Featured Women pastors or deacons? Can we attempt to clarify the issue?

So, what happens if a man wants to be a part of the benevolence ministry? What happens if there's a discrepancy between the "administrative pastor", whatever that is, and something in the church under the authority of one of the men?

 

Sorry, but you're full of it. Anybody who participates in this "ministry" places themselves under the authority of this "pastrix".

Oh, that kind of "pastrix". Just like we read about in verse...er, what verse was that again?

...thus, placing themselves under her authority.

Wait...what? Pastors now report to deacons?

I don't know what's going on at this "church", but it sounds like an Unbiblical, chaotic mess.

Where did Paul ever say this???

 

JohnDeereFan,

Is your assembly pastor and deacon run?

Some IFB churches do not have congregational votes on budgets (including salaries, hiring or firing staff, ...)

If you are assembled with this type, then the use of the word "pastors" for administrative roles would be problematic.

However, to some assemblies, "pastor" is not an indicator of a teaching elder, but of one who is held accountable for a certain area of the function of the church. A woman over the care of the pots and pans and food pantry in the fellowship hall may be the pastor of the kitchen, the lady who cleans the restrooms and offices may be the pastor of the clean sweep, the lady who is the chief accountant may be the pastor of accounting.

None of these "pastor" positions is "over men" in the biblical sense, but an expression of responsibility area so that the men can get on with the business of the work of the ministry.

 

No. We have a pastor and four elders. We don't believe deacons have any authority in the church in the Biblical model.

We're not IFB, but neither do we.

Then that's a misuse of the word. The Bible never says anything like that.

Then why not call them "deacons"? Lady deacons would still be problematic, but at least that would be a step in the right direction.

 

I guess the husband of one wife would also mean that a pastor has to be married, right?

 

IMO, no.

Paul talks about how he preferred believers to remain like he was - unmarried and therefore unencumbered by the stress of the marriage/cares.

We don't know whether Paul was divorced or if his wife had died.

What Paul is indicating is the pastor is not to be polygamous or divorced and remarried. This may be a topic for a different thread on how does a church respond to the polygamous who become believers.

A person who is qualified as an Elder and a virgin or wife has died is not kept from the office because of the lack of a wife.

However, it is true (in the practical sense) that a person who has never been married and does not know the physical aspects of marriage, has a limited experiential knowledge of the practical side of two people being one, and living as a unit.

But, I just don't think that Paul had in mind that a single person could not be an Elder/pastor.

 

But what Paul says is husband of one wife. You're bringing in outside context (plural marriage, divorce, etc) and other scriptures to bear on your interpretation.

 

In the biblical sense of "elder/pastor" such would not.

However, in the practical sense, being the "pastor" may be more pleasing to some in the assembly when it comes to job description.

For instance: the word "accountant" often conjures up some image perhaps ranging from unapproachable old Scrooge to the lonely person sitting in a smokey backroom, lamp over their head, piles of the bosses laundered money being counted, and bespectacled.

The picture of a "pastor of finance" may conjure up some someone who is smiling, warm, approachable, who happens to be responsible for making sure the budget is appropriately spent, and kindly brings the matter to attention of the authority(ies) when it isn't.

Paul said to older women to counsel the younger. In a real application, that is shepherding or doing the work of a pastor (taking care of) the needs of others.


However, in the practical, the oversight of any area of responsibility can be a "pastor" (shepherd).

It is important to note that Baptists view the Scriptures as indicating that the pastor, elder, and bishop as the same office. So the use of the term "pastor" in the above responsibilities is a stress/stretch of what Baptists would generally find acceptable.

IMO, the Baptists sometimes use the word "minister" as a work around so the word "pastor" remains exclusive. Use terms such as "minister of finance," "minister of building and grounds," minister of ..." replaces "pastor of ..."

Frankly, the only Scripture applicable criteria is for the ruling/teaching elder/bishop/pastor - must be a man, and that no woman is to teach/elder/bishop/pastor man(men).

 

diakonos

Used 27 times by the NASB in the New Testament.

 

I am sure that you have encounter some who have called you something else, sometime along your short living. I know they have called me, too.

Personally, I would consider what the embassy folks use when appointing a person representative of a specific area. The word is attache. (not certain how to put the mark above the "e" on this screen.

That way the "minister" would have an "attache of women," and "attache of finance" an "attache of music" ...

And when out visiting other folks the person would then be called an envoy from the ___ Church.

That way the world wouldn't think the "minister" (who happens to be a lady over the children's work) is ordained and not actually the person who is responsible of oversight.

 

Bingo! The second part of that response also having kids, but the main crux is ruling his family well, a requirement, not an option, for managing God's family.

 

Because Paul set himself as an example of authority and leadership, then I suppose you would disagree with Paul

First, Paul is stating that the person should only be married to one wife, not two or more.

He is not stating that they have to be married.

Second, Paul is stating that they need to rule their house well, doesn't mean that kids are involved, but the household. If there are children (those under his care) they are included. But "household" includes servants, wife, and all aspects of the care and upkeep of the house - including the yard. In effect a person who is a debtor, hoarder, unkempt, and the such are not qualified.


A homeless person would qualify.
A widower would qualify.
A Eunuch would qualify.
A man so ugly that the one he loved and he asked to marry him refused, would qualify - (Issac Watts).

The 1 Timothy 3 passage isn't excluding those qualifications on the basis of if the person has them in his life, but rather if the person has them in their life, are they responsibly using and have authority rule.

For instance, look at the part about wine. Paul is not saying one has to drink, but does the drink impact the witness.

It is also important that you see the women are included in the section discussing BOTH men and women deacons - it is all in the same paragraph of thought.

1 Timothy 3:

8Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, 9but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. 11Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households. 13For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a high standing and great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
​

 

I have no problem with Paul, he never called nor considered himself a pastor.

Illogical. Impossible to be the husband of one wife...yet not required to be married. Must is not an optional word.

Paul already adressed the personal aspects and self control of the one desiring to be an elder. This is speaking of management of others, you know...like a pastor does? Paul even specifically says just that! Hes not talking about making sure a bachelor's dishes are done, laundry is folded, bills are paid, etc. An Elder is a people management position ordained by God. He wants someone with experience managing their family!

You cannot say they all qualify without knowing if they meet all the requirements, including being the husband of one wife.

. There is no room for 'if' when 'must' is given.

Apples and oranges in comparing what one must not do compared to what one must do.

Yes, women are discussed. As the wives of the husbands...never as the elders

 

Actually Paul did. He used the word we translate "minister" and he made appointment (ordinations). He functioned in all the "offices of the ministry, deacon, elder, pastor, bishop. If he did not have such appointment, he would have no right in telling the Corinthians that he would straighten out the mess when he arrived if they didn't do it before.

He would have no authority over even churches he never visited - Colosse.

It is only "Illogical" and "Impossible" because you choose to view it that way.

So, in your view a person who doesn't pay their bills, steps into the pulpit unkempt, and has poor hygiene is still qualified?

The elder is NOT "people management" - that is deacon responsibility.

The elder is the TEACHER, and much of teaching is by example - not merely words.

Unfortunately, the church established a "hierarchy" to the office of bishop/elder/pastor/minister so that they became "people managers" when the deacon is to do crowd managing and the elder is to teach.

Webdog, using your logic, there can only be ONE elder/pastor/bishop in the assembly.

Because the literal translation of 1 Timothy 3:2 says "THE overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,..." Also used the same way in Titus 1.



You desire to take "must" as meaning something that has to be, rather than something that would be appropriate or ought to be.

Your view has the understanding of a "time line" - that this "must" be done before that. That is taking the verse as a command.

When the word could very well be - "ought to." That is taking the verse as instruction.

For instance:

Romans 12:3

For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think ; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. (underlined word is the same as used in Titus and Timothy)
​

1 Thessalonians 4:1

Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk ), that you excel still more. (underlined word is the same as used in Titus and Timothy)​

Hebrews 2:1

For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.
(underlined word is the same as used in Titus and Timothy)​

Hebrews 9:26

Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world ; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. (underlined word is the same as used in Titus and Timothy)

​

The word is shown in the above verses to let you know that it is translated in various ways. Not just as always as the "must" as you deem it to mean.

I NEVER posted that women were to be elders.

I did post and showed the paragraph that places women married to deacons as also to be considered as a deacon.

Apparently you missed that - go back and read the context and you will see the "woman" issue is surrounded by the discussion of deacons.

 

If this is your idea of "civility" then welcome to the rubbish bin of my ignore list with the rest of the trash.