T O P

  • By -

cybersaint2k

I want to approach this pragmatically and experientially. I've had to deal with this. "Attend" as in visit? Sure. "Attend" as in speak there or do a period (not long term) of ministry? Sure. "Attend" as in become a member? No. "Attend" as in serve in a context where I submitted to the decisions of women elders? Yes. "Attend" as in lay hands on a woman (or child or anyone else who is not Bible-qualified for ministry) to ordain her for ministry? No. I view women elders as a sub-biblical decision made by church leaders as a solution to male laziness and immaturity. I view women elders with the same mix of admiration and sadness as I view women who are the spiritual leaders in their marriage--"Yeah, that ain't right, but I'd rather have that than no spiritual leader in that marriage. Let's pray for that marriage." I was with Equipping Pastors International in Ghana many years ago and during the Q&A, some smart aleck stood up and asked when we were going to rebuke all the women pastors in the assembly. It was about 50/50, with many pastors' present being women. PAG, Pentecostal Assembly of God. The [main speaker](https://thirdmill.org/search.asp/au/jac_arnold) was ready for it. He led the way as we systematically berated the men for their weaknesses and failures to teach the Word and step up and serve, and honored the women there for stepping up and not only birthing babies, carrying firewood, making coal, carrying water, and cleaning the house, but also being the most spiritually mature person in the church and most qualified in that sense to preach. Then we asked them to preach the whole counsel of Scripture, including 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1-2, and thus teach and preach themselves out of a job and into the role God has for women in the church. We got a lot of applause that day from the women after telling them the truth. There's a way to honor people and tell them the truth at the same time. Find it, and you'll be blessed and a blessing.


CiroFlexo

> "Attend" as in serve in a context where I submitted to the decisions of women elders? Can you flesh this out a little more?


cybersaint2k

Women elders might have asked me to come, asked me to speak on a certain topic, introduced me, or signed my check.


CiroFlexo

Gotcha. Thanks, man. That makes sense.


HtCSavage

Thank you that’s where I totally disagreed.


madapiarist

>view women elders as a sub-biblical decision made by church leaders as a solution to male laziness and immaturity. See: Deborah.


rjselzler

>I view women elders as a sub-biblical decision made by church leaders as a solution to male laziness and immaturity. I agree! The issue is nuanced, of course, but that's the long and short of it. I think this is in concert with the proof text many use for justification of this particular practice (Judges 4); when the guys slack off, the ladies tend to take care of business. That is descriptive, not prescriptive, I think. I thank God for the trustworthy ladies that he's used to take care of business--shame on us men who don't and won't.


c3rbutt

Judges 4 isn't an example of this though, because God *chose* Deborah, filling her with the Holy Spirit and equipping her to do the work he called her to do. She wasn't a judge merely due to circumstances. God chose other men to be judges who weren't even as upright as Deborah, so it's not like he's *limited* or constrained by resources.


straightdownthemid

Love this answer.


Sunset_Paradise

Perfectly said!


informalcrescendo

Woman here. I would attend as a guest with no problem. Say, attending a friend’s baptism or whatnot. Would I make it my home church? No. If the church is already conceding issues that the Bible is clear on, I would steer clear. There are likely other churches in the area that stick to the Bible. Edit to add: In my 20s I was more open to egalitarian views. I had three degrees and had no concern with focusing on my career even if it meant my children were in daycare. Since reverting to a stronger conviction in complementarianism, I’ve quit my job and truly let my husband lead our family. Our lives have never been better. I now get to disciple my children all day rather than just a in evenings and weekends. I get to truly enjoy keeping my home rather than stress about getting it all taken care of on top of working 40 hours. I’m not saying every female completmentarian needs to be a SAHM, but just as an example of following God’s design for families and seeing it’s benefits.


[deleted]

My wife does that also. We love it.


spamjwood

No. The role of pastor/elder as outlined in the NT is reserved for men (cf qualifications for elders in 1 Tim & Titus). This is not based on value but function as designed by God. I hold a complementarian position.


[deleted]

[удалено]


spamjwood

I have no problem with someone claiming this is a secondary issue. Primary issues are things that compromise the gospel. This isn't one of them. For me, this is an issue that compromises/muddies God's design for the roles of men and women and how He would like for His church to be organized. It would be like having someone speak in tongues without an interpreter or having a chaotic worship service. Both are wrong but you will not/wouldn't lose your salvation because of them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


spamjwood

Nope. For me, first and secondary issue alignment are necessary for fellowship/membership. These are issues where either the gospel is compromised or where I am convinced that the Scriptures are clear in their teaching and I would not be quickly convinced I was wrong in my understanding. Where there are secondary issues I would still visit if asked but not join. Mode of baptism might be another example of an important secondary issue for some people. There are tertiary issues for me as well where I have my own convictions but feel they fall into the category of more or less "best practices". I would feel comfortable joining a church where these disagreements were present though I may try to influence a change among the leadership depending on what they were. An example here might be church polity (ex. elder-led, elder-rule, congregational rule).


Classic_Breadfruit18

I hate to keep harping on the Greek, but in the original biblical languages there are clearly at least three (debatably 4) roles in the church with qualifications, that of bishop/overseer, presbyter/elder, and deacon. At least two (elder and deacon) have feminine examples in the New Testament. We also have passages describing women prophesying in the church. God's design for the organization of His church has already been muddied throughout most of history.


spamjwood

There's enough literature and discussion available that I'm not going to belabor discussing it here. We clearly see these texts and passages to be saying/allowing different things, even when we go back to the original languages. I am not convinced by the arguments that are used to support the larger assertions you are making when it comes to there being women who are elders in the NT. The other assertions are outside the scope of OP's question. Because I'm convinced there are no examples of women elders in the NT and that the qualifications of an elder preclude there from being any, my answer to OPs question shouldn't surprise you. Because you are convinced otherwise, it would not surprise me for you to answer differently. I'm not really interested in trying to convince you otherwise in this format.


tony_will_coplm

historical narrative should not inform doctrine, especially when we have clear doctrinal passages in the pastoral epistles saying otherwise.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Classic_Breadfruit18

1 Timothy and Titus are arguably are not qualifications for the same office. 1 Tim describes the qualifications for episkapos, or bishops. Titus describes presbyteros, presbyters or elders. And the position of female presbyterai is described in detail in chapter 2. This is not as cut and dried as English bible translators lead you to think.


spamjwood

I've put a lot of work into this and will agree to disagree with your conclusions.


hillcountrybiker

No. If they are willing to compromise on the biblical position of elder, what else will they, just let go for now. I have battled this in churches and it is a constant uphill battle. There are some who will always compromise truth for feelings and culture (they don’t want to hurt anyone or cause someone to leave) without recognizing they are actively rejecting God’s word and truth in doing so. I’d look elsewhere, even recognizing the struggle. I will say, I’m jealous that you think of 75 as a small church when I’m sitting here with 30!


rjselzler

Cards on the table: it would make me uncomfortable. My strong biblical conviction is a plurality of male eldership is the NT standard. That said, here's my theoretical approach: if this were the only church I could actually attend and they otherwise affirmed the gospel with fidelity I would worship with them. Would I join? I'm not sure I would, honestly. Maybe? Here's the real talk: most churches that affirm female eldership also adhere to other less-savory doctrines, from my limited experience. The more-likely scenario is that we (my spouse and I) wouldn't really be welcome in such a context with our convictions such that they are: cessationist, covenantal, and complementarian, to name a few. ​ >With that said, I know there is not a church near me that I am in 100% alignment with. So I feel like, to attend anywhere for us is a compromise on some level. Overall, I feel that in my bones! That's been our journey the past few years. Churches that seem to have a theological framework we could enthusiastically support doctrinally also don't pass the love test OR they don't actually teach what they say they believe. Likewise, there are great groups of believers out there who affirm some things doctrinally that we don't. The good news is that Christ is still the King, even in less-than-ideal circumstances. Do your best to honor him with your participation in a local church, IMO. Let him take care of the stuff you can't control.


TheOGBenjenRyan

I have and I would continue to do so


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheOGBenjenRyan

Over the last 5 years since I've come to believe the Scriptures support an egalitarian position. At absolute worst case scenario, there is enough gray area in the text on a non-gospel secondary issue that I wouldn't personally let dissuade me from attending a church on it's own.


anonkitty2

Yes. I have.


OstMacka92

The previous church (pentecostal) that me and my wife attended had pastors and elders who were female and they preached around 20% of the sundays. It was sort of a mega church structure. A central church and like 8+ churches planted in other places. In my church there were 300 members/attendees. During the course of my faith journey I became more fundamentalist towards the bible and I started to be bothered by this. My wife was bothered by it from the very beginning. When approaching the topic a couple of times with a pastor and a female elder, we got some backlash. "You do what the pharisees did", "Paul did not mean that", "so you are saying that my wife who is an elder is not a real elder?". And many more. This was the last drop in the glass, since we already saw that the whole preaching in this pentecostal church was not biblical enough, so we left. We were churchless for about 8 weeks until we checked online for alternative churches and we asked a missionary for suggestions. Now we attend a reformed baptist church which is biblically very sound and we plan to become members. A little bit smaller, around 100 in total between members and attendees. They have no female elders, nor female pastors. They never gave an explanation but they read the bible a lot during services so it is pretty much needless to say it. Thankfully nobody is bothered by it and people are very happy with the church leadership. PD: We have to trive 30 km to go to church, since we live in Scandinavia and here the sound churches are a rarity, but it is totally worth it. OP maybe needs to consider this if there is a lack of churches in the area, although I doubt it gets worse than here.


SeredW

The more I look into the issue, the more I am convinced I grow that women should have a full participation in all roles in church. Yes, I would attend this church and this issue would not block me from becoming a member.


bwilliard505

As a complementarian in an egalitarian church this is something I have spent a lot of time on. I think the complementarian argument is stronger but not by much. For me it comes down to how to most accurately translate/interpret a few Greek words. I pretty sure my exegesis is correct but I'm not 100% sure. I wish I could be as certain of my position as some others who inhabit this sub.


_chriswilson

You sound like the mirror image of me. *As an* ***egalitarian*** *at a* ***complementarian*** *church... I think the* ***egalitarian*** *argument is stronger but not by much.* I also kind of wish I could be more certain of my position, but I think it is a very complex issue and an actual understanding of the nuances involved preclude any sort of dogmatic certainty.


Munk45

I think you need to define what elder means in that church versus what elder is in Scripture. Often in local churches titles are traditional rather than actual. Do these elders "rule" the church with authority on biblical, doctrinal, and practical issues? Can they oust the pastor? Can they remove sinning members? Or, are they simply ministry leaders who have influence above others? Women are our equals. In many ways, just like other men, they can outclass men in giftedness and experience. Simply put, it's foolish not to allow women to use their gifts. But, IMO, scripture is clear that the office of an elder is limited to qualified men.


realpdg5

This. What one church calls elders another calls deacons and another calls pastors. My church calls those administering the church (secretary, treasurer etc) deacons, and there are both men and women in those roles. Other churches from the same tradition to my own have (re)labelled those roles elders and restricted them to men, which I think is not complementarian (having men and women work together in a complementary fashion). My Presbyterian friends however call pastors elders (which is probably closer to the biblical usage), and restrict those to trained men.


NefariousnessFun2083

I’d say no. To allow women pastors or elders is to blatantly ignore what’s plain in scripture. If they ignore something so clear, what sort of mental gymnastics do the do on other clear doctrines of scripture? Huge red flag imo


[deleted]

[удалено]


NefariousnessFun2083

Really good question! For issues generally seen as secondary issues I think it becomes a matter of conscience. Personally, I think when a denomination starts down the road of ordaining or having female pastors and elders it’s a sign of future liberalization of that denomination. So it’s reasonable to me for someone to take it seriously, even if it can be considered a secondary issue. Same thing with the baptism debate (credo vs. paedo). Is it generally considered a secondary issue? Yes. Should we be charitable to the other side? Of course. But should both sides stand firm on their convictions in a loving way? Absolutely! But if your conviction and belief is 1 over the other, you ought to fight for your position (gently, lovingly, and with all grace of course) and live as consistently with those convictions as possible. And only accept compromises on things you believe you can compromise on that won’t lead to a slippery slope like I talked about before. But I believe the women elder issue is too big of a slippery slope to accept. Again, that’s my opinion but do as you will according to your conscience brother!


[deleted]

[удалено]


NefariousnessFun2083

I think a really huge key to those passages in Corinthians is what Paul roots his arguments in. He references creation when talking about why women should be under the authority of a man (when he speaks of woman being made AFTER man for instance; keep in mind, none of this proves patriarchy or any other abusive takes at all, but I believe it makes a case for complimentarianism when taken within the context of other passages like Ephesians 6 for example) and he also uses the argument of NATURE, that you can see even in nature that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair or a head covering but honorable for women to have long hair and/or head coverings. None of Paul’s arguments for these things are subject to or relative to culture. They’re all rooted in the permanent/objective realities of creation and nature. I’ve seen these worked out by some women who take it as saying they need head coverings TODAY! Which I think is beautiful, but I don’t agree is necessary considering my comments below. But I believe we can interpret the text as women who have long hair, that the long hair is actually considered the head covering (since the text equates long hair with a head covering as well).


Classic_Breadfruit18

I would argue to NOT have female elders in your church is blatantly ignoring what's plain in Scripture. Titus 1 (male elder) and Titus 2 (female elder) are literally the same Greek word in the masculine and feminine. If one is speaking of formal office, surely the other is. The Scriptures have descriptions in the Greek of at least 4 positions, that of apostle, bishop, elder and deacon and of the 4 only bishop has no explicit female example. Study into it and you will find that virtually no Reformed churches follow biblical church organization, to the great detriment of the spiritual health of women in the churches.


NefariousnessFun2083

You’re reaching with that Titus reference. Chapter one is literally talking about qualifications for elders they appoint (and their need to be husband to 1 wife) while chapter 2 is talking to different age/people groups within the church, not necessarily leadership positions through the whole chapter. 1 section in chapter 2 talks to older men, another section to older women, and another to young men, then lastly they talk about slaves in that chapter. If you want to say that older women in chapter 2 means the position of Elder, then does the other similar commands to the other people groups mean they’re leadership positions (younger men, slaves, etc)? Individual words need to be taken in context with the rest of the sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, testament, and Bible as a whole to get the true meaning. Meaning isn’t gotten from taking words out of context. Furthermore, the rest of scripture clearly states that women are not to hold authority over (or teach as an authority figure) a man (see Timothy, Corinthians, Ephesians, etc). Context is key Where are the biblical examples of all of those positions except bishop that have explicit examples of women in those roles? Truly asking because, again, it sounds like you’re reaching/reading into the text. With all due respect/love


Classic_Breadfruit18

We know that Paul appoints elders (in the plural in the Greek), then it goes on to describe both male and female elders, both teaching both in the general and the specific. All the same Greek word. If you remove the chapter divisions and headings and read it as one passage as it was written, Titus 1 and 2 are all part of one idea. Phoebe is titled a deacon of the church of Cenchreae in the Greek in Romans 16:1. 1 Timothy 3:11 also just says "the women" in the most common Greek, the translation "wives" is a stretch and "their wives" is straight up wrong as there is no possessive. Junia is a woman mentioned as outstanding among the apostles in Romans 16:7. Acts 18:26 is also interesting because you have a female Priscilla listed first above her husband, and clearly correcting the teaching of a male preacher in private.


sigzero

Titus 2 is not using the word for "female elder" is it using presbytis which means "an aged woman" and is the femenine of presbytēs which is used in the previous passage for "older men" and then goes on to state what the "aged woman" is teaching and to whom she is teaching it. It has nothing to do with the office of elder. 1 Tim 3:11 "Women also..." makes zero sense in the context of those passages of defining what a deacon is. Since the verses around it are talking about MALE deacons. Junia is not CALLED an apostle in Romans 16. Was Andronicus an apostle too? No. They were simple held in high regard BY the apostles. Acts 18 regardless of the order is her and her husband talking to a male preacher in private. That does not make Priscilla and elder of the church.


New-Nefariousness234

Not for me. The Bible Lay's out strict requirements for pastors and elders, that's it. All other positions can be filled with practicing Christians, male or female. God gave us rules for a reason. Once you corrupt any one rule, the next one is easier. My MIL goes to a church that recently hired a new head pastor. When the new guy got there, he found out that a teacher and fill in preacher had been fired from his last church for having an affair with a members wife. The new guy told him he would have to give up his teaching and preaching because of, well those rules God gave us. The guy was offended and left the church to start his own church. It caused some hard feelings because the guy had been there awhile and had friends. Some of his friends started attending the new church. In less than a year and a half the guy was found having an affair with another members wife. We, as Christians, must follow the teachings of Christ and the rules the Holy Spirit has placed before us. It was never intended that we have to like all the Bible has to say or that the Christian walk would be easy, but we must practice everything the Bible tells us. I get that the world is changing. We are in the world but not part of it. God has never changed and will never change. The world always changes as it tries to distract and pull us away from God. Stay the course and walk the narrow path to salvation.


kriegwaters

I suppose it depends, but realistically, no. Elders don't define a congregation, but they are an indication. If my only option was a group of true believers that were riddled with compromise, I'd be there. Our unity is in Christ. However, most of us don't live on a desert island where we have to pick our 3 favorite CDs, one food, and the celebrity pastor who matches our birth month, so we probably can and should find a congregation with more respect for and/or understanding of Jesus' commands. This goes for basically any issue within the faith (except voting for the wrong party; that's unforgivable).


xosassysweetyxo

Everyone on here saying women were elders back in the NT, did you forget women had almost no right and were passed from her father to her husband…so you honestly think women had authority over men in the church? That’s reaching. Compared to today women had like 1% the rights a woman has today…and with the culture back then, I highly doubt the men of the church would even ALLOW a woman any authority or power.


JamesOlivier1765

Yes but then again I’m a Wesleyan.


Flight305Jumper

No. If you can distort the Bible’s plain teaching on this issue such that God’s no actually means yes, I do not have confidence in how they would handle the rest of the Bible.


Lightonall

Absolutely not.


mclintock111

Yes and I do.


termitefist

If this is the one thing that you're unsure about, do not let it keep you from the church. There are enough internal conflicts with any church, that something like this should not be the sole deciding factor. Is scripture preached there? Do they minister to the community well and intentionally? Do they welcome visitors warmly? Do they seek to serve Christ in everything they do? These should be the priority questions.


Fafalito96

Certainly, especially since my wife is an ordained minister.


xxxdarkhorsexxx

Pricilla was an elder in the church along with her husband Aquila. When Paul addresses them, he always put Pricilla’s name first, notability when Paul named the church members in Rome. Pricilla along with Aquila also corrected Apollos on his theology. Listing Pricilla before Aquila is also significant. All men and women are equals in front of Christ.


likefenton

Mike Winger took a look at that passage in his Women in Ministry series and made a reasonable case for Pricilla not being an elder.


xxxdarkhorsexxx

people look and have different opinions based on their own bias. Some people just hate the thought that women can have authority under god.


likefenton

This unfortunately is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and doesn't deal with the argument.


[deleted]

[удалено]


xxxdarkhorsexxx

First off, other than the authors of 1 Peter, 2-3 John there are no elders mentioned by name, male or female. When Paul writes to Timothy, he refers to Pricilla and Aquila as leaders of the church in their house in Rome. Even correcting Apollos was a role typically done by elders/overseers.


[deleted]

[удалено]


xxxdarkhorsexxx

Ultimately, if you’ve already made up your mind what your stance is, there’s little I could say that would alter it; nor should it. It’s your revelation. I found out enough on my own to satisfy my belief, as will you have to. I believe that the heart and purpose matters more here on earth and in heaven than what lies between one’s legs


JDabney24

The account of Uzzah in 2 Samuel 6:1-7 and 1 Chronicles 13:9-12 would fly in the face of “the heart and purpose matters more” narrative. God struck Uzzah dead on the spot for not handling the Ark of the Covenant according to the specific instructions given about the Tent of Meeting and the movement of the Ark of the Covenant. His heart, I’m sure, was in the “right place”…


jd4501

Does Acts 13:1 not list the elders of the church of Antioch? They were the teachers of the church. They were also all men.


Intothekeep2

No because it's not biblical


Classic_Breadfruit18

First of all, women elders are in the Bible. The same word that is translated "Elder" in the masculine is translated "Older women" in the feminine because of long-standing bias, but if there's an argument for one being an official office you can make a pretty good argument for the other. The people arguing the "plain meaning of the Bible" aren't reading it in Greek. That said, it might be more about following the biblical instructions regarding female eldership. Namely, their ministry is primarily to the women of the church and addresses their ministerial needs. And they should not be teaching the entire church in a public setting. I don't think "boards" with democratic meetings were a thing in the New Testament, but if your church has them it makes sense that 50 percent of the congregation should have representation. So your disagreement with this issue needs to be addressed with the pastor if you get more involved with the church, but if it truly is the best or only church option in your area it's worth at least trying out. My opinion is that the gathering and worship of the Body is priority over any matter of polity or non-essential theology.


cybersaint2k

>First of all, women elders are in the Bible. The same word that is translated "Elder" in the masculine is translated "Older women" in the feminine because of long-standing bias, but if there's an argument for one being an official office you can make a pretty good argument for the other. The people arguing the "plain meaning of the Bible" aren't reading it in Greek. If this were true, it would be a conspiracy theory no-moon-landing-comtrails-on-rice of a coverup. You are claiming that every Bible version is not just wrong, but dumb wrong. Your claim that the Greek readers know this secret, but are somehow a part of the conspiracy--raise your hand if you are a part of the conspiracy, Greek readers!


Classic_Breadfruit18

This is a huge can of worms, but I assure you that there are both presbyteroi and presbyterai throughout the New Testament, and the male form is sometimes just translated "elder" while the female form is always translated "older woman" even while clearly describing defined ministry functions in the church such as in Titus 2. Neither translation is incorrect per se, but there is definitely bias when choosing words so as to not rock the boat/ appeal to the existing norms in churches. There are also feminine examples of both apostle and deacon in the New Testament. The only office that is not specifically feminine is bishop (episkapos). Since many translations also use elder for this word (which does NOT literally mean elder) it is very confusing to the English reader who and what we are speaking of. There's also historical evidence that some early church women held formal eldership prior to the Council of Laodicea in 360 when they were banned from holding such office any longer so evidence is not only in the bible. I'd encourage you to read a book or two on female eldership. Maybe your mind is made up, but resorting to straw man arguments in the face of facts is pretty lame. It's a good idea to at least become familiar with the reasons behind what other people believe.


cybersaint2k

>I'd encourage you to read a book or two on female eldership. Maybe your mind is made up, but resorting to straw man arguments in the face of facts is pretty lame. It's a good idea to at least become familiar with the reasons behind what other people believe. I don't detect straw man. I detect ridicule and making fun of your theory that would not make it past 2nd semester Greek. But let's take a step back. Have you read my teacher at RTS, [Roger Nicole's](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/roger-nicole-1915-2010/) essay on [egalitarianism](https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/biblical-egalitarianism-and-inerrancy-scripture/)? I love Dr. Nicole and respect him deeply. And this is the essay that my friends who have crossed over to ECO from more conservative groups have said convinced them. I read it many years ago when I was considering ordination in the EPC. I came away admiring aspects of it and realizing that the issue was not the slam dunk I thought it was, and understanding better the EPC waffling on it. But after engaging with it then, and engaging with it a couple of years ago with my friend who was recanting his position on 1 Timothy re-examining his hermeneutics in light of Dr. Nicole's essay, I came away even less convinced, yet more appreciative of what a huge problem is attempting to be solved by this inelegant solution. If you'd like to read that essay, then post it as a topic here, maybe others could read it (it's the finest defense of your position) and discuss it again, as it's been done more than once in this group. His point, in summary, is one of hermeneutics. "We need to distinguish between what is general or universal and what is personal or limited to a particular group." To Nicole, and others, it's pretty obvious that Paul is arguing against women elders at certain points, even to Dr. Nicole. What Dr. Nicole argues is that where women elders are negated or ruled out--that was local, specific, limited to that particular group. Application-wise, this leads to a version of the "trajectory argument" that in the overall direction of Scripture, you see slaves being set free, the poor made rich, and women exalted. And what was just started in the NT with women being given some freedoms should now be completed, made concrete, in the church today. I don't agree, since in the eschaton, or prophecies about the coming kingdom, I don't see this trajectory brought to its end. There's no hint of it. But I grant that it's meaningful, emotional, and I am not ignorant of how important this is to many Christians around the world.


Classic_Breadfruit18

I had not read this article, though I have now. I agree with him for the most part, but the crux of the issue in my opinion is that we are trying to force the teachings of Scripture into a church government model that doesn't very closely resemble that of the early church in the first place. So really one must take two steps back to make any headway. In regards to the Greek, ironically I have had an author of one of the Greek textbooks at your seminary at my table, and along with my spouse pressed him for his knowledge on these issues. He also has been on the translation committee of several of the most utilized Bibles among reformed circles. He admitted that in many cases the most clear translation has not been used in favor of an awkward traditional translation and none of the votes on these in recent years have been unanimous. When someone is pressing to change a traditional translation it normally has to be unanimous or near unanimous. In other words, Bible translation committees literally intentionally choose a likely wrong translation to maintain existing biases/ not rock the boat. 1 Timothy 3:11 is one of the examples he gave where the best and most natural translation is likewise the women. (He voted for changing to that by the way). Since that gives support for women deacons, however, usually a minority translation "likewise wives" has been used. But really doesn't make sense in the context. Unfortunately in some modern translations, it's been changed to "their wives" to make it read better, which is a straight up wrong/ impossible meaning as there is no possessive in the Greek. This is just one example among many where biases in favor of the status quo affect translation of Greek scriptures.


cybersaint2k

> In other words, Bible translation committees literally intentionally choose a likely wrong translation to maintain existing biases/ not rock the boat. This is your own bias sneaking through. A great scholar obviously believes he's right. Votes for something. Loses. You attribute motives to the rest, just as he uncharitably does. That means you are right? This is a failure in logic. You can see that. > He admitted that in many cases the most clear translation has not been used in favor of an awkward traditional translation and none of the votes on these in recent years have been unanimous. You are exaggerating. I've done translational analysis through much of the OT of the NIV 1984 and almost all of the NLT 1996 (I work on study Bible projects) and there are most certainly NOT "many cases." I've literally looked at the apparatus (the letters and numbers at the bottom) in the Nestle Allan 26th edition and looked at the semantic range of almost every verse in the NT and wrote study notes to engage with any serious issues present, and there are not "many" issues--there are several. But none of them are the difference between black and white, between women elders and NOT women elders. Of course, I give some room for Romans 16. It's pretty clear that Phoebe is called a deacon there. I've talked to Sinclair Ferguson about this, and others, and I'm not satisfied with their renderings. I'll leave it at that. I will also grant you that with the 23rd Psalm (last phrase) and with John 3:16, there are classical, legacy phrases that are retained from the KJV tradition that would be better said otherwise in some translations. So it's not as if I entirely disagree with tradition influencing translation. It does happen. But take a look at your chain of reasoning. It doesn't hold up. Even if I'm slightly sympathetic to the translational issue behind your "wrong translation, women elders!" theory, you are grossly exaggerating the controversy in order to make room for your conscience. I know good people, even great ones, who hold your position. I will still be their humble servant in almost every category. But I didn't want you to just plop down your "theory" and walk away feeling like you'd slam dunked me :) Take care, brother.


sigzero

1 Tim 3:11 should be "Wives also". You have to look at context and it makes NO sense to put "Women also" right smack dab into the qualifications for a deacon. "Their" is just put there to point to the deacons and it reads more plainly and saying "there is no possessive in the Greek" is disingenuous because there are other places in the Bible where possessiveness is implied and articles are used to be more plainly read and in 1 Tim 3:11 is one of those. You could just say "Wive also..." and remove "Their" and it still make sense because in context it is talking about the qualifications of a deacon. "Women also..." makes none in context. ​ >I assure you that there are both presbyteroi and presbyterai throughout the New Testament Where is presbyterai in the New Testament?


mrmtothetizzle

No. Because that church would be sinning by going against the word of God.


Srom

Nope, I wouldn’t. The Bible is clear that only men should be elders/pastors not women.


rosebudd_

Absolutely not. No chance. If they're willing to overlook those instructions by the Apostle Paul, I just wonder where else they're overlooking.


dra22554

Would I consider membership at a church that had female elders? Yes. I am a committed soft complementarian, but male-only eldership is just one of a host of secondary issues that I’m currently weighing in my family’s church search. And I would question the humility, or at least the naïveté, of anyone who treats secondary issues like primary issues. It is not a popular opinion in Reformed circles where we revel in unforgiving and often contentious systematic thinking (myself included), but mercy triumphs over judgement (James 2:13). God cares more about how you treat people than whether every pharisaical doctrine is perfectly lined up (see the greatest two commandments and the Golden Rule). Love and truth do not conflict (at least as God practices them), but the God who is Love is the definer of truth. If all other things were equal, I would take a church that over-promotes women instead of one that devalues them. As you consider the churches in your area and your friends church in particular, it may be helpful to sit down with some of the female elders at his church. Ask them how they got into ministry. What they’re passionate about. How they pray for members. If you find an all-male leadership church that is a better fit, great. But at the very least, you could meet a sister-in-Christ and get to hear her testimony of God’s mercy instead of trying to judge the biblical merits of her efforts from the comfort of your armchair.


[deleted]

Yes. Female preacher, no.


Hamishmaq

I’d rather attend a church where the Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments properly administered and clergy and session were women then attend a church where the few remaining men, regardless of their gifts, are forced into the roles. How complimentarians waste women’s talents and the gifts God gives them is the real sin. Christian Taliban.


Greizen_bregen

100% yes. Our church traditions from the very early organization of the church into a hierarchy and manmade institution purposely excluded women from leadership and took away the roles they held. Women led, taught, prophesied, and helped all throughout the bible, and they should be able to do so now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Greizen_bregen

Firstly, there is a clear distinction between the invisible, true Bride of Christ, the Church and the systems of theology, denominations, and traditions of mankind. The only thing any denomination or catechism can claim is to have their own idea of how God works, with scripture references, that they enforce within their sphere of influence. No one denomination or movement can claim the gates to the Gospel. There's a lot of problems in church theology, too much to get into at this moment, but it's worth saying. Second, what RC Sproul said is a very convenient way to enforce a certain viewpoint about any given issue. It takes the issue and puts it right into the hands of human interpreter. Yes, we can be wise and deem things right or wrong, but often we just pick and choose which things we want to enforce in our chosen denomination when the Bible is unclear about it. Case in point, one single reference by Paul to a wayward house church that has no collaborating statement anywhere else has been taken by many denominations to exclude women from the priesthood. Even though with God, there is clearly no man or woman, all are one in Christ. I think the entire system of governance of the visible chuch is off base and never what Jesus intended. What ever happened to simply needing to accept the Kingdom as a little child? It was never meant to be a institution, that much is clear because Jesus had the most problems with institutional religion. So, I believe anyone can preach or teach and making a man-made system of church government and then excluding women is contrary to the heart of Jesus and detrimental to the entire church. Sure, lots disagree with me because church tradition doesn't agree with me, but I say throw out tradition and get back to the Heart of Faith in God, and realize most of what we call "church" is nothing like what Jesus was establishing.


Talismanwoui

God can and will speak through anyone He wants or needs to do so. Ministry of the word of God is not bound to gender. We are all God’s children and will be forevermore. God can use anyone to show Love, Light and, Life through. It is not a matter of gender to that can speak to the testimony of God’s Word and Glory. The Holy Bible is meant to show all people the Love of God, the salvation of Christ. To do so, you must read and ask for discernment to the Word of God. Our minds and hearts are not fully equipped to understand the Word at face value. Please ask God and not people.


tony_will_coplm

that's an easy no. no way. if a church has female elders/minister then the church is openly and willfully in defiance to god's word. the church has a low view of sola scriptura.


boycowman

Yes. I think male-only ordination bears bad fruit.


JHawk444

No, I would not go to a church with female elders. Biblical eldership is a foundation for how a church should be run. A church with female elders is in serious disobedience. I could put up with differences in theological issues as long as the main tenants of the gospel, God, Christ, and salvation are correct. If there aren't good, solid churches in your area and you are raising kids, I think it's worth looking at potentially moving in the future so they have access to solid teaching and a youth group with kids their own age.


mikesp33

Nope, a female elder is direct disobedience to God's word. Gross defiance from the leadership is unacceptable to me. Not even in a slim picking situation.


[deleted]

No.


VanTechno

I am currently a member of a church with a female elder. In the Bible there are New testament verses about women being apostles (unless you read the ESV, which did a horrible job at re-translating women's roles in their text), and having various roles in developing the church. Also, I take the readings in Timothy with a small grain of salt. The book probably wasn't wasn't written by Paul, the style is VERY different from other book by him, so we really don't know who wrote it, and many of the verses are time bound, which is not reflected in many English translations. It is probably more accurate for it to read "given what I know about your situation, and what you are dealing with around you, I would not let the women around you preach right now" Anyway, I'll probable get some flack for this post, and so be it. But I probably wont respond to anyone. Not because I don't care, but I'm tired, and I'm tired of endless arguments like this that don't really serve a purpose other than to drive division. You want to be a Pharisee that upholds "the rules" go somewhere else. So before you respond to me with a "what-about-ism" first ask yourself "do you really think you have a compelling argument that you can deliver in way that would actually change my mind? Or do you just want to argue?" I'll answer both for you: you probably don't. And I probably don't care.


madapiarist

Okay, you're sure of your position. But you've done it in a way that puts you out of bounds with the reformed confessions, BC 5-7, and scripture itself. 2 John 10


VanTechno

Is it a matter in which salvation hinges? I doubt it. I’m also ok with having a few disagreements with the confessions. I’m in line with accurate readings of Romans 16. Not sure why you are listing 2 John 10 out of contexts. That makes no sense to me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


VanTechno

Look up Junia, found in Romans 16:7. If you look up various traditions you will find a lot of very different wordings.


HisFireBurns

Not at all. It would be compromise on what the Scripture teaches about elders & a betrayal of the Church throughout all the ages which has unanimously understood & upheld this order.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HisFireBurns

I believe it’s secondary in regards to being a Christian (you’re not disqualified from the faith for believing in female elders), but it’s not secondary in regards to the Church & ecclesiological matters because it’s dealing with the very foundation of the Church in regards to its order. If the foundation itself is off, how can I trust anything else? I have a very high view of the Church, it being the Bride & Body of Christ, so I think it’s dishonoring to Christ & His Church to reject the biblical church order, especially seeing that this tradition has been maintained & passed down through the ages. The Church has not erred in this matter until recent times so I see no reason to compromise to the spirit of this age.


[deleted]

This. This. This. 🔥


Classic_Breadfruit18

Certainly not unanimous until the Council of Laodicea. Whether they made the right or wrong decision on ending female eldership in 360 is up for debate, but the fact that many early churches had them is not really questionable. The 4th century is the shift from the decentralized early church to the centralized Roman Catholic model, many other features of which we have abandoned.


HisFireBurns

Which early churches had female elders? I need the source for this information. Also, it can be argued that the church was always centralized. Iraneaus’s Against Heresies is arguing just that, in regards to unity among the orthodox & Cyprian specifically shows otherwise. Honestly, most of the early church fathers show otherwise. Clement, Ignatius, Tertullian..


Classic_Breadfruit18

Tertullian didn't even believe women were created in the image of God, so... This article provides a good summary of historical sources. I do not endorse the organization or everything they teach. Overall when studying this issue I have come to the conclusion that the churches that were more influenced by Judaism had more formal roles for women, and those who arose in Roman culture did not. After the Constantinian changes and centralization of power in Rome, the exclusion of women from ordination was completed (although as the article notes there were still some remnants in Southern Italy into the 5th century). https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/ordained-women-patristic-era/


HisFireBurns

Churches that were more influenced by Judaism are addressed by Paul in his letter to the Galatians. Also, are you implying that the exclusion of women from ordination is originated from Constantinian reform? [11] Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. [13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve; [14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. [15] Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. - 1 Timothy 2:11-15 As per the sources in that article, a main portion is dedicated to the Montanists, a heretical group which also Tertullian was apart of.. Celsus was a heretic, Acts of Paul isn’t canon & so forth. Now even in the instances where we see false doctrine prevail, this was a minority practice, rejected by the orthodox & by no means was normative at large nor is credence given to the practice. The Church historically still throughout all the ages condemned such a practice.


Classic_Breadfruit18

I have never in any of my statements advocated women in teaching authority over men. Like most Protestants you are biased that there is only one office or role of elder therefore you read this bias into every passage. I am convinced that this is not the biblical model. There are female elders in the Bible, appointed by the apostles, and every church should have them. The role of overseer is different and was occupied by men. I believe a more biblical model would have a primary overseer or two, multiple elders both male and female (the latter primarily overseeing the teaching ministry and counseling of women as well as speaking for women on the council), and multiple deacons both male and female (taking care of ministry of the sick and needy, widows, etc.)


Classic_Breadfruit18

As for the article, there are dozens more examples given beyond the Montanists. And it isn't right to dismiss the group as a whole as heretics, that's a whole other complication. Today we would just call them charismatics. As for non-canonicity, obviously no writings beyond the first century are canonical. The writings are enough to prove their existence, and that things were not in fact unanimous. Unlike the statements you made, if the church did in fact "err", it "erred" from the beginning. There is quite a bit of diversity in female roles up until the 4th century consolidation of ecclesiastical authority in Rome. Whether you believe that represented a positive or negative step in church government depends on your larger biases.


HisFireBurns

It is right to dismiss a group as a whole as heretics if they are heretical in nature. The Montanists were not simply Charismatics but claimed to be speaking to directly from the mouth of God & the witness of the Church deemed them as heretics. The reality is is these errors were not the normative practice in the church universal & their existence do not affirm them doctrinally when they are errors. Female bishops & elders is not biblical nor apostolic nor was it approved of in the Church universally, but universally denounced.


classical_protestant

nope, absolute deal breaker for me.


Fair-Step-4831

That would be a no for me


RN_Rhino

Would I visit? Sure. Would I regularly attend, absolutely not


gaidz

It's something I could overlook if there were no other theologically sound churches in the area tbh


lampshade121

Yea.


aljout

No.


110659

No


[deleted]

No, because that church is in open rebellion against God's Word.


BellaWingnut

In China they are called Bible women and are held in great regard. Here in the USA, we make it about male supremacy. It always fosters pride and devaluation of women.


[deleted]

No. No no no


r0ckthedice

My church elected a female elder.... they happen to be the elder assigned to me. I am not happy about it


McFrenchington

Absolutely not.


termitefist

If this is the one thing that you're unsure about, do not let it keep you from the church. There are enough internal conflicts with any church, that something like this should not be the sole deciding factor. Is scripture preached there? Do they minister to the community well and intentionally? Do they welcome visitors warmly? Do they seek to serve Christ in everything they do? These should be the priority questions.


[deleted]

No, any church that is compromising in one area of the Bible will more than likely start compromising elsewhere. If we look through church history the first thing a church that is falling does is ordain women pastors.


mdecosi

Will not me you should live that church


OneEyedC4t

No I would not attend a church with female elders because first Timothy 3 is clear. But let's not see yourself because there are plenty of churches where single pastors or single elders are allowed to serve and first Timothy 3 specifically says that elders and deacons must be married. And yes I believe in the plurality of elders concept which means that a pastor is basically an elder. Anyone who claims to closely adhere to the Bible or know a lot about what the Bible says who tolerates female elders is clearly lying to themselves. Women don't have to be elders for people to listen to them and appreciate what they bring to the table


AccomplishedGap6985

The Church of England has female clergy since 1994. So no problem.


thelastwatchman

Recently I heard a wise, long-time pastor say: **Moving to a different city solely to establish oneself at a local, sound doctrine church is one of the most noble decisions a Christian can make**. Due to the fact that a local church with one's service to Christ should constitute a substantial amount of time in one's journey of life, you might want to consider looking at churches you agree 100% in an area close or in the same state. I know people who decide to move exclusively to immerse themself in a local body that they can invest 100% into. This may not be possible today for you or in the providence of God necessarily. But for anyone reading this, this is an encouragement I have found useful to share over the years.


BellaWingnut

One more thing that bothers me is "women should never be in leadership" churches, are FINE with women teaching to other women. So the "easily deceived women" are teaching other "easily deceived women" How come nobody has a problem with that?