Women in Ministry...a 3rd position:

[12strings]

This is an interesting article from Gateway Church in Texas:

http://gatewaypeople.com/sites/all/files/pdf/position_papers/Role of Women in Ministry.pdf

Here are their summary statements:

We believe in the value of women in all aspects of ministry with the exception of those areas that exercise governmental authority within the church. Furthermore, we believe God has ordained the family unit to serve as a model for the entire church with the father as the head of the home and functioning as a servant-leader as described in Ephesians 5...We believe a woman can teach and lead within any of the vast array of ministry roles and positions as long as she demonstrates a biblically-qualifying lifestyle. She must also submit herself, along with other servant-leaders, to those leaders God has placed in positions of governing authority, specifically, the Senior Pastor or the Elders of the church. We believe that the positions of Senior Pastor and Elder are (because of their governmental responsibility) reserved only for men. With the exception of these two positions, we consider all ministry positions and opportunities to be open to women.

I thought this was interesting...In practice, this church (which is very large, well over 50 pastors, possibly 75+) has many female associate pastors...but no female senior pastors or Elders)

It seems they separate the office of pastor (shepherd) from the office of Elder/overseer.


NOTE 1: I'm not saying I agree with this position, just that I found it interesting and one that I have not seen anywhere else.

NOTE 2: I'm sure some of you have opinions on their pastor Robert Morris, but let's try to stay on topic.

 

[mont974x4]

These days I am not surprised by the lengths people go to in order to wedge their agenda into these situations. Case in point, women cannot be pastor's so we call them associate pastors.

 

[annsni]

See, I would definitely have a problem with calling a woman a pastor since it does not match up with the qualifications in Scripture. I would bet that in our church, some of our women might be considered pastors in that church but we will never call them pastors because they are not. It doesn't mean that women don't have a great role in the church - and personally, I believe without women, churches as we know them today would fall apart - but it doesn't mean that they should fill roles that contradict Scripture.

 

[12strings]

See, I would definitely have a problem with calling a woman a pastor since it does not match up with the qualifications in Scripture.

But in the primary scriptural passages giving qualifications in timothy & Titus, the words used are biship/overseer & Elder (presbuteros)...

In fact, The word "poimenas" (pastor/shepherd) only refers to a title ONCE in the N.T., Ephesians 4:11. (God gave several types of people: Shepherd is one)...the other times it is either referring to Jesus himself, or referring to actual sheep herders.

The only other thing close uses it as a verb in 1 Peter 5:2 - Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;2 not for shameful gain, but eagerly;
...so here it seems shepherding ONE OF the activities that Elders DO.

That's not a lot to go on if we are trying to prove that pastors=Elders/overseers.

It seems Gateway is saying that both women and men may "shepherd" other people, but that only men may "oversee", or govern the church.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

This is an interesting article from Gateway Church in Texas:

http://gatewaypeople.com/sites/all/files/pdf/position_papers/Role of Women in Ministry.pdf

Here are their summary statements:



I thought this was interesting...In practice, this church (which is very large, well over 50 pastors, possibly 75+) has many female associate pastors...but no female senior pastors or Elders)

It seems they separate the office of pastor (shepherd) from the office of Elder/overseer.


NOTE 1: I'm not saying I agree with this position, just that I found it interesting and one that I have not seen anywhere else.

NOTE 2: I'm sure some of you have opinions on their pastor Robert Morris, but let's try to stay on topic.

It is interesting, and I can see the justification for it scripturally. Some of the breakaway Anglican groups have a similar philosophy.

Now for those who think that the only proper place for a woman is walking in her husband's shadow, or any man's shadow, in the church or outside it, this will never be acceptable. Their only acceptable position is the woman's complete subjugation.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

 

[annsni]

Now for those who think that the only proper place for a woman is walking in her husband's shadow, or any man's shadow, in the church or outside it, this will never be acceptable. Their only acceptable position is the woman's complete subjugation.

I don't believe that is the position of anyone on this board.

 

[12strings]

Now for those who think that the only proper place for a woman is walking in her husband's shadow, or any man's shadow, in the church or outside it, this will never be acceptable. Their only acceptable position is the woman's complete subjugation.

I don't think that is the position of anyone on this board...or in fact any Christian person I have ever met.

(what, someone already said this?)

 

[Yeshua1]

These days I am not surprised by the lengths people go to in order to wedge their agenda into these situations. Case in point, women cannot be pastor's so we call them associate pastors.

Agree that pastors/Elders, from the biblical mandate, were ALL men!

Question of spiritual headship/authority here...

 

[go2church]

Let women serve as they are led by the Spirit and affirmed by the church.

 

[12strings]

Let women serve as they are led by the Spirit and affirmed by the church.

So are you saying we should leave the bible out of it?

...and if so, what other issues should this procedure apply to?

 

[Bronconagurski]

T.W., I must vigorously object to your assertion below:

you wrote: "Now for those who think that the only proper place for a woman is walking in her husband's shadow, or any man's shadow, in the church or outside it, this will never be acceptable. Their only acceptable position is the woman's complete subjugation."

See, that is just wrong as it does not go far enough. Sometimes our shadow is in front of us when we walk, and that will not do. And you forgot that we only want them barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen.

Seriously, man, do you believe what you just wrote? That may be your experience, but not mine over 3 decades of belonging to Independent Baptist Churches. Elder, Pastor, Bishop, Shepherd are all names for the Pastor of a church. You have no scriptural evidence that Jesus or the Apostles approved of a women teaching men, or preaching, yet you put this ad hominem attack out there because your strawman burnt up, no offense. I mean, since we are being frank here. That said, your church has a right to do whatever they want and we all will stand before the judgement seat of Christ and then we will all see what is what. Jesus was a champion for the downtrodden, and that is made very clear in Luke. Yet we do not find anywhere it is ok for women to teach men scripturally. Neither does Paul, except when he says that Timothy's grandmother taught him growing up. There are no guidelines for the character of women preachers or deacons, yet their are guidelines for their wives. How much plainer can you get?

 

[Jerome]

you wrote: "Now for those who think that the only proper place for a woman is walking in her husband's shadow. . .
See, that is just wrong as it does not go far enough. Sometimes our shadow is in front of us when we walk, and that will not do.

Huh?

Charles Spurgeon preaching from Romans 16 (v. 3 "Priscilla and Aquila"):

"I should not wonder but he put them in order according to quality rather than according to the rule of sex. He named Priscilla, first, because she was first in energy of character and attainments in Divine Grace. There is a precedence which, in Christ, is due to the woman when she becomes the leader in devotion and manifests the stronger mind in the things of God. It is well when Nature and Grace both authorize our saying, 'Aquila and Priscilla,' but it is not amiss when Grace outruns Nature and we hear of, 'Priscilla and Aquila.'"

 

[Iconoclast]

Huh?

Charles Spurgeon preaching from Romans 16 (v. 3 "Priscilla and Aquila"):

"I should not wonder but he put them in order according to quality rather than according to the rule of sex. He named Priscilla, first, because she was first in energy of character and attainments in Divine Grace. There is a precedence which, in Christ, is due to the woman when she becomes the leader in devotion and manifests the stronger mind in the things of God. It is well when Nature and Grace both authorize our saying, 'Aquila and Priscilla,' but it is not amiss when Grace outruns Nature and we hear of, 'Priscilla and Aquila.'"

Hey Jerome,
How many woman deacons did CHS have at the metropolitan tabernacle?

 

[Jerome]

Spurgeon called Lavinia Bartlett his best deacon, even a pastor.

Bio of Mrs. Bartlett in The Sword and the Trowel:

http://books.google.com/books?id=a7gVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA113

Mrs. Bartlett is a remarkable woman. Converted with her whole heart to God before arriving at her teens, she early manifested an irrepressible desire to seek the soul-good of others. While engaged at twelve years of age as a Sabbath-school teacher, her infantile exertions were marvellously seconded by God. She was a spiritual mother even then; and many souls were brought by her to the Saviour. . . . .stimulated by her success in the school, [she] sought to enlarge her sphere of usefulness by journeying from village to village within easy distance of her parents' residence, where she might seek the salvation of neverdying souls. It was tough work to exhort burly farmers and their still more boisterous sons to seek an emancipation from the tyranny of Satan; but is anything too difficult for even a timid damsel, filled with the sufficiency of Jesus Christ?

Mr. Thomas Olney, the venerable treasurer of the Church, invited Mrs. Bartlett to conduct the Bible class in question for one afternoon, there were only three persons present. . . .it has increased its numbers, until the average attendance has now become seven hundred, which sometimes swells to an additional hundred or so.

A visitor would probably be struck with those peculiar characteristics of the Sabbath afternoon service. . . .On a recent visit to the class, it seemed to me that there was an undefined something in the prayer alone which robbed one of that calmness of mind so requisite in joining in a public supplication, but filled the soul at the same time with a holy exhilaration and devout expectation which fully compensated for loss of calm. It was a simple, tender, earnest, powerful and prevailing address to a real present Father. If woman can thus approach the Lord in supplication, how much do we not lose, my male friends, by not occasionally hearing her voice?

[Her teaching] was experimental—a woman's vivid fancy calling up scenes of spiritual conflict and cares, coloured with life and beauty. It was doctrinal—founded on the eternal verities of the great I AM. It was chiefly exhortative—recalling God's performances in bygone times of Christian experience, specifying the many sacred privileges of the present, painting bright pictures of coming joys and communions to be realised by faith in the far-stretched future. Better still—it was savoury, full of Jesus. Peculiarly tender and eloquent was her appeal to the unconverted. Convince a sinner of your real anxiety for his eternal welfare, and you have opened a channel in his heart for further communications. Few could resist admiring the exuberant and passionate utterances of this Bible-teacher. Such earnestness, coupled as it is with an unwavering faith in God's word, can hardly fail to bring down Heaven's blessings. If you ask me what is the secret of this good woman's success, I reply, an implicit reliance upon God's promises, and a strong assurance that He will do all that she believingly asks of Him. I may add that the service is conducted by Mrs. Bartlett almost always without assistance; occasionally, however, elders of the Church look in upon the interesting assembly.

 

[go2church]

So are you saying we should leave the bible out of it?

...and if so, what other issues should this procedure apply to?

Don't be dense, you're better then that, or are you?

A faithful, godly women can determine what the Holy Spirit is leading her to do without permission from any man. The same Spirit that lives in me, a man lives in them, no difference.

You want to use the various passages to confine women to certain roles while ignoring the other passages that do the exact opposite that's fine, your choice. But don't think you somehow love Jesus and the Bible more because you have made those choices. It's ignorant and unnecessarily divisive.

 

[12strings]

Don't be dense, you're better then that, or are you?

I apologize for my blunt reply, the sarcasm was unnecessary...however your initial reply seemed very dismissive of all biblical arguments, such that some could read whatever they are "led by the spirit" to do" to mean "whatever I feel like I desire to do." And there are obvious things in scripture that we would all say are not valid leadings from the spirit...(ei, "No Mr. Jones, I realize you feel you are led to be a pastor, but you have 7 wives, and we believe that disqualifies you.)

A faithful, godly women can determine what the Holy Spirit is leading her to do without permission from any man. The same Spirit that lives in me, a man lives in them, no difference.

God has put some measure of authority in churches to determine their structures...such that both men and women must submit to their church leaders/and/or the will of the church at large in certain areas.

You want to use the various passages to confine women to certain roles while ignoring the other passages that do the exact opposite that's fine, your choice. But don't think you somehow love Jesus and the Bible more because you have made those choices. It's ignorant and unnecessarily divisive.

I'm saying those of us who are complimentarian in ministry roles are NOT ignoring the rest of scripture, and that we are not holding these views because of a low view of women, but because we are truly seeking to be faithful to scriptures as we understand them, and to suggest otherwise, or to suggest, as you have here, that we simply want to restrict the Holy Spirit's callings, is unnecessarily divisive.

I don't think all egalitarians are simply disregarding scripture by holding their view, just as it is unfair for egalitarians to say we do the same.

 

[go2church]

I apologize for my blunt reply, the sarcasm was unnecessary...however your initial reply seemed very dismissive of all biblical arguments, such that some could read whatever they are "led by the spirit" to do" to mean "whatever I feel like I desire to do." And there are obvious things in scripture that we would all say are not valid leadings from the spirit...(ei, "No Mr. Jones, I realize you feel you are led to be a pastor, but you have 7 wives, and we believe that disqualifies you.)



God has put some measure of authority in churches to determine their structures...such that both men and women must submit to their church leaders/and/or the will of the church at large in certain areas.



I'm saying those of us who are complimentarian in ministry roles are NOT ignoring the rest of scripture, and that we are not holding these views because of a low view of women, but because we are truly seeking to be faithful to scriptures as we understand them, and to suggest otherwise, or to suggest, as you have here, that we simply want to restrict the Holy Spirit's callings, is unnecessarily divisive.

I don't think all egalitarians are simply disregarding scripture by holding their view, just as it is unfair for egalitarians to say we do the same.

I guess what wound me up was that I would never suggest that you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to nor is there a even the hint that I have ever done so, yet that is immediately where you went. AA

I will hold to my ignoring comment but with some explanation.

Ignoring means to refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally. The complimentary interpretation that women can only serve in gender specific roles seems to me to be ignoring (as defined) the other passages, some a few chapters away, where women are serving as deacons, preaching, teaching, etc. One set of passages becomes the norm while other passages diminished. This has been and continues to be my major issue with the complimentary interpretation. Also, the example of Jesus elevating, including, teaching and relying on women seems again to be completely ignored.

Is it too strong a word? Can you suggest a more appropriate one?

 

[Bronconagurski]

Don't be dense, you're better then that, or are you?

A faithful, godly women can determine what the Holy Spirit is leading her to do without permission from any man. The same Spirit that lives in me, a man lives in them, no difference.

You want to use the various passages to confine women to certain roles while ignoring the other passages that do the exact opposite that's fine, your choice. But don't think you somehow love Jesus and the Bible more because you have made those choices. It's ignorant and unnecessarily divisive.

That kind of thinking is why there is such a schism in the church today. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes, then says God said it was ok. That's why we are being bombarded with the world in our churches. Gay pastors, gay marriage, women preachers, etc. We don't use various verses, we use the only verses that deal with pastors and deacons. Husband of one wife for both, no qualifications for women for either. But there are qualifications for the wives. Can it be any clearer?

Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments. Churches that are out of order have a problem with authority.

Finally, don't think that because you flaunt God's order in the church that you have women's best interest at heart.

 

[annsni]

You want to use the various passages to confine women to certain roles while ignoring the other passages that do the exact opposite that's fine, your choice.

The Bible says that women cannot be pastors, deacons or elders (depending on the definition of the terms you use). There is not one passage that "do the exact opposite".

 

[Bronconagurski]

Huh?

Charles Spurgeon preaching from Romans 16 (v. 3 "Priscilla and Aquila"):

"I should not wonder but he put them in order according to quality rather than according to the rule of sex. He named Priscilla, first, because she was first in energy of character and attainments in Divine Grace. There is a precedence which, in Christ, is due to the woman when she becomes the leader in devotion and manifests the stronger mind in the things of God. It is well when Nature and Grace both authorize our saying, 'Aquila and Priscilla,' but it is not amiss when Grace outruns Nature and we hear of, 'Priscilla and Aquila.'"

Ok, what's your point? Nowhere does that prove that there is an office of a deacon or pastor. Spurgeon is mortal like anyone of us, and he, me, and you could all be wrong on any given point. Scripture is the guide, and it specifically says the offices are for men.

BTW, I was being facetious in the part you copied and pasted.