The current generation has no allegiance to the SBC, other than its name and some sense of heritage. Too many could not care less of its direction, neither are they going to continue to fund it into the future. It is long past the time when the folks I know who care about its direction would be willing to stand up and assume responsibility. At some point institutions exists for self-preservation, rather than accomplish their mission. 1979 marked the demise of Bold Mission Thrust in order to wage an internal war against the Body of Christ. Interesting that a Battle for the Bible took our eyes off a world dying without Christ.
At heart, it is the same issue about women: "Only those we deem appropriate vessels are allowed to serve God."
There was a study done of the history of women as deacons among Baptists.
When the office of deacon was viewed as a board (administrative function) who - often - ran the church, it was limited to males. When the office of deacon was viewed as a service ministry it was usually open to women.
Does that tell you anything about the whole issue being related to power?
Susie
Chris Harbin,
You wrote... "The BF&M 2000 was not a consensus statement, regardless of the rhetoric behind it and the way it has been applied. The vote in 2000 was not unanimous. There was not open discussion of the statement along the lines of 1963, when it was run in state papers, considered by seminary professors across the denomination, and subject to months of scrutiny before being presented for debate at the convention. It was a statement that a slim majority at one gathering managed to pass and subsequently enforce on SBC entities."
Chris... I know it seems like I am always raining on everyones parade around here, but these statements are ALL catagorically false!
For anyone who would like to know the truth, you may follow this link... http://www.sbc.net/redirect.asp?url=http://www.sbcannualmeeting.org/sbc00/news.asp?ID=1927611432
Southern Baptists overwhelmingly adopted this statement, it was published in the papers weeks before the convention, and it was open to debate (although there was not as much debate as there was applause). Another interesting note... Dr. Rogers said... "that only one-tenth of 1 percent of Southern Baptist churches have women as pastors (or a total of 35 or less churches among the overall 40,000-plus SBC churches."
If you are going to voice your opinion to the world, you should at least get your facts correct first.
Joe W.
When our church adopted an elder system and opened the office of deacon to women, there was an interesting reaction. Many felt that women could and should do the service activities that we assigned to the deacons, but that we shouldn't call them deacons. I asked if God was fooled by that.
Honestly Baptists have had this screwed up for a long time. Single pastor in ultimate authority. Deacon board who act essential as lesser elders. Not biblical at all.
"I follow the hermenuetic of "Historical-Gramatical" (Contextual)pattern of interpretation."
Thanks Chris. I use the PreHistorical Pneuma-Poseuchomai method which is always contextual. :o)
Lucy
I'm trying to figure out how this article represents less and less scripture usage - it is filled with scripture. I suppose that is my first question. But here are a few more.
Does anyone here believe we will "win souls" with these arguments?
Does anyone here believe we will with our reasoning and words "win over" people from one position to the other with regard to complementarianism and egalitarianism?
Does anyone here who is an egalitaraian believe that a complementarian is someone to war against? Conversely, does anyone here who is a complementarian believe that an egalitarian is someone to war against?
Is everyone 100% convinced that they are 100% right on how they interpret all the scriptures with regard to male and female roles in this world?
"Does anyone here believe we will "win souls" with these arguments?"
Hi Bryan, I agree with you. You have no idea how devastating it is to have some man tell you that you are in sin when you witness and teach men about Christ even if you are not in the 'church building' while doing this. (Too many think the church is the building where the pulpit is when it is really US)
They do not even like it in the workplace, etc. You learn to keep your mouth shut about your witnessing, etc.
They can get so nasty about it.
So, when we witness as women should
we have to tell them to hold on until we can get them to the proper authority to teach them in the Word?
I really wish some of the comps on this comment stream would tell me at what age a boy becomes a man and I can no longer teach him from the glorious Word. Is it 13? 18? 21?
It is probably hard for a man to understand what is really going on out there. The worst are the young guys out of seminary. If you are in a joint Bible Study, many get very upset if a woman talks and many times dismiss any input she has. It is getting that bad out there...in SBC circles. Many women just shut up. Their gifts are being trampled on.
I know many do not believe this but it is true.
It seems to me that not many are actually referring to the content of the post. The author, if I understand it correctly, is stating that a woman may be a pastor in a local congregation as one of many. In other words, she would not be alone in that role in her church.
Also, that scripture is explicit in describing her role in Titus 2, while the other passages describe her character. Sounds like a women's minister to me. How many of us have women's ministers in our churches. These women are pastors to a portion of our congregations, the women.
My husband and I met a SBC seminary president of one of our seminaries in Nigeria, Africa while serving at a church in Missouri and he was astonished on our stance in the state on women. They find it common place to have women deacons. These women minister to women whose husbands are traveling on business and are gone for months at a time and it would be inappropriate for a male deacon to enter there home and minister to them.
That brings me to another point. We in the states are very arrogant on a lot of things when it comes to the church. If persecution were to enter our lives how quickly would we be putting off our institutionalized understanding of the church and return to the house church model seen in scripture where everyone is expected to participate and bring something to the worship. Would we once again meet daily and begin to see meeting and worshiping together as our life line.
As far as the argument of service verses administration, where does it say that the gift of the Holy Spirit called the gift of Administration was confined to men? How I pray that we in the church would stop arguing over such things and just let people, be they male or female, serve according to God's call on their lives. If we did could you imagine the effectiveness the church would have? We have too many people in our congregations sitting doing nothing for the kingdom. God, please bring the day we all serve You with all that we are and how you have equipped and called each of us.
In His Joy,
Vicky
Wade,
I am truly enjoying this series. Thank you for publishing it.
Vicky