SHH!!!, Continued
Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 11:50PM Julie is the latest to contribute to the discussion - I've excerpted her comments below, but please read the comments on the previous entry to read what she's written in its entirety.
I don't think women should be in a place of high leadership as in the pastor of a whole church, especially if she has children. After a relationship with God, her next concern should be for her husband, children and household, then if she is able to do work.
A pastor's job is many times 7 days a week, 12 hours a day job, sometimes longer. A mother is not able to put in those kinds of hours.
There are women in positions of leadership in the Bible. Deborah was a judge. She did not leave her home though, but the people came to her on the hill next to her house. Moses's sister Miriam often led the people in song. In 2 Kings 22:14 King Josiah inquires of the prophetess, Huldah. Lydia and Priscilla both taught, though not as the pastor.
I agree wholeheartedly with the priority list laid out above: my relationship with God comes first, my marriage and family next, and work -- in whatever form -- comes only after those. But am I being naive to think that men should have their lives ordered no differently? Mr. Nygren and I made covenant with each other when we married that each of us would hold the other as his/her first and most important ministry, and I really think that's as it should be. As Paul wisely observed, "If a man doesn't manage his own household well, how will he manage the household of God?"
That brings us to the second issue: that the role of "the pastor" -- a designation I'll address later -- is entirely too time-consuming for a mother. I don't disagree that those hours are far from ideal for a woman trying to raise children. I also have yet to meet a father in ministry who can put in hours like those without his relationships with his wife and children suffering for it (although if any of you dads in full-time ministry have experienced something different, I'd love to meet the exception to the rule).
As for the third statement... I'm afraid you totally lost me on that one. Deborah was "leading [the entire nation of] Israel at that time," and where she held court just doesn't seem like it would make that big a difference in her role. Forgive my being tongue-in-cheek, but I don't remember hearing that they moved the Kishon River into her front yard so she could go into combat alongside Barak and still have a casserole on the table by suppertime...
I don't mean to be a diabolical snot by saying this, but of all the counterpoints made so far, none have addressed my original issue. They have, to be fair, addressed all the things that most 21st century North American Protestants typically associate with ordained ministers. But while we're already in the neighborhood, I'd like to stop in and pay a visit to the topic of "The Pastor." Get your torches and pitchforks ready and meet me in the next paragraph.
I find no precedent in the Bible for The Pastor -- not for being the person at the top of an org chart who expects (and gets) a reserved parking spot and lots of free meals, not for being the poor bugger who's expected to have a knock-'em-dead sermon every week in addition to answering to a never-ending string of committees and being available twenty-four hours a day for prayer, marital counseling, browbeating, a ride to the airport and whatever else his congregants think he owes them since they sign his paycheck. When I study the whole of the New Testament, I find that those who are called to lead -- whether as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or teachers -- are also called to serve the Family rather than the other way around... and, that no individual man or woman should spend every waking hour trying to do what the entire Body should be working together to accomplish.
Just had to throw that out there. Next entry -- whenever that is, because with a teething baby, my "leftover" time for blogging has been limited lately -- I'd like to talk about my original issue: ordination...
Reader Comments (6)
And you did not see "Pastor" in the NT or as a quick crosswalk NIV search would produce:
Your search query for 'pastor' did not return any results. Please modify your search query and try again.
Yes, Yes, Eph 4... Lets look at that -
Yesterday I was provided this outstanding article which I will provide pieces of here:
"The ascension gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4—which are gifted people given to the Body of Christ as gifts to His church—are the natural outgrowth and by-product of authentic church life. This is the case with all of the other gifts mentioned in the New Testament.
All in all, there are 20 gifts mentioned in the New Testament (apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers, word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, prophecy, healings, discerning of spirits, miracles, tongues, interpretation of tongues, helps, administration, service, exhortation, giving, and mercy).
OK - Yea, now we are all still cool... So Then
When the ascension gifts emerge in an authentic expression of church life, their chief function is to nurture and encourage the believing community into spiritual maturity, unity, and every-member functioning. The success of these gifted members is rooted in their ability to empower and mobilize the saints for the work of the ministry. In this way, the Ephesians 4 ascension gifts equip (Greek: katartismos = mend or fit) the Body to fulfill God’s eternal purpose.
This equipping does not come about by giving sermons to a passive audience every week. Nor does it come about by dominating church services with one’s gifts.
The ascension gifts are not offices which carry authority. Nor are they formal positions. The Greek text has no definite article connected with any of them in Ephesians 4 or anywhere else they are mentioned in the New Testament. And they are never used as titles or referred to as offices. They are merely people with peculiar “enabling” gifts designed to cultivate the ministries of their fellow brethren.
(Note: The word “office” in Acts 1:20; Romans 11:13; 12:4 and 1 Timothy 3:1, 10, 13 is a misnomer. In Acts and Timothy, the word has no equivalent in the Greek text. It was added by some translators. In the Romans passages, the Greek words mean “service” and “function.” They do not mean a sociological slot that one fills.)
Uhh-huh...Well Then ahh - Hang on Now...
The chief task of shepherds/teachers is to help the church in times of personal crisis (shepherding) and to enlighten and cultivate the church’s spiritual life by revealing Christ through the exposition of Scripture (teaching). Shepherding is the private side of their ministry, while teaching is the public side. According to the New Testament, Shepherds minister on equal footing as all other believers in the church meetings (1 Corinthians 14:26; Hebrews 10:24-25). Neither do they CEO, control, or direct a church. And they are never tagged with titles like “Revered,” “Bishop,” or “Pastor.”
Yes sir - Now we're talkin crazy here!!! So I am saying:
Apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherding/teachers may or may not be elders. But all elders have a gift of shepherding. Some may be teachers in the public sense.
None of these gifts dominate the meetings of the church, which is a meeting where every member freely functions and supplies Christ in the gatherings (1 Corinthians 14:26). Consequently, the idea that apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherds/teachers dominate the church meetings is unscriptural.
Do you hear something??? Is that fire I smell???
" The idea that apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherd/teachers are ministry titles is a post-Biblical invention. It is also an anti-Biblical invention! It is sad yet prevalent today to hear men and women wielding these Biblical words as personal titles...all run against the grain of our Lord’s aversion for titles and position which was a mark of the Jewish mindset of His day."
Consider His words:
But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, AND YOU ARE ALL BROTHERS. And DO NOT CALL ANYONE ON EARTH YOUR FATHER: for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And DO NOT BE CALLED LEADERS; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. (Matt. 23:8-12, NASB)
BBQ anyone - Gotta do something with this fire!
Have an incredible Easter weekend - and consider the price that was paid, the gift that was given, and the access and f r e e d o m that is ours with our FATHER GOD!!!
For some reason, we've gotten used to most of the members of our communities sitting back and taking it all in, while the pastors and a few of the lay faithful run around like animals in the circus. I don't know if this is the fault of pastors gripping the reins of 'leadership' (control, power, influence) too tightly, or congregants just being lazy. I guess it's probably a combination of the two, among other things. I think a large part of the problem lies in some parts of the Body lording over others, coveting some of their gifts while detesting others. Those parts that are subject to this either lack the strength to resist, or believe the lies that say they aren't important, aren't appropriate, or that they can be replaced.
Here's a cool thought. The Church wakes up tomorrow, and for the first time in a long, long, long time, Her hands don't worry about trying to chew Her food; Her tongue doesn't argue with Her feet over who gets to do the walking; Her heart doesn't try to jump out of Her chest and pick up the newspaper, while fixing breakfast, watching the news, and pumping blood through Her veins; and Her mind, Her senses, Her emotions, Her reproductive system, and Her soul remember the days when they weren't numbed, locked up, or paralyzed, and once again take hold of the roles they were created to fill. And She doesn't just get up and limp and hobble and fall back down again. She remembers how to run, to jump, to swim, to dance, to make love to the Lover she can once again embrace. She sees again how He longs to use those senses She had allowed to die to awaken her to real love, real life, real passion. She pauses for a moment to reflect on the foolishness of Her mistakes. Then He takes Her hand, looks Her square in the eyes with a passion that would frighten a lesser Woman to tears, and says, 'I've got so much more to show You.'
Also, the only real mention of a pastor as an office is in Ephesians 4:11 where SOME are called to be...pastors... Some, to me, says men or women. So ordination (is ordination even in the Bible?) for the Ephesians 4 crew is for men or women as well in my opinion.
Glory be to Jesus Christ, and a joyous feast to you and your family!
Amen, Amen, Amen!!
Kelly, I'll weigh in with my consistantly diabolical, unsettling opinions. Regarding the ordination of women, I don't know. There are lots of reason given as to why it isn't done. I tend to accept the mystical reason that was taught by Christians long ago, but this reason depends on a different view of Christ, the Church, and worship altogether. If you think that church is really just people who are Christians getting together, listening to a sermon, singing a song, and doing some stuff, then I don't personally see why a woman couldn't do this. I won't go into the ancient mystical resons for this, as I don't want to get flamed and people can do their own research.
Regarding the role of pastor:
I can say that I don't believe that my priest's family is suffering for his role in the ministry. He knows how to take time off, reduce the frequency of services, etc. He will call people up and ask them to take care of tasks that need to be done, and the people love him dearly and will do what he asks. If something needs to be done at my church, someone is asked to do it, and if it isn't getting done, it will show up in the bulletin and become part of the announcements.
If Christians are bound up in service to God and a unity of love, taking care of tasks shouldn't be a problem. Why are pastors so afraid to call someone and say, "I really need you to bring food tomorrow, or to clean the church"? It's not about "where I get fed" or "what works for me". The church doesn't exist to serve us, but to serve Christ.
Regarding Ordination:
There is a lot of doubt among modern Christians reagrading the offices within the church. Let us consider this, the apostles regarding Judas say, "let his bishopric another take". The episcopate mentioned here is also mentioned in the laying down of church offices given by Paul. Since we seem to be in a context friendly mood, I will introcude the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius is a great witness for us, because he was ordained bishop of Antioch by the apostles directly, and wrote while some of them were still alive. His letters were circulated around the Christian churches and could have easily been refuted by the apostles or in the sub-apostolic epistles if they were teaching heresy. Ignatius was martyred in Rome, and on the way to death, wrote seven letters to different churches. In his epistle to the Smyrneans, he states regarding the episcopate:
************
CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
***************
These Christians had very different ideas about the importance of ordination and about the roles of the church offices.
Are these offices clearly defined in the Scripture, not necessarily. However, the writings of Paul were within the context of the church, and his disciples already knew what he taugtht. So we may not always see everything clearly without the light of context and history.
Even regarding the writing of Paul, however, we can take some clues as to the role of the bishop. You will recall that the word for bishops, episcipos, is a title given to the apostles, (and let his episcipos another man take). You will see that Paul uses this same title (we say overseer because bishop is EVIL:) ) when laying down the framework of the church.
Now, how did Paul use this authority?? In letter after letter, Paul teaches (as though from the mouth of Christ himself) correct theology. He says to encourage this one, excommunicate that one. This is good teaching, people that teach this thing are working for the anti-Christ.
If the apostles are also called bishops, and the church is to have bishops (whatever Paul meant, he must have meant something), and bishops have the power to pronounce doctrine for their flock and to command the church, then where are these bishops today??
If Paul was ordained bishop, and ordained Timothy bishop (for who can appoint a bishop ut a bishop) and Timothy set up bishops in the the churches he went to, then what happened to these bishops and there churches, and why are we so scareanoid to have people with real authority in our churches, especially if we really believe that Christ is guiding the church, that the Spirit teaches us all things?
And that's all I have to say about that.
B mentions the Christ says to call no man Father or Rabbi. What can this possibly mean?? I am always interested to know what people are thinking when they bring this up.
B, what do you call your father. Do you children, if so, what do they call their teachers.
Why would the apostle say that some are called to be teachers?? Was Paul confused about what Christ meant??
Why do the apostles refer to their disciples as spiritual children?? Why do they give them theological imperatives?
We see that God is not the author of confusion, and the OT church was very structured with specific offices. We know that the NT church took much of the synagogue liturgy and added Christian elements to it. We can reasonably infer that the church brought a structure with them. The Jews had specific religious offices, and this was the environment in which the first Christians were raised, whether in Judea or the diaspora. Should we assume that in light of Judaism, the liturgy of the synagogue, the writings of the apostles and their disciples that there isn't a specific and empowered order within the the church. An org chart if you will??
Voistinu voskresse, alethos anesthi!!