Showing posts with label guest post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guest post. Show all posts

Wednesday, 28 November 2012

Guest post: The Woman's Role in the Plan of God

Taken from: http://www.bibleviews.com/womanrole.html

God has a beautiful plan for womanhood that will bring order and fulfillment if it is followed in obedience. God's plan is that one man and one woman, of equal standing before Him but of different roles, should be bonded together as one. In His wisdom and grace He specifically created each for his or her role.

At creation, God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and from him God took a rib and made a woman (Genesis 2:2 1). She was a direct gift from the hand of God, made from man and for man (1 Corinthians 11:9). "Male and female created he them", (Genesis 1:27) each different but made to complete and complement each other. Although the woman is considered the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7), this does not make her inferior. She was made with a purpose in life that only she could fill.

To woman has been given one of the greatest privileges in the world, that of molding and nurturing a living soul.

Her influence, especially in the realm of motherhood, affects her children's eternal destination. Even though Eve brought condemnation upon the world with her act of disobedience, God considered women worthy of a part in the plan of redemption (Genesis 3:15). "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman." (Galatians 4:4). He entrusted to her the bearing of and the caring for his own dear Son. The woman's role is not insignificant!

A distinction between the sexes is taught throughout the Bible. Paul teaches if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her (1 Corinthians 11:14,15). "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deuteronomy 22:5). Their roles are not to be interchangeable.

In the Garden of Eden, God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone," and He made a help meet for him-a companion, someone to satisfy his needs (Genesis 2:18).

Proverbs 31:10-31 tells in detail what kind of helpmeet the woman is to be. The supportive role of the wife to the husband is very evident in this description of the ideal woman. She "will do him good and not evil." Because of her honesty, modesty and chastity, "her husband doth safely trust in her." By her efficiency and diligence she would look well to her household. The basis for her virtue is found in verse 30: "a woman that feareth the Lord." This is a reverential fear that gives meaning and purpose to her life. Only as the Lord lives in her heart can she be the woman she was meant to be.

To become a child of God she needs to repent, confess her sins and accept Christ through faith. With Christ she will be able to live a self-denied life. The Holy Spirit will give strength, courage, and direction to fulfill her duties. He will grace her life with humility, modesty, and with that inner "ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price" (1 Peter 3:3,4). Proper, modest dress adds to the hidden charm of a woman. She should never draw attention to her body by being overdressed or underdressed.

To avoid confusion and establish order, someone needs to be the head and God has ordained that this should be the man (1 Corinthians 11:3). Marriage is to be a harmonious relationship similar to that of Christ and the Church. Christ is subject to God, man is subject to Christ, and woman is subject to man. Why would any woman rebel at her position in the framework of authority when even Christ, the Son, is subject to the Father? As the wife reverences her husband, she is obedient to the scripture (Ephesians 5:33), and her husband is then able to bear the responsibility that God has laid on his shoulders.

The liberation movement has challenged God's blueprint for womanhood. Women are clamoring for freedom and fulfillment by asking for total equality. This puts them into a power struggle- into a competitive role instead of a complementary partnership. Their quest for freedom only leads them into bondage. Nevertheless, the selfishness and ungodliness of many men is without excuse. In this context some of women's frustrations can be understood. Ironically, the very thing that many women are rejecting is God's way of establishing the woman in a life that fully satisfies.

If a women moves aggressively into the man's world and there seeks independence and equality, she loses her femininity, that reserved, modest sweetness that men respect and God approves.

Fulfillment comes as she cultivates those gifts for which she was created. A woman's submission to her husband liberates her from a multitude of frustrating problems, and her submission to God's order frees her from guilt. Submission is a blessing, not a curse!

The pattern of men taking the leadership and women following will bring a blessing to single women as well as married women, to daughters as well as wives.

As an outward sign of this submission and her submission to Christ, the Christian woman is commanded to have her head covered for praying and prophesying* (1 Corinthians 11:3-5). Man is subject to Christ and should therefore pray with his head uncovered. Woman is subject to man and should pray with her head covered. Wearing a head covering is a recognition of this divine order.

[* The writers of the article recognizes a sister should wear it "in her times of private devotions and prayer, the sister's head should be covered. A Christian sister would naturally want to wear the head covering whenever she is giving Christian service. In truth, all of a believer's daily life should be lived in service unto Christ. It seems appropriate, then, that the Christian women wear the prayer covering whenever she appears in public. She thus leaves a constant testimony of her submission to God and her husband.]

Love in marriage is to be pure and is given for pleasure as well as for propagation. Woman was uniquely created for the special task of bearing children, a creative fulfillment. God said, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). To purposely choose not to have children is sidestepping God's principle and forfeiting one of the most rewarding experiences in a woman's life.

Woman's first duty is the making and keeping of her home. Many a modern woman chooses a career, hires a baby-sitter, and rushes her children through childhood so that she can be free to pursue her selfish interests. The Bible teaches that women are to be "keepers at home" (Titus 2:5). This means a women is to be there, loving her husband, teaching and enjoying her children, and applying the homemaking arts with joy in her heart. This mother is the heartbeat of the home. She helps lay the foundation of moral standards there. The warmth of her spirit quietly establishes security in the lives of little children-confidence, that in spite of their problems and fears, all will be right. Why would any woman trade this noble place for some dollars earned or for some coveted position? This Bible way is not just being old-fashioned; it is God's order. The women who wholeheartedly accept God's plan will be blessed.

In certain instances, a woman's role extends beyond her home. Examples are given in both the Old and New Testaments of godly women who had responsibilities in God's kingdom. Also today there is a place for the Christian woman to serve within the Church. As she exercises her inborn attributes of love, gentleness, and compassion, she is a living example of that which becomes godliness. Older women are exhorted to teach the young women, "that the word of God be not blasphemed" (Titus 2:4,5). Single Christian women, who do not have the cares of a home and a family, are able to fill a special place (1 Corinthians 7:34).

There are definite guidelines for women's behavior in the Church. They are not to usurp authority over men. Paul instructs, "Let your women keep silence in the churches" (1 Corinthians 14:34,35; 1 Timothy 2:11-15). The order that God has planned for women excludes them from preaching. Faithful women find places for active participation in Christian service where they can humbly and consistently fellowship with other Christians.

May each woman fill her role with the grace of God in her heart, live in submissive obedience to His will, and humbly give of herself in the daily practices of life. As each person fills his respective place in God's plan, there is beautiful harmony that emerges in the heart, the home, and the church.

For Free Distribution - Not To Be Sold
GOSPEL TRACT AND BIBLE SOCIETY
P.O. Box 700
Moundridge, Kansas 67107 U.S.A.

Published by: Church of God in Christ, Mennonite
Printed in U.S.A (KIE5OM/Eng/TWRITPOG)

------------------------------------------------------

You are welcome to make copies of the above article provided you show the copyright information and bibleviews.com source.

We welcome your comments and suggestions. Send them to the Webmaster.

This page is presented by:
Biblical Viewpoints Publications
63100 County Road 111
Goshen, IN 46526
Phone: 574-875-8007

Saturday, 24 November 2012

Guest post: Why Women Should Not Be Pastors

By Brian Allison
Pastor of Unionville Baptist, Unionville, Ontario.
 
 
INTRODUCTION
We are witnessing in the church today an unprecedented phenomenon and trend. More women are training for, and entering into, the pastoral ministry than in any other time in the history of the church. The reaction to this relatively new phenomenon ranges from bitter outrage to hearty endorsement. Quite often, the discussions and debates over the propriety of a woman pastor are contentious and divisive ones. Such consequences, of course, are inevitable when the issues reduce to one of commitment to the Scriptures themselves as constituting the very truth of God. High regard for the integrity, sufficiency, authority, relevancy, and inerrancy of the Scriptures naturally results in a sense of obligation and necessity to acquire the accurate interpretation of those Scriptures, as well as to promote the faithful practice of the same.

Compelling sociological factors, which have been engendered by the feminist movement, have pressed the church to address and rethink the general issue of the role of women in the church, as well as the specific issue of the propriety of women becoming pastors. My aim in this paper is simply to present a Biblical view on the pastoral ministry, with the specific question of concern being: Should women be elders or pastors in the church? In discussing such a controversial and potentially explosive issue, the watchword surely must be: "Speaking the truth in love."

A BIBLICAL EXEGESIS ON THE ELDERSHIP
 
The predominant term used for the spiritual leaders in the church is elder (presbuteros). It occurs 14 times in this capacity, as opposed to the more frequently used term today 'pastor' (poimne) which occurs only once in this same capacity. The other term which is used for the spiritual leader is 'overseer' (episkopos) which occurs 4 times in this capacity. These three designations are used interchangeably in the New Testament for the same ecclesiastical office (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2). Elders (bishops, pastors) are representatives and ambassadors of Jesus Christ for the church (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-21). In addition, they are stewards, for they have been entrusted with the welfare of the church (Tit. 1:7). Their primary responsibility is to care for (epimeleomai) the members of the spiritual body of Christ (1 Tim. 3:5), for which they will have to render an account (Jas. 3:1; Heb. 13:17).
Elders have two main duties or functions in the exercise of their care for the church. First, they are to oversee the membership. The apostle Peter exhorts the elders to "exercise oversight" (episkopeo) over the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:2). That is, elders are to superintend the affairs and activities of the church. They are the guardians of Christ for His heritage. They are to protect the whole membership from false doctrine and heresy (Acts 20:28). Elders are to exercise this management in an attitude of readiness, eagerness, and humility, without "lording it over those allotted to [their] charge, but proving to be examples to the flock" (1 Pet. 5:3).

The second duty or function of elders is to shepherd the membership. The apostle Paul exhorts the Ephesian elders "to shepherd [poimaino] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). That is, elders are to attend or minister to the (spiritual) needs of the body of Christ. This duty can be compared to that of a sheepherder who tends a flock of sheep. The sheepherder guides the sheep to water and pasture; he shelters and guards them; grooms and shears them. Jesus Christ likens His people to a flock of sheep (John 10:7-16). As sheep, believers require guidance and nourishment. Christ Himself is the chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 2:25) Who "shall guide [His own] to springs of the water of life" (Rev. 7:17). Elders, who are the undershepherds of the chief Shepherd, have a similar responsibility.

This figurative tending or shepherding of the sheep is literally and primarily seen in the teaching and instruction of spiritual truth. Elders tend to the spiritual needs of the flock of Christ by preaching and ministering the Word of God Mark records, "And when He [Jesus] went ashore, He saw a great multitude, and He felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things" (Mk. 6:34). Accordingly, Christ has provided "pastors [poimne] and teachers [didaskalos]" for His spiritual sheep (Eph. 4:11). Christ has not provided pastors in addition to teachers, but pastors who are teachers. In Ephesians 4:11, Paul is speaking of only one office. Thus Paul instructs Timothy that elders must be "able to teach" (1 Tim. 2:2). All elders must have the ability or gift to teach.

THE ELDER'S ROLE

The role of an elder in the church, which is patterned on the role of the Lord Jesus (see 1 Pet. 2:25 - poimne, episkopos), is basically that of an overseer and shepherd (or teacher). He has an administrative function to perform, as well as a didactic one. The Scriptural witness to this fact is conclusive. For instance, Paul addresses the Ephesian elders and reminds them that "the Holy Spirit [had] made [them] overseers, to shepherd the church of God" (Acts 20:28). Further, he requests of the Thessalonian believers to "appreciate those who diligently labor among [them], and have charge over [them] in the Lord and give [them] instruction" (1 Th. 5:12). Peter exhorts elders to "shepherd the flock of God . . .exercising oversight" (1 Pet. 5:2). Even the writer to the Jewish Christians exhorts, "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:7).

REASONS AGAINST WOMEN BEING PASTORS

With this background exegetical teaching on the pastorate, I now address more particularly the issue of the propriety of woman pastors or elders. The Scriptures unquestionably teach that women are not to be elders. I will present three reasons to support this contention.

1. Eldership Qualifications

First, the specific qualifications outlined for those aspiring to the pastorate or eldership strongly imply that such candidates are to be men (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9). The overseer or elder is required to be the "husband of one wife" (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6). Furthermore, he must be a person who "manages (proistemi) his own household well (kalos)," which is prerequisite for taking care of the church (1 Tim. 3:4,5). The management of the household, according to the Scriptures, is primarily the man's, rather than the woman's, responsibility. The man is considered the 'head' in the home under Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3). Management of the household by men is further substantiated when the similar qualification for deacons is examined. It reads, "Let husbands of only one wife, and good managers [lit, managing well - kalos proistemi] of their children and their own households" (1 Tim. 3:12). This statement leaves no doubt as to who is to manage the household. Consistency, therefore, demands that the similar qualification for those aspiring to be pastors must also refer to men and not women.

2. Women Prohibited

The second reason why women are not to be pastors or elders is because the Scriptures specifically prohibit such action. The apostle Paul, in communicating to Timothy the policies, practices, and principles which are to govern "how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God" (1 Tim. 3:15) states:

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression (1 Tim. 2:12-14).
This prohibition is not directed against teaching or exercising authority (i.e., having rule) in the abstract or universal sense, but rather teaching and exercising authority within the specific context of the church. Paul furnishes the rationale or ground for such a prohibition. The first reason for such a prohibition is a cosmological one; the second reason is a juridical one.

A) The Cosmological reason for Prohibition

First, women are not to be pastors or elders because "Adam was first created, and then Eve." God created the world with a particular design and structure. He imposed a certain order and form on His creation. He created the cosmos with particular operative principles and laws; and in His wisdom and plan, the man was created first. This peculiarity of God's cosmos had significant and determinative consequences. Man, being first in the creation order of rational, earthly existence, stood as the natural head. The woman was created after the man to fulfill the role of a "helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18, 20). The woman was created under (not unequal nor inferior to) the man. Priority in creation, according to the divine design, naturally entails leadership (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3, 7ff.). The man's creation involved the endowment of leadership; the woman's creation involved the endowment of cooperation to that leadership. Even the source of the woman's creation symbolizes this leadership-follower creational principle. Woman was created from a rib taken from man's side, which suggests a dependent relationship.

Accordingly, the nature of the creation order (i.e., the inherent structures and principles of this particular cosmos) presumably remain universal and unalterable. Indeed, this very fact provides the basis for Paul's argument for the propriety of head coverings in his address to the Corinthian church. He states:
For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (1 Cor.11:8-10). It is interesting that when Paul teaches on topics that pertain to man-woman relationships, his basis is usually the creation order, the original design and structure of the cosmos, and not cultural peculiarities or trends. Paul advances his various arguments in reference to the universal or absolute foundations.

So when Paul instructs Timothy concerning proper administration in the church, acknowledging the preeminence and the necessity of conformity to God's original design (which still bears a universal character), he reasons, "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." In the church, the echoes of the original (sinless) creation must resound as the recreation is in progress, though in the consummation of all things, the original creation will be supremely surpassed.

B) The Juridical Reason for Prohibition

The second reason for Paul's prohibition which excludes women from the pastoral ministry or eldership, as stated in 1 Timothy 2:14, concerns the divine pronouncement of judgement. The rule of the man and the submission of the woman has a juridical basis. "It was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." The woman listened to the serpent (i.e., the devil) and disobeyed the commandment of God to refrain from eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16, 17; 3:2, 3). The whole creation, through Eve's lead, became corrupt though the structures and inherent principles of the creation remained intact. Yet the man, as the natural head, was held ultimately responsible. It was when he ate of the forbidden fruit that "the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked" (Gen. 3:7).

Part of the divine pronouncement of judgement for Eve (and thus for all women) was: "Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16). As long as the curse of sin is upon the creation, the judgement remains in force. The judgement applies to this earthly existence until the establishment of the new creation order. Even those who comprise the church of Jesus Christ remain subject to this judgement because they continue to live and function in this fallen and accursed world, and thus remain subject to its laws and conditions. The Spirit's regenerative and renewing work in the believer is not perfected while the believer remains part of this fallen creation. The physical body is yet to undergo a spiritual transformation. Thus, while the body remains identified with this corrupt creation, it remains subject to the divine judgement on creation. The work of the Spirit has begun to reverse the effects of sin in the believer, but complete eradication will not be "until the period of restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21). If the curse remains upon the earth, then the divine judgements remain in force. The curse and the judgements are inseparable. Though the believer has been ultimately delivered from the curse (of decay and death), he nevertheless remains affected by it while he remains in this world. The woman, therefore, through divine juridical pronouncement, must submit to the rule of the man and not usurp authority, particularly in the Christian home and church, where God's Word, whether pronounced at creation or on the isle of Patmos, should be willingly obeyed.

Paul understood and appreciated the universal and inflexible applicability of this juridical pronouncement or edict as evidenced in his reference to it as the ground for the justification of the exclusion of women from the pastorate. In addition to this particular injunction given to Timothy, he similarly enjoins this church practice on the Corinthian congregation. He commands:
Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves just as the Law [i.e., the five books of Moses] also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church (1 Cor. 14:34, 35).Paul's basis of argument is the juridical pronouncement or edict of God, which is still in force during this present age. The woman is not to be an elder or pastor in the church because Adam was not deceived, "but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." Hence this apostolic prohibition or regulation concerning women and the pastoral ministry constitutes normative church practice.

3. Pastoral Ordination

The third, and final, reason why women are not to be elders or pastors in the church concerns the matter of ordination to the pastoral office. The New Testament Greek verb which means 'to ordain' in reference to an official post or formal office is cathistemi. It can also be translated 'to appoint' or 'to put in charge'. The ideas of managerial responsibility and oversight seem to be implied in its usage. The verb occurs 21 times in the New Testament, with 5 of its occurrences referring to a specifically religious/ecclesiastical role or function. Three occurrences refer to the formal office of the high priest under the rubric of the Levitical administration (Heb. 5:1; 7:28; 8:3). The other two occurrences refer to the particular offices within New Testament ecclesiology (Acts 6:3; Tit. 1:5).

With respect to the Levitical administration, the high priest of Israel was always a man. Old Testament Scriptures, tradition, and history indisputably establish this factordained the office which pertains to religious ministry (see Ex. 28, 29; Lev. 8, 9, 21f; Num. 8, 18). Accordingly, though diversity does exist between the Old and New dispensations, organic unity is clearly evident. The first occurrence of cathistemi in reference to New Testament ecclesiology pertains to the diaconate. In Acts 6, the formal office of the diaconate is created under apostolic authority and oversight. The apostles themselves give instruction on the procedure for securing personnel to serve as deacons. The instruction is "But select from among you, brethren, seven men [aner - - male] of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom who we may put in charge [cathistemi] of this task [i.e., the daily serving of food]."

The second, and final, occurrence of cathistemi in reference to New Testament ecclesiology concerns the pastor-ate or eldership. In Titus 1:5, this particular office is in view. The apostle Paul had commissioned Titus, an apostolic representative, to "appoint [cathistemi] elders in every city". Paul proceeds to give the necessary, and normative, qualifications of those who are to be ordained to this office. It becomes quite apparent that the apostolic teaching pertaining to ordination is that a candidate must be a man. The apostle states: "If any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife (mias gunaicos aner, lit, a male of one woman)" (Tit. 1:6; cf. 1 Tim. 3:2). Nowhere in the New Testament is there a set of alternative qualifications, which strongly suggests that the ordination of women is certainly not founded on clear Biblical grounds.

It is interesting that the New Testament teaches that there are only two formal ecclesiastical offices, the diaconate and the pastorate (cf. Phil. 1:1), and the only two textual occurrences to ecclesiastical ordination in the New Testament Scriptures refer to these two offices respectively: The Scriptures provide sufficient information in order to draw some sound conclusions about the nature of ecclesiastical ordination. The only two witnesses to this religious, official act virtually agree in substance. Accordingly, the plain conclusion of the Scriptures is that only men are to be ordained to an ecclesiastical office. This teaching appears to be the Biblical pattern, and is thus currently relevant.

We have a responsibility to stem the tide of ecclesiastical compromise and Scriptural prostitution, and to summon the church of Christ back to Biblical truth and faithfulness.

__________________

The above article is from the September/October 1999 issue of The FCM Informer. The editor writes about the "Purpose of this 'Informer' Issue":

Because of the aggressive offense being waged by the radical feminists across the Mennonite Church today, we have devoted most of this issue to the question of women in the ministry. Much of our church publishing energy is being used to "push" the feminist agenda including attempts to feminize God. It is past time that true Biblicists respond to this blasphemy. Historian William Manchester has said, "the erasure of distinctions between the sexes is not only the most striking issue of our time, it may be the most profound the race has ever confronted."

Those who are not familiar with the work of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood would be well served in contacting the Council at P. O. Box 317, Wheaton, IL 60189 and asking for a copy of "The Danvers Statement". The ten "Affirmations" of CBMW are a major contribution to promoting the true Biblical position.


______________________-
The author is the Pastor of Unionville Baptist at Unionville, Ontario.

You are welcome to make copies of the above article provided you show the copyright information and bibleviews.com source.

Guest post - "Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?"

This post is taken from www.gotquestions.org, with permission

Question: "Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?"

Answer:
There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.

The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority.

There are many “objections” to this view of women in ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek/Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in the passage could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words refers to men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.

Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women in ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. This objection fails to note some significant factors. First, Deborah was the only female judge among 13 male judges. Huldah was the only female prophet among dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel—hardly examples of godly female leadership. Most significantly, though, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue. The book of 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles present a new paradigm for the church—the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves the authority structure for the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.

Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more “prominent” in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).

In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons.

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for” and gives the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. This order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable, but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.

http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html

Monday, 12 November 2012

Mennonite Nazis: A Lesson from History

Guest post; reprinted with permission of Heartbeat of the Remnant, where this article was originally published, November/December 2012.

Mennonite Nazis: A Lesson from History

Dean Taylor






Pulling into the local pretzel shop here in Lancaster County, the scene was pretty predictable. Buggies, horse ties, and old bicycles outside. Inside the old building, a plainly dressed, Old-Order Mennonite lady took my pretzel order. I paid and was about to head out to my car with my nice, warm bag of salted pretzels when I noticed two stacks of papers sitting on the counter. Looking closer I discovered, to my surprise, that these papers were actually voter registration forms and a “tract” explaining why voting for the conservative President was the only “Christian” choice.

Picking up the paper I asked the young lady, “So I didn’t know that conservative Anabaptists voted. When did this start?”

To this the Mennonite lady responded, “Well, it’s getting so bad that they are starting to.”
I answered back, “Historically it has never helped the church to get involved in politics.”

Election time
Yes, it’s election time again, and the headlines are full of statistics and touching stories, all proclaiming their different sides of the political arguments. Depending on which news source you read, it would be easy to believe that the other side is Satan himself. Conservative Evangelicals are putting up quite a stink over this election and unquestioningly preaching the idea that voting in this election is a moral obligation. The socialist agenda of the current administration is seen as a major threat to the conservative way of life, and therefore voting against the “Liberal-Socialist” agenda is seen as almost important as walking an aisle. The left is no better, and more than ever they have learned to use spiritual overtones and self-righteous-sounding arguments to justify their agendas.
But who would the Apostles vote for? In the early church, saying “Jesus is Lord” was actually a political statement. This phrase was in direct contradiction to the cry of Romans, “Caesar is Lord.” The closest equivalent to this sentiment in our day would be saying, “Jesus for president!” In the early church this was not mere sentimentality. After the death and resurrection of Jesus, this motto became the early Christian battle cry.

What does that mean practically?
So what did saying “Jesus is Lord” mean practically? To the early Christians it meant a separation from the politics of Rome and a purposeful establishing of a new nation called “The Kingdom of God.” Throughout history, radical followers of Jesus have charted the same course.

What is the answer to the question “Who would the apostles vote for?” I believe that they would vote for Jesus. But to a statement like that some may be thinking, “That all sounds nice and spiritual, but isn’t it okay to simply recognize that Jesus is the “real King in your heart,” but to still go ahead and vote for others—just in case?” Others ask, “Isn’t it better to vote for the lesser evil?”

History has proven that for serious Christians with conviction, voting for the “lesser evil” is a bad idea. Whether we want to admit it or not, the facts of history cry out that when the church has thrown in their lot with the different “lesser evils” of their day, it has led to both the church and the state losing out.

Good causes

 










Throughout history when the politicians have vied for the attention of the church, their issues have appeared so justifiable—so important. The political activists have made it seem apathetic, un-American, and yes, even un-Christian not to get involved.
However, when the records of history are reviewed, it is amazing how the church’s entanglement with these seemingly “good causes” has littered the trail with casualties, often leading entire communities off course.

Mennonite Nazis
A painful example of good intentions turned really bad is the case of the Mennonite political involvement in Germany during WWII. In some respects I would rather forget this chapter of our Anabaptist history. However, I feel that if we are going to lift up the good things we have done, then we also need to be honest with our mistakes—and this was a big one! I believe that understanding these mistakes could help to keep us from making similar mistakes in the near future.

The Mennonite church in Holland, northern Germany, and Prussia[1] was one of the first to receive the gospel during the early years of the Anabaptist revivals of the 1500s. However, by the 1700s the materialistic slide of the Mennonites in Holland had its effects on Prussia as well. By the late 1700s, the Mennonites of northern Germany had enjoyed more connection with their conservative Protestant and Evangelical neighbors. Some of this had good result.[2] However, economic and societal pressures bit by bit diluted the German Mennonites—almost completely—into mainline society. By the time of the Franco-Prussian wars of the 1890s and WWI in the 1920s, many Mennonites were getting involved with politics, nationalism, and even starting to fight in wars.

After WWI
After WWI conditions were tough for all Germans—Mennonites included. The penalties placed on the German people by America and their allies crippled the economic stability of Germany. Farmers were hit particularly hard. Many farmers incurred large debts and were even forced to export their crops to support the surrounding countries hurt by the war.
The stock market crash of 1929 made a terrible situation even worse. Not only did it further crush the German economy, it also caused an uneasiness by revealing an unexpected weakness of western industry and capitalism. The ripple effect of this crash in the already-struggling post WWI Germany was devastating.

Joseph Stalin and Marxism

 








Could the two crosses be fused?

Added to this economic pressure in the West, the Russian Revolution led by Joseph Stalin was wreaking havoc all over the East. Notably affected by this revolution were the German Mennonite Brethren in Russia. Stalin’s reign of terror was notorious. German Mennonites frequently heard stories of how the “Communists” were making matters in Russia unbearable. By this time, some of their Russian Mennonite brethren had enormous farms. These farms became sitting ducks to Stalin’s forced economic plans of state ownership. Naturally, anti-communist feelings were strong.

Everyone was looking for answers. But they were looking in the wrong place. Their Bibles apparently were no longer looked at as a blueprint. Some looked to Western ideas of democracy and capitalism; others looked to the East and wanted to try the new “Marxism.” Regardless, everyone longed for a new, bold nationalism that would restore their honour and protect what little wealth, freedom, and property they had left.

Major compromise
At this point a zealous, strong-handed political conservative by the name Adolf Hitler came to the scene. Hitler promised a unification of the German people, protection against the Communists, and a list of new “economic stimulus packages.” All these ideas promised Christian morality and prosperity for all good Germans. Some had cautions about Hitler’s intensity. But when it became election time, it was the “issues” that people voted for … and Adolf Hitler had the political cure of the day. It should always be remembered that Hitler was voted in by a fair democratic election process. Many liberals preferred the Communists. But the conservative Evangelicals, along with the German Mennonites, gave their vote for the new guy with the little moustache … complete with their new motto, “Heil Hitler.”[3]

 












The famous straight-arm Nazi salute is now illegal in Germany and a few other European nations.

The new plan
As part of a new “stimulus package,” in 1933 Hitler canceled all farming debts and reformed trade relations to benefit the German farmers. These changes actually made the German farmers part of the privileged class. Communist supporters were hauled off to concentration camps and many of the territories taken from Germany after WWI were quickly given back by rapid military actions. Germans were thrilled with these changes. When Austria fell to the marching armies, Germans were electrified. The Protestants were so happy that they even took down the cross that rested over the very castle where Martin Luther had translated the Bible, and put up a Swastika in its place.[4]

What was the spiritual cost?
What was the effect of Nazi nationalism on the Mennonites? Historically, the Mennonites had a heritage of separation from worldly politics. Could they get involved in politics and still stand against this new mindset? In a word—no.

Sadly, the Mennonites of Germany joined in with the jubilant nationalistic feelings that were spreading. As a matter of record, the German Mennonites were so happy with their new Führer[5] that they wanted to express their official gratitude to him. In a telegram written September 10, 1933, the sentiments of a church council that had just taken place were expressed:

To Chancellor Adolf Hitler, Berlin:
The Conference of East and West Prussian Mennonites, assembled today in Tiegenhagen, Free State of Danzig, feels deep gratitude for the powerful revival that God has given our nation through your energy, and promises joyful cooperation in the upbuilding of our Fatherland through the power of the Gospel, faithful to the motto of our forefathers: No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid which is Jesus Christ.”[6] (Underscore and italics mine.)

I’m sure Hitler didn’t take time to answer every telegram that he received, but this one he replied to personally:

For your loyalty and your readiness to cooperate in the upbuilding of the German nation, expressed in your letter to me, I express my sincere thanks. —Adolf Hitler
Yikes!
Now to the defence of these German Mennonites, we have to remember that the atrocities that Hitler committed were not completely known at this time. On the other hand, there is a very important lesson to learn from just that point. When the church gives its support and affirmation to the ways of this world, when the church condones “lesser evil,” it finds itself praising an antichrist.

Quick seduction
Caught up in the feeling of the day, in 1933 the United (Vereinigung) Mennonites stopped asking for special treatment as conscientious objectors from war. In 1934 “nonresistance” was removed from the Mennonite confession of faith.

In 1939 when the German armies took over Prussia bringing the Mennonites of Danzig to be united with the rest of Germany, the Mennonites saw it as an act of God. Emil Händiges, of the United (Vereinigung) Mennonites wrote:

Our German peoples have endured unspeakable difficulties under the Polish yoke during its twenty year foreign rule. The most difficult at the end. Then God, the Lord, helped them through the hand of our Führer and freed them. We thank our Führer for this act of liberation.[7]

Mennonite and conservative Evangelical journals praised these military conquests by the German soldiers. These journals frequently quoted from the Prophets and the book of Revelation, showing Germany’s place as “God’s people” in prophecy.[8]

Gott mit Uns
Today it is easier to think of these German soldiers as committed pagans and monsters. “After all,” we tell ourselves, “how else could they have conducted all of those terrible deeds?” The sober truth is that most of those German soldiers claimed to be Christians. Astonishingly, the belt buckle worn by all of these so-called “Christian” Nazi soldiers boldly proclaimed, “Gott mit Uns.”[9]

 










Nazi belt buckle, emblazoned with the words “God with us.”

By 1940 the subtle influence of this political leaven had almost completely taken over the German Mennonites. Issuing a proclamation representing the political posture of the Mennonite Union during this time, the United Mennonite church wrote: “The Conference will not do anything that would even have the faintest appearance of opposing the policies of our leader (Führer).”

Reading this stuff, I had to ask, “Could this still be called Anabaptist?” I don’t personally think so. But more importantly, can they be called followers of Jesus? These changes were a pretty far cry from the decree of separation from the world and shunning of earthly government that was espoused by the early Anabaptists in the words of the Schleitheim Confession of 1527. It is obvious that their original convictions had grown stale.

Fresh faith
During this time of compromise, there were small groups of first-generation Anabaptists on the scene. A first-generation Hutterite group led by Eberhard Arnold[10] was just becoming organized during this time period. Enthusiastically embracing the foundational ideas of Anabaptism, they were dismayed over the posture of their Mennonite spiritual cousins.

When the Nazi authorities found out about these new Anabaptists, they became alarmed. The Hutterites’ radical theological and, particularly, their strong economic stance was more than the Nazis would stand for. But because of their radical stance, the loosening Mennonites were getting heat for also being called “Anabaptist.” When the authorities asked the politically-friendly Mennonites if they were associated with the new Hutterite group, the Mennonites didn’t exactly stand up for them. In a united effort of both the northern and southern Mennonites, an official disclaimer stated: “The Hutterites belonged neither to the Vereinigung (Union) of German Mennonite Churches, nor to any other organization within our Free German Mennonite Church.”[11]

It wasn’t long until this new Hutterite community was raided. Fortunately, most of them made it out of the country, and the new group ended up as refugees in England. When England, the US, and Canada would not let the new group settle in their countries, the American Mennonites came to their rescue through the help of Mennonite Central Committee (MCC). The MCC helped the Hutterites immigrate to Paraguay, conveniently close to a group of Colony Mennonites that the MCC was already helping.

More Mennonite Nazis!?
However, just when the Hutterites thought they were far, far away from the dreadful politics of their homeland, they discovered that thousands of miles away, virtually in the “middle of nowhere,” these South American Mennonites were also indoctrinated with Nazi politics!

The Mennonites there in Paraguay were living in terrible conditions and they spoke frequently to the Mennonites of Germany. Many felt that if Germany defeated Russia, then the Colony Mennonites would have a chance to leave South America and come live in Germany.[12]

 










The meeting hall at Fernheim Colony, Paraguay, was opened to the Bruderhof refugees as a place to gather. Note the portrait of Adolf Hitler at the front, and the old German saying on the banner—Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz!
(Roughly translated, “Community before self-interest.”)

Like their brethren in Germany, the Mennonites of Paraguay had also had council meetings to discuss the advantages of Nazi politics. After their church council, they also blessed the Nazi government and saw the Nazis as the political party that was upholding conservative Christian values. After the conference, the Colony Mennonites of Paraguay wrote:
With greatest excitement we German Mennonites of the Paraguayan Chaco[13] follow the events in our beloved Motherland and experience in spirit the national revolution of the German people. We are happy that in Germany, after a long time, a government that freely and openly professes God as Creator stands at the head of the nation ...With special sympathy we hear that the current government takes seriously the realization of Christian principles in social, economic, and cultural life and especially emphasizes the protection of the family.[14] (Underscore mine.)

One youth leader writing home to Paraguay, while studying in Germany, wrote: “If one lives through such weeks in Germany, one is drawn involuntarily under the spell of the Führer and can do nothing else than confess oneself a National Socialist.”[15]
The new Hutterites were disappointed. The living conditions of Paraguay were horrible indeed, but they felt that the freedom of worship was worth the cost. Emmy Arnold once wrote in a letter, “Better hookworm, than hooked cross (swastika).”

Responding to the lack of education and deplorable living conditions of the Colony Mennonites, the Hutterites quickly went to work trying to educate and offer social aid to the different Mennonite groups. Holding preaching services and hymn sings, some repentance progress was made. However, it was still a hard, upward fight. On one occasion, when the Hutterites came into a church building that the Mennonites had generously opened for them to worship in, the Hutterites were met with a framed picture of Adolf Hitler. The picture was front- and-center … right over the communion table![16]

The war ends
We know how part of the war story ended. Germany lost the war, Hitler committed suicide, and soon all the atrocities of the Nazi party were being broadcast to the world. The Mennonites as well as conservative Protestant, Catholic, and Evangelical groups repented of their support of this antichrist. Mennonite leaders even repented publically.[17] The Mennonites of South America followed suit, and eventually the political answers of the little German Führer were vehemently discarded.

Yet, somehow, something was lost by this pandemic compromise. I believe that something was particularly lost from the Mennonites. Compromise of this magnitude from mainline Protestants and Catholics was one thing … the world was somewhat used to seeing that. But when even the “radical Christians” were seen bending their knee to this evil, then something deep was lost.

The German church that emerged out of WWII Germany was anemic. Secularism has claimed the day, and today radical Christianity is virtually unheard of there.

How did this happen to the Mennonites?

When I lived in Germany 20 years ago, I was a new convert to many of these Anabaptist ideas like nonresistance and separation from worldly politics. Walking into a Mennonite church there, I noticed on the walls the war memorials of Mennonites who had fought in the war. My guide was a man in his seventies who remembered the war period well. I asked him, “How did this happen? How did the Mennonites get swept up into all of this Nazi nationalism?”

He somberly told me, “It came over us like a revival.”

That was an impressive answer, and I am sure that at the end it did indeed come on them like that. But was it completely unexpected? I now think that the compromise was more insidious than the Mennonites were aware of. As the years go by and I watch the way modern conservative Mennonites respond to politics, I can somewhat understand how this could happen again. I now think that instead of being a sudden change, it rather happened because of a long time of slow compromise. James Peter Regier says it well in the conclusion of his excellent essay on this historic time period of Mennonite history:
It seems then, that the biggest flaw of the Mennonites was not any immediate error. Instead, it was the natural consequence of years of gradual theological adaptations and compromises to better fit within the German community. When National Socialism came, the Mennonites no longer had the capacity to resist.[18]

Have we learned our lesson?
Have we learned our lesson? Have we learned that trusting in “good” political strategies is a really bad idea? The Mennonite lady at the pretzel bakery said that things are getting so bad that Mennonites simply have to start getting involved in politics.

I disagree.

It is exactly because the world is getting so bad that it is time to leave the failed solutions of the world and to start showing a model to the world of what the world would look like if we all would simply follow the teachings of Jesus.

So is voting a sin?
As we have seen, the issue is a subtle one. On the one hand, it seems so innocent. We might ask, “So what’s wrong with just telling someone who our choice would be for President?” That may seem innocent enough, but perhaps it is just this type of subtlety that warranted Jesus casting this rebuke: “Beware of the leaven of Herod.” Akin to the insidious pathos of pharisaical thinking, Jesus warned that the infection of “worldly political thinking” can grow in us, leading to our eventual spiritual destruction.


Their short-sighted cures will always lack the clarity to see the root causes of their disease.

 





Jesus’ use of the metaphor “leaven” in this context is sobering. This word picture brings to mind the way we use leaven (today called yeast) in cooking. The small amount of yeast necessary to make a loaf of bread rise starts out seemingly innocuous and insignificant. However, once added to the dough, it is not long before that small bit of yeast affects the entire loaf, often swelling it to two or three times its original size. It happened to the Mennonites in Germany during WWII, and it can easily happen today if we look to worldly politics for our answers.

How is it with us today—in what way do we apply Jesus’ warning to “beware of the leaven of Herod?” Have we learned our lesson from history? We must learn from history that the world never has, and never will, come up with a lasting ultimate solution to their problems. Their short-sighted cures will always lack the clarity to see the root causes of their disease. As Jesus said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

If through this political season you have felt yourself infatuated with the agenda of worldly solutions, then please accept this lesson from the Mennonite Nazis and repent before you find yourself venerating the devil himself! ~

[1] Prussia covered basically (in varying degrees during history) what is now northern Poland and parts of northeastern Germany.
[2] For example, the Mennonites of Danzig shared a formal relationship with the Moravians of Herrnhut, who were only a few hundred kilometers away. When these Mennonites made their way to Russia, a large revival followed.
[3] This salute is often translated as “Hail, Hitler.” However, the German word “Heil” can also have connotations of “salvation” or “healing.” Thus the salute could have been used in the sense of seeing Hitler as a savior or healer of the German nation.
[4] Metaxas, Eric. Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy. Thomas Nelson, 2010. 308.
[5] Führer means “leader.”
[6]Hans-Jürgen Goertz, “Nationale Erhebung und Religiöser Niedergang,” Mennonitsche Geschichtsblätter 31 (1974): 64.
Quoted in: Mennonite Life, Mennonitische Vergangenheitsbewältigung: Prussian Mennonites, the Third Reich, and Coming to Terms with a Difficult Past, James Peter Regier, March 2004. http://www.bethelks.edu/mennonitelife/2004Mar/regier.php (Without Regier’s article, my article would not have been possible.)
[7] Emil Händiges, “Vereinigung der Deutschen Mennonitengemeinden: Eine Notwendige
Berichtigung,” Mennonitische Blätter 81, No. 6 (June 1934): 6.
[8] Steven Mark Schroeder, “Prussian Mennonites in the Third Reich and Beyond: The Uneasy Synthesis of National and Religious Myths” (Master’s Thesis: University of British Columbia, 2001), 26.
[9] God with us.
[10] This group later became known as “The Bruderhof.”
[11] Schroeder, “Prussian Mennonites,” 18.
[12] Emmy Barth. No Lasting Home: A Year in the Paraguayan Wilderness. Plough Publishing House, 2009, 39-48. Available online at: http://cdn.plough.com/~/media/Files/Plough/ebooks/pdfs/n/nolastinghomeEN.pdf
[13] The Chaco is the semi-arid area of western Paraguay, a veritable wilderness now turned into productive crop and grazing lands by the industrious Mennonites.
[14] John D. Thiesen. Mennonite & Nazi?: Attitudes among Mennonite Colonists in Latin America, 1933–1945 (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora Press, 1999), 73.
[15] Barth, “No Lasting Home,” 40.
[16]See picture this page. From Mennonite Church USA Archives in North Newton, Kansas.
[17] “Emil Händiges offered his public repentance at the Fourth Mennonite World Conference in 1948. Referring to such Anabaptist and Mennonite founders as Conrad Grebel, Thomas Müntzer, and Menno Simons, Händiges recalled that the movement had, among other things, been founded on a teaching of nonresistance.” (Quoted from: Regier, Mennonitische Vergangenheitsbewältigung.)
[18] Regier, Mennonitische Vergangenheitsbewältigung.