Women Elders?

[Guest]

I Tim 2:12: And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

I Tim 3:1-7: This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

My church, which is generally rather conservative, is considering opening up eldership to women, for various reasons. Reading the above passages would seem to present an open and shut case that women cant be elders (women cant teach men; elders must teach the church (including men) therefore women cant be elders.

My question is this: could the above verses have a cultural basis, like the veiling of women in I Cor 11? In other words, would Paul's position be the same if he was writing to a church in the USA today?

I would appreciate as many opinions as possible, so please chime in!

TK

[Guest]

My question is this: could the above verses have a cultural basis, like the veiling of women in I Cor 11?

Yes, I suppose they could have a cultural basis. In the verses you quoted, Paul stated that an overseer was to be the husband of one wife. In that culture, only men had wives. In today's culture, I suppose a female overseer, a butch, could be the husband of one wife.

Or how about Paul's injunction that young women be trained to love their children [Titus 2:4]? Does a woman love the child she aborts? However, in that culture, abortion wasn't practised. But today, since abortion is practised so widely, a woman no longer needs to follow the instruction to love her children.

Seriously, I think the cultural-basis reasons for not practising the injunctions of Christ and his apostles are mere excuses for doing what we want.

I believe that if Christian sisters do not cover their heads when praying or prophesying they behave contrary to apostolic instruction, and not merely contrary to the culture of Paul's day. The purpose of the head covering was to show symbolically the submission of the woman to her husband, even as the man's uncovered head showed his submission to Christ.

In the beginning of the chapter (vs 2) Paul wrote:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

He then went on to explain the importance of the head covering, which presumably most of the Corinthian house churches were practising, but which some were not. Immediately afterward, he explains the right way of observing the love feast or Lord's supper. The love feast too, has been done away with by most groups in our day, with only the vestige of taking the bread and wine remaining. The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ. Some groups have even eliminated that from their church practice. Some think that since they feed upon Christ in reality, the symbol is therefore unnecessary.

Change in cultural practices does not justify non-conformity to apostolic teaching. Paul, in the same passage, wrote that if a woman cuts her beautiful long hair (which is her glory), she might just as well shave her head, for it is disgraceful. He also taught that it was a shame for a man to let his hair grow long like a woman's. He could be mistaken for a homosexual. These instructions hold irrespective of the fact that there are many modern men who let their hair grow long like a woman's is supposed to be.

[Guest]

Quote:
I Tim 2:12: And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

My question is this: could the above verses have a cultural basis, like the veiling of women in I Cor 11? In other words, would Paul's position be the same if he was writing to a church in the USA today?

I think the two verses following v 12 would make it difficult to understand as having just a cultural application.

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (MKJV)

I was brought up to believe women in leadership was not scriptural. When we started attending the AOG, (which has women pastors), I gradually came to accept that it must be OK; and God seemed to be blessing women's ministries no less than mens'.
But I must say after completing a course of "women in leadership" (just out of interest, while my husband was in Bible college), I still could not convincingly argue the case to my relatives, who believed otherwise.

I think I have now come full circle & don't believe it is scriptural for women to have authority over men; although I still struggle to understand Paul's instruction for "silence". And verse 15, of course is still totally incomprehensible to me.
Just from observation & personal experience, I think there is room for women at times preaching or teaching, while under a husband's or elders' authority.

Couldn't you think of a hard question, TK? : - )

[Guest]

Steve G says in his teaching on 1 Tim that women CAN teach to 70% of the church (i.e women and children) but that they shouldnt teach men. I believe he also said that this would normally be directed at the church meeting (where all are present).

he mentioned how a man reading a book by a christian woman would not be violative of Paul's instruction.

part of the problem at my church is that they are having trouble finding qualified men who desire to serve as elders, so they are apparently trying to open up the field. whether the congregation would approve of female elders via vote is another matter. they may not.

Steve G sees a distinction between this issue (eldership) and head coverings; the former he sees as non-cultural and the latter he sees as cultural. That is kind of what spurred my question.

TK

[Guest]

This is a wonderful question TK...:

In other words, would Paul's position be the same if he was writing to a church in the USA today?

Since Paul didn't allow a woman to teach, does Jesus also not allow it?

Did Paul really not think that Adam was deceived?

Peace, dmatic

[_Mort_Coyle]

My 2 cents:

All of Paul's writings (as well as those of all other Biblical authors) come from a context. One component of that context is cultural. Another is historical. Paul lived in a particular place and time and culture. In a first century context, women were treated (and always had been treated) like property. A woman belonged first to her father and then to her husband. She was typically deprived of education or rights. She was more often than not regarded as flawed, weak, lowly, despicable and even evil. A woman was not accepted as a credible witness in a court of law. Women were essentially treated like children. In light of this, Jesus' interactions with women were astonishing. Likewise, Paul's views towards women were revolutionary.

Nowadays, women can be doctors, professors, astronauts, firefighters, police officers, soldiers, CEOs, Senators and Presidential contenders. In Paul's day this would have been so far off the cultural/historical map as to be unimaginable. In a similar way, rather than calling for the abolition of slavery (that would take many more centuries), Paul worked within his context by admonishing slave owners to treat their slaves as brothers. Although the actual abolition of slavery was off of Paul's radar, the seeds were there.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said that the universe bends towards justice. Some theologians refer to it as "the redemptive arc of history". As the Kingdom of God has expanded, like leaven in the dough, restoration and freedom has come in ways far beyond what Paul saw in his day.

So, of course women can be elders. Women can do anything in the church that men can do. There is nothing inherently deficient in a woman, especially nowadays when she has equal access to education.

What particularly surprises me, TK, is that (if memory serves) your church is Quaker. The Quakers have been way ahead in regarding women as equal to men throughout their 350 year history. Quaker women such as Margaret Fell, Elizabeth Fry, Lucretia Mott, Mary Dyer, Hannah Whitall Smith, and countless others have had powerful ministries within the church and lasting impact on society at large in areas such as prison reform, care for the mentally ill, abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, freedom of religion, etc. What all of these movements have in common is that they served to further the arc of justice and redemption. Why on earth would a Quaker church be wrestling with the idea of having women elders when that has been the Quaker way since the inception of the Religious Society of Friends?

Dealing specifically with I Tim 2:12 and I Tim 3:1-7, one has to step away from proof-texting mode and look at the larger context. Paul is writing a letter to Timothy. Timothy is continuing Paul's apostolic work in Ephesus, nurturing the growing church. Ephesus is home to the temple of Artemis (Diana), one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Goddess worship in Ephesus was deeply entrenched and had been going on for over 1,000 years (before the Romans and Greeks, Ephesus had been the center of worship of the Phrygian goddess Cybele). For millenia there had been an established priestesshood in Ephesus. In the same way that Diana/Artemis had been superimposed unto Cybele worship, so Jewish and incipient Christian Gnostics were superimposing Eve onto Diana (interestingly, it was at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD that Mary was officially bestowed the title Theotokos: Mother of God). Under Timothy's watch, former goddess worshippers were joining the Christian churches. One would assume that this included former priestesses. There were probably serious clashes of authority, as well as of doctrine, taking place. For example, Diana was the protector goddess of women in childbirth, hence Paul's admonition in 1 Tim 2:15 that women will be saved through childbirth if they continue in faith, love and holiness; in other words, not by offering sacrifices to Diana as was the cultural norm in Ephesus.

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.

Further reading:
http://www.spiritledwoman.com/wim/rousu.html
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/fees.htm

[Guest]

gee, thanks mort. just when i think i have my mind made up you go messing with me.

really, though, thank you so much for your input setting forth the other side of things.

i attend an evangelical friends church, which has its roots in the quakers, however it would be much more comparable to a non-denominational community type church. we hold to some of the quaker distinctives (like not stessing the importance of baptism and only occasionally observing the Lord's supper)- i happen to disagree with both of these distinctives, BTW. We do have women overseers (at our church the overseers probably function like deacons). My wife was asked to consider becoming an elder (elderess?) which is why this all came up.

TK

[_Mort_Coyle]

Hi TK,

I attend an Evangelical Quaker church also: http://www.northseattlefriends.org
The pastor is a woman.

We have two fantastic interactive classes called "Meetings for Learning" prior to the "Meeting for Worship" on Sunday. One is going through the Old Testament, the other is focusing on the Sermon on the Mount. The Old Testament class is taught by a retired professor from Wilmington College. The Sermon on the Mount class is taught by a Greek scholar who authored a book on the Sermon of the Mount entitled But I Tell You, published by Barclay Press.

Both of these teachers are women.

[Guest]

...it was at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD that Mary was officially bestowed the title Theotokos: Mother of God...

Just want to clarify something, Danny. "theotokos" does not mean "Mother of God" (as if Mary were assigned Deific status), but rather "God bearer". And if Jesus is Deity, that is an accurately descriptive title for Mary, isn't it?

[_Mort_Coyle]

Actually an even more literal translation of Theotokos would be "one who gives birth to God". Part of the debate at the Council of Ephesus was whether Mary should be called Theotokos or Christotokos, as Nestorius referred to her.

Cybele was referred to by the Greeks as Meter Theon (Mother of the Gods) and later by the Romans as Magna Mater (Great Mother). The Greeks merged Cybele with Rhea, the mother of the gods in their mythology. Perhaps the whole Mary thing is just coincidence.

According to legend, Cybele's son Attis (who was also her lover) castrated himself in a fit of passion and bled to death. Flowers grew where Attis' blood touched the ground. Cybele found Attis' body and resurrected him from the dead. During worship rituals, male devotees of Cybele, known as Galli, would work themselves into a frenzy of worship and castrate themselves (less devout followers would castrate a bull), leaving their testicles at the feet of Cybele's statue. The Galli thereafter wore women's clothing and took on a female identity. Female priestesses were central to the worship of Cybele, which involved drumming, chanting, drinking and orgies (sort of like a Grateful Dead concert, come to think of it...). This was the world in which Paul and Timothy were planting churches and teaching people to be followers of Jesus.

Another interesting factoid about Ephesus: According to Catholic tradition it was from Ephesus that Mary was bodily "assumed" into Heaven. Did the lengthy history of Cybele/Artemis/Diana worship in Ephesus play a part in the formation of this tradition?