PART ONE- WOMEN IN THE MINISTRY1.A. Some Observations About How The Trinity Doctrine Is Formulated. Allow me to start out here by sharing some observations about how the Trinity doctrine is formulated. Just to set ourselves to mind, once again, that we are brothers in a common faith, not enemies. I'm sure you're familiar with Matthew 7:25-26. What I've found with Trinitarians is that they start on a foundation that is built on nothing more than the sand of personal interpretation. For example, we both know what Matthew 28:19 says and means. But to a Trinitarian, it somehow CLEARLY says to them to baptize "saying" "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." However, you and I know that in textual context, content, and in conjunction with the rest of the scriptures, that "one" name that is being referred in to M28:19 is the name of Jesus. Next they will quote an abundance of places that "mention" Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (as if that were AT ALL an embarrassment to the Oneness message!). And finally, they come to a conclusion that cannot be stated anywhere in scripture. Something like "within the one essence or nature there exists three Persons of the Deity, each of whom is designated a Person" In this way, they construct their "building," not directly on the scriptures, but on the sands of human interpretation, then they place walls on top of this foundation that are neither supported by their foundation, nor do they actually support the roof of the building, which is their conclusions. Would you agree? What I'd like to point out to you in the following, is that your METHODS of interpreting the subjects we've been discussing can be demonstrated to be very much like those methods used by the Trinitarians in formulating their doctrines. I have spent a lot of time in prayer and study over this response. For that reason, I cannot apologize either for it's length, nor it's delay. I have been most blessed by God in every moment of prayer and study over this, so how could I possibly apologize for that? :-) I pray that you likewise will prayerfully, and in searching the scriptures whether these are so, allow me the opportunity to show you why I have come to these conclusions. 1.B. Differences Between "Perspective" And "Opinion". I have said- "Because of this scripture (Jam 2:1), we need to be very careful not to be respecters of persons, right? From my perspective, saying a woman can be a prophetess, but not a pastor, is to be a respecter of persons, and therefore sin." Is saying "from my perspective" as I did above, the same as saying "in my opinon"? Since when have "perspective" and "opinion" become synonymous? Besides, an "opinion" is not necessarily evil. Personal opinions that add to or take away from God's word are based in evil. Perspective definitely means something different than opinion (especially a personal opinion)- "Perspective... 2.a. A view or vista. b. A mental view or outlook... 4.a. THE RELATIONSHIP OF ASPECTS OF A SUBJECT TO EACH OTHER AND TO A WHOLE. b. Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view. c. THE ABILITY TO PERCEIVE THINGS IN THEIR ACTUAL INTERRELATIONS OR COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE." -American Heritage Dictionary. A Trinitarian holds the opinion of three persons, he believes this is a perspective from the bible. But when pressed to express his opinion explicitly from the bible, he is unable to do so. Therefore, his perspective is merely his personal opinion, and NOT an "ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance". You and I hold the perspective of the Oneness of God- from the Bible. It is God that has brought us to, and gracefully given us, this "perspective." It is not, therefore, a personal "opinion." We can quote scripture that clearly express this doctrine (even though it may be spiritually hid from the blind). 1Co 13:11 "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." Is it ungodly to think as a child, if you are a child? Does a child in God become a full grown mature adult in a single flash of inspiration? NO. Line upon line, and precept upon precept, God leads us unto maturity in Him. I said "from my perspective" for the very pointed reason that I did not (and do not) feel I was writing my own opinions, but NEITHER AM I READY TO PROCLAIM THAT WHATEVER I SAY OR THINK IS THE ABSOLUTE FINAL FULL TRUTH. Can or do you make the claim that you have no thoughts but from God, or that you are so perfected as that anything and everything you say, think, or write are the absolute final God's truth without any personal opinion whatsoever? If not, then at best, you also can only speak from your current perspective. 1Co 8:2 "And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." 1Co 13:12 "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: NOW I KNOW IN PART; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I do my very best to NOT write from my "personal" opinions. I write from the "perspective" of a child of God, who has been brought thus far, and thus far only, so far, by God. ;-) Because I trust that it is God that has brought me to this "perspective," even though you are not at this same place, I have no place to judge you of your perspective, nor you of mine. Rom 14:4 "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth." BUT!!! There is a BIG difference between judgment and discernment which REQUIRES standing firm on the truth! I am ready to share with you the scriptures from the word of God that have brought me to the perspective I currently hold. And to challenge you to prove this perspective incorrect, as I intend to do here with yours. 1.C. Is Being Male A Requirement For Being A Pastor? Does the Bible state that being male is a requirement of a pastor? 1 Timothy 3:1-7 ÒThis (is) a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND (ANER-man) of ONE WIFE (GUNE- woman), vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" Titus 1:6-9 "If any be blameless, the HUSBAND (ANER- man) of ONE WIFE (GUNE - woman), having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly..." Does this passage say that a Pastor MUST be the Husband of one Wife? Or is this passage rather saying that IF a man is married, he must only have ONE wife? As you know, my brother, when a Trinitarian looks at Matthew 28:18-19, they seem to overlook a few choice words in the passage. For example "All power is given unto ME" as Jesus said, to set the context of His words. And go baptizing in THE "name" singular. It is possible to use the same method that Trinitarians use on Matt. 28:19 in formulating a "foundation" for the interpretation that "being male" is a requirement of being a pastor in 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9. One of the key words that seems to get overlooked, is the word "man" in 1 Tim. 3:1. This is the Greek word- "tis". It is Strong's reference number: 5100. And it's definition is: "some or ANY PERSON OR OBJECT" -Strong's. Not only does this word NOT exclusively mean man, as in a male, but, it doesn't even necessarily mean a person! Here are some examples of the use of "tis" S#5100 in scripture: Mar 5:25 And a [certain 5100] woman, which had an issue of blood twelve... (These are cut and pasted directly from my Bible software, that's why they are abbreviated. I trust this is an acceptable method for some sake of brevity. ;) Another pivotal word which you seem to have overlooked, is found later, in 1Tm 3:8. It is the word "Likewise"... 1Ti 3:8 "LIKEWISE must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." "Likewise" here is Strong's reference number: 5615, Greek: hosautos, Definition: "as thus, i.e. IN THE SAME WAY" -Strong's. Here are some examples of other places where #5615 is used: Mat 21:36 did unto them [likewise. 5615 ]... This word is important because of the fact that there doesn't particularly seem to be any women "pastors" specifically stated so in the Bible. Nevertheless, the fact is, we don't need to point specifically to a woman "pastor" in scripture to justify that women can be pastors, for one, because we have the word "Likewise" in 1 Tim 3:8. For there are clearly women "deaconesses" in the Bible, with the "LIKEWISE" requirements of the bishops! Rom 16:1 "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a SERVANT of the church which is at Cenchrea" Now, this word "servant" above, is the word "diakonos" Strong's reference number: 1249, Definition: "an attendant, i.e. (gen.) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); spec. a Chr. TEACHER AND PASTOR (techn. a deacon or deaconess)" -Strong's Okay, here briefly are some other applications of Strong's #1249 "deacon" in scripture, which there are women of in the Bible: Mat 20:26 him be your [minister; 1249 ] Here is what Unger's Bible Dictionary has to say on the subject of Deaconess: "Paul mentions Phebe as a deaconess... and it seems probable that Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis, whom he commends... were deaconesses... (Rom 16:1, 12)... They were inducted into their office by the imposition of hands. OF THIS THERE IS ABUNDANT PROOF..." Now, not only do we have deaconesses in the Bible, but we also have Prophetesses, and evangelistesses: Act 21:8 ...Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven... 9 ...had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." Act 2:17 "And it shall come to pass in the last days, SAITH GOD... your DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY..." Act 18:24 "And a certain Jew named Apollos... 25 ...knowing only the baptism of John. 26 ...began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila AND PRISCILLA had heard, they took him unto them, and EXPOUNDED unto HIM the way of God more perfectly." Why, might you ask might it be SO important that there were women who prophesied, and evangelicized, and deaconessized, and therefore I don't have to point directly to a woman "pastor" to know that that office was not withheld from them either? It is simply, for one, because of the "order" of God's hierarchy for ministry... 1Co 12:28 "And God hath set some in the church, FIRST apostles, SECONDARILY PROPHETS, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Surely you are familiar with the order of the "five-fold ministry"?... Eph 4:11 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, PROPHETS; and some, EVANGELISTS; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry (S#1248), for the edifying of the body of Christ:" Do you see that order? The pastors are listed AFTER the PROPHETS AND EVANGELISTS! There are women prophets, and there are women evangelists and they are listed in authority BEFORE, and therefore above, pastors. We have scriptural examples of women prophetesses, whom hold the second teaching ministerial position. We have examples of women holding the third teaching ministerial position of "evangelist" and we have women holding the position of "deaconess" which is spoken of as having requirements "LIKEWISE" to the position of "bishop." It is most revealing, at this point, to look again at the word "ministry" in Eph 4:11. It is none other than a form of the word "deacon" or servant, of which we do have women in the Bible: "Strong's reference number: 1248, Greek: diakonia, Derivation: Derived from 1249, Definition: attendance (AS A SERVANT, etc.); fig. (eleemosynary) aid, (official) service (espec. of the Chr. teacher or techn. of the diaconate)" Now, consider Mat 20:26 "But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your... (you guessed it, hopefully- minister = deacon) 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: In very much the same way as a Trinitarian interpretation of Matt. 28:19 is contradicted by examining both the content of the passage, and it's application in practice by the early church, a conclusion that "being male" is a requirement of being a pastor, cannot be clearly supported either by the "proof text" of 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9, nor by other scriptures, nor in the acts of the early church. Now, as to this "proof text." If there is any support for holding the position that being male is a requirement of a Pastor, it could only be found in the following part of the passages: 1 Timothy 3:1-7 "A bishop then MUST BE blameless, the HUSBAND (ANER-man) of ONE WIFE (GUNE- woman),...Ó Titus 1:6-9 ÒIf any be blameless, the HUSBAND (ANER- man) of ONE WIFE (GUNE - woman), having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." Again I must remind you of Matt. 28:19 where the words "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" though stated such specifically, conceal a greater truth than they cursorily reveal. 1Ti 3:2 "A bishop then MUST BE... THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE... 4 ...having his children in subjection..." Allow me to quote from G. R. Berry's Greek Interlinear New Testament which is a direct translation from the Greek of the Textus Receptus (i.e. not of the newer perverse "translations"): 1 Timothy 3:1 "Faithful is the word: if any overseership stretches forward to of good a work he is desirous. It behoves then the overseer irreproachable to be, of one wife husband, sober, descreet, decorous... children having in subjection with all gravity..." If you look at these passages IN CONTEXT AND CONTENT, you will see that if these passages are "proof" that a "pastor" MUST be male, then they are JUST AS MUCH a proof text that a pastor MUST be married, and MUST have children!!! Is that what you feel they say? I surely hope not, for this surely is contrary to Paul's convictions- 1Co 7:1 "...It is good for a man not to touch a woman... 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself." The point is that just as quoting a bunch of scriptures that mention "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" are NO evidence (either way actually) that God is a Trinity, neither does 1 Timothy 3:2, nor Titus 1:6 support, nor deny a conclusion that being male is a requirement of a bishop, pastor, or deacon. They are merely walls that are neither resting on the foundation of scriptural support, nor do they support the roof of that conclusion. They are merely teaching that IF a man is a husband, he MUST ONLY HAVE **ONE** wife- "of one wife husband," and IF he has children, they must be in submission- "children having in subjection," if that man is going to be a bishop, or (likewise) a deacon. To read more into these, then, as some have done, is to deny, and contradict, the witness of many other passages of scripture testifying clearly and specifically of women in the speaking ministries. Those other SCRIPTURES are what have brought me to the "perspective" that I now hold, this perspective, therefore is NOT built merely on my personal opinions as has been presumed of me. Just as ALL THE OTHER SCRIPTURES AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES have brought me to the "perspective" that M28:19 means something different than that which those of the wide road leading to destruction presume! Once a foundation of interpretation is exposed as resting on sand, and not DIRECTLY on THE ROCK, all of the other presumptions easily appear to be structurally unsound walls, built on sands of interpretation, which thereby do not support the roof of the conclusion. Let's just look at a few... 1.D. Must A Pastor Be Married And Have Children? Is my pastor the husband of one wife? I have been asked. The implication is that a pastor MUST be married and have children by using this verse in such a manner- 1Ti 3:2 "A bishop then MUST BE... THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE... 4 ...having his children in subjection..." This is just like trying to say Matt. 28:19 specifically says to specifically say "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" at baptism! Is it not? Now, my Pastor Buck, who IS a husband, AND has a wife, yes, he only has ONE wife. My pastor Alice is NOT a husband, because AND therefore she does not have a wife :) so the answer, as it applies to her, is no. In the same manner the apostle Paul did not have, nor need to have, ONE wife- it's simply because he wasn't a husband either! Yes, okay, I know, the passage says ANER- MAN, "of one wife man"- but Paul wasn't an "of one wife man" now was he? So how could he be a pastor or even a deacon, let alone an apostle of Christ if there be such a "REQUIREMENT" (your word) to "be.. the husband of one wife"? You see, my brother, your question is groundless, and pointless- it proves absolutely NOTHING! It is founded on sand! Now, let's again consider Phebe- 1Ti 3:12 "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." Was it necessary that Phebe (Rom 16:1-2) be married to a wife? She WAS A DEACONESS, and of her Paul wrote- Rom 16:1 "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a (servant = S#1249 an attendant, a waiter...a... TEACHER AND PASTOR techn. a deacon or DEACONESS) of the church which is at Cenchrea: 2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a (SUCCOURER = S#4368) of many, and of myself also." Do you notice that word "succourer" there? Let's look a little closer at it's definition... Succourer- Strong's reference number: 4368 Strong's reference number: 4291 Strong's reference number: 4253 Now, can any man with a negative attitude toward women in the ministry ever hope to obey Paul's admonishment to "assist HER in **WHATSOEVER** SHE HATH NEED OF YOU"? Some people leave me wondering. 1.E. Does The Sin Of "Respecter Of Persons" Apply Equally To Racists And Sexists? "Jam 2:1 "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons... 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: 9 But _if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin_, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." Is this passage speaking ONLY of "rich" people? How about those of a different race? Would this passage not apply to racial prejudice as well? If you look down on a man for being hispanic, oriental, black or caucasion, whom God has made to be thus, are you not then being a respecter of persons? I believe you would be. Can anyone prove me wrong by the scriptures, or would anyone today even want to? Do you not think that even riches are given or withheld by the grace of God in much the same manner as any other talents, traits, or abilities- like race or sex? Must James 2 list out every possible application in order for it to be viable to another application? I believe not. I believe it states a concept, a precept, and provides an example. Multiple examples are not necessary. But, we have other examples- Col 3:11 "...There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Here is a very important passage, that supports what I'm trying to bring out... Act 10:34 "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, AND WORKETH RIGHTEOUSNESS, is accepted with him." The point here is, the Jewish Christians realized that, although God had made the Gentiles what they were, by allowing them access to the exact same things they had access to, God was THEREBY, NOT a respecter of persons. Apparently some have no problem to deny access of certain spiritual privileges and callings to certain people simply because of who they are, no matter how much they may "worketh righteousness." Therefore, they are simply being a "respector of persons" in that same perspective as Acts 10:34 is referring. Let's look again at James, while inserting a racial connotation, and let me ask you if you would contend this application to be contradictory to, or not possibly intended in, the original (please reverse the colors if you were born with beautiful black skin!)... Jam 2:1 "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a (white man), and there come in also a (black man); 3 And ye have respect to (the white man), and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the (black man), Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 ARE YE NOT THEN PARTIAL IN YOURSELVES, AND ARE BECOME JUDGES OF EVIL THOUGHTS?... 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But IF YE HAVE RESPECT TO PERSONS, YE COMMIT SIN, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." Do you have a problem with this application, or not? Now let's look at it with "women" inserted, instead of men (keeping in mind also all the scriptures I've quoted you about women in ministerial positions): Jam 2:1 "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a (man), and there come in also a (woman); 3 And ye have respect to (the man), and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the (woman), Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 ARE YE NOT THEN PARTIAL IN YOURSELVES, AND ARE BECOME JUDGES OF EVIL THOUGHTS?... Do you really believe that you will be guiltless of having evil thoughts if you DENY that James 2 could possibly refer to racial, or sexist prejudices also, since it only specifically mentions rich (or powerful) and poor? What about when Peter called women "weaker vessels"? Is that not being a "respector of persons" then? I agree with you completely that being a respecter of persons has NOTHING to do with God "dividing unto every man severally as HE will" (1Co 12:11). Rom 9:14 "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid... 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Nor does it mean judging people by what they have DONE with what they have been given, which is what God's judgment is all about. Nor does it mean discerning whether a person's fruit is righteous or ungodly- that is just that- discernment. Being a respecter of persons has EVERYTHING to do with judging people by what they OUTWARDLY are, or have, and considering they can be nothing else because of it- this is being a respecter of persons. The foundation that women can't be pastors merely because they don't fit the requirements of being male, based on 1 Tim., and Titus, is totally contradicted by the content of the scriptures and the apostle's applications. There were unquestionably women in speaking ministries in the early church! Therefore, the fact that Peter spoke of women as "weaker vessels" (bodies), etc. does not AT ALL support a conclusion that being male is a requirement of a pastor, nor does this support a position that since God has made them women, He will not allow them to be pastors. Being a weaker vessel, or physical body, does not at all mean or signify having a weaker mind, or Spirit. Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Therefore, also, for anyone to continue judging women to be unworthy, or unable to hold certain offices ("sit here under my footstool") because of the mere fact they are female, will bring one under the condemnation of being a respecter of persons. 1.F. Are Certain Things Required Of Men And Not Of Women And Vice Versa? Let me ask this in return- Are certain things required of Jews or the bond and not of Greeks or the free and vice versa?" Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Rom 10:12 "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all IS RICH UNTO ALL THAT CALL upon him." Remember the commandments of God- Mat 22:37 "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE LAW and the prophets." Rom 12:9 "Let love be without dissimulation... 10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;" Can men be WITHOUT "brotherly love; in honor PREFERRING one another" towards their wives? What does "preferring one another" mean to you? The scripture says it means... Eph 5:21 "SUBMITTING YOURSELVES ONE TO ANOTHER in the fear of God. 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord... 25 Husbands, love (let love be preferring, Rom.12:9-10) your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Would you care to elaborate beyond these passages what your perceived differences are between the requirements of men and women? (Besides the obvious biological differences, of course.) Remember the word "likewise" in 1 Tim 3:8? The same word shows up again in that passage, and guess where? 1Ti 3:11 "Even so (likewise!!!) must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things..." So yes, I'd be interested in seeing any scriptures that you feel say there are REAL different "requirements" for men and women, other than bringing them OUT FROM different perspectives and TOWARDS the same conclusion- that of preferring one another in love. Please continue with Part One - Women In The Minstry Return to the Table of Contents for Women, Preists, and Tabernacles |