An interesting discussion about calling is going on over at Andy Bryan's place. Rick (Quipper) brings up a real issue when he comments:
"If the Pastor is acting as the CEO, then he is not a preacher; he is a business owner."This comment seems to focus on what the role of a Pastor really is. Some would say that he is a mainly a preacher and some would say that he is mainly a shepherd. A shepherd may sometimes look more like a CEO than a Preacher. I'd be interested in hearing what you all think that the role of a Pastor is.
Every "pastor" I've had has been the CEO. Never fails. They are not shepherds. That's why I don't do church any more.
ReplyDeleteA pastor should lead, be humble, follow when needed, inspire, MINISTER to the flock.
Be perfect? No. But be able to admit when she/he is not.
A pastor leads us in worship, in the role left him by Jesus Christ. He should no more be a CEO than a father, and sometimes, admittedly, a father must be the CEO of a family, but that's a duty, not his role and calling. He can delegate it, but he can't and shouldn't ever want to delegate his fatherhood.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's like asking what an artist is.
ReplyDeleteJackson Pollock and Thomas Kinkaid are both artists, but the similarities end there. When the gift of pastor is entrusted to an engineer, the church is going to be well designed. When it's placed on an artist, the church will be expressive. When it's put on an accountant, the church will be equitable.
But the gift is guarding.
Every believer loves. The gift of pastor loves by guarding the flock. The pastor-teacher guards and feeds. When a pastor discovers he's not a teacher, he finds a good teacher for his flock.
To Andy Bryan's list of NOT's, I can only add my disregard. We all have to vent from time to time. I get it.
Here's my 2 points:
1) If we defined churches by neighborhood, instead of by belief system, a lot of this overhead would go away.
2) Then it is his responsibility to guard the church by training people with the right gifts to do every one of these things, and to ensure that proper oversight is given to each of those tasks.
Wow these comments are really good!
ReplyDeleteI love what Karen said about lead and follow ... need to be humble to do that.
Therese brought in the aspect of fathering ... I like that because of the relational aspect.
I love Codepoke's perspective of the gift of 'pastor' and how personal that gift becomes when it expressed through a unique individual.
I feel like I've been in school - and I are a pastor :)
yes, you is! :-)
ReplyDeleteHey all,
ReplyDeleteI'm arriving late to the party.
First and foremost, Merry Christmas.
I have been around some of the denominational block. Raised Roman Catholic, skipped town for several years, and ended up as a casual Lutheran. Joined a network marketing business and learned a lot about reformed and non-denominational theology. Allowed the rubber band to snap back...it ended up at confessional Lutheranism, which is where I am happily grounded.
The confessions to which I ascribe not only mention what Lutherans believe, but also what they don't believe. Let me do the same here to answer KB's question.
What I believe a pastor is: the earthly representative of Christ at the Divine Service and when in other situations requiring the pastor to fulfill his call. The pastor is responsible for preaching the Word and distributing the sacraments (baptism and communion).
He is the equivalent of your O.T. prophets and your N.T. apostles. He preaches Christ redeemed, offering affliction to the comforted (pointing out their sin), and comfort to the afflicted (forgiveness and hope). By doing both, he provides the means of God's grace to all who hear and believe.
He makes clear distinction of law and gospel, preached in proper proportion as to not have law succeed the gospel. After all, Christ crucified was the end game, not what we could do afterward.
He is seminary trained, so as to have understanding of original text and context, so he can discriminate between true and false teaching, and address with his flock accordingly.
Does he need to step into interpersonal situations? Yes. Will he be in one or more himself with his flock? Only if he is fulfilling his calling. :-)
No, "he" is not the general pronoun in any of these items; it is the male's position.
What I believe the pastor is not: he is not a bottom-line guy business-wise. That's what the elected / appointed / hired personnel are to do. There are others who are more talented in these areas, and therefore should be placed into those roles.
But...he is to ensure that the administrators do not cross the line in their bottom-line activities:
- Counting the butts in the seats, looking for trends? Um, no. When King David took a census, it was to affirm his earthly prowess, not to glorify God. What good comes out of counting? Did Jeremiah count? Did Jeremiah look for results? Did Isaiah? Did Daniel? Um, no.
- Pushing people into serving the church? Um, no. Even when "supported" by scripture? Um, no. If you make the faithful guilty for not "serving", then you are making them guilty of something that is not a sin. It is false teaching.
- Balancing the budget? Um, no. That's what the treasurer does.
I respectfully disagree with Codepoke's two points:
1) Paul actively promoted unity of doctrine, and pointed out variance. Those who strayed - even Peter - were rebuked by Paul. I guess that made Paul a big, old meanie. But, he fulfilled his calling by doing so.
2) Pastors are responsible for the spiritual kingdom's activities - preaching and sacraments. Non-clergy are responsible for the earthly kingdom's activities - balancing budgets, taking care of the building, etc. I do not want my pastor taking time away from his flock to balance the budget, hire the snow plowing firm, managing the trustees, or setting marketing strategy (but that's a whole other topic).
This was probably more than you bargained for, but I hope it helps.
God Bless.
Rick (Quipper)
May the Lord bless you, Q.
ReplyDeleteWe remember that no man or woman stands between God and ourselves.
The position of pastor is one of a servant; Praise God for Paul's humility. Paul also tells us if ANYONE (tis) desires the office, they desire a good work.
Quipper: "If the Pastor is acting as the CEO, then he is not a preacher; he is a business owner."
ReplyDeleteSomeone else: This comment seems to focus on what the role of a Pastor really is. Some would say that he is a mainly a preacher and some would say that he is mainly a shepherd. A shepherd may sometimes look more like a CEO than a Preacher. I'd be interested in hearing what you all think that the role of a Pastor is.
Rev. Dean Kavouras, Luthearn Pastor:
WHAT IS A PASTOR? You won't get anywhere making false dichotomies such as the one above. He is a shepherd and a preacher. But shepherd doesn't mean CEO in Biblical parlance. He's also a Baptizer, forgiver (in absolution) and the one who serves the TRUE Bread of Life in Holy Communion.
What is a pastor? It depends on what your denomination is. I can answer this question for Lutherans. And the answer I give is in reality the correct answser for all of Christianity.
A pastor is one who cares for souls, by imparting the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation to them. The pastor does not give himself or anything of himself. He only passes on, ministers, to people what Christ has given for sinners. That is the forgiveness of sins, peace with God, spiritual comfort, strength and endurance.
He does this via the means God has given, not through any clever and creative ideas his miserable heart might conjure. God's means or channels of grace are:
1. Preaching the Gospel (that is the good news of forgiveness of sins by grace through faith). Christians need to hear the Gospel as much as non-Christians do. Christians have flesh, that means sin. This is accomplished via sermons, prayers, creeds, hymns, liturgies focused on Christ as Savior. It's also carried out through general confession and absolution and in private confession and absolution (Jn 20:23ff). It's also carried out in baptizing, which unites sinners to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and dresses them in Christ's righteousness. (What is this, but salvation imparted?) It's done by administering the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
It's not a about personality or the person. The pastor DOES fulfill an OFFICE, the pastoral office, and so he is a special and important person. But only because of the office he's been called to and the work he does. According to the Bible he deserves great deference, apt compensation and much honor for his work's sake.
While its not about him, the church can't operate without him. This is God's doing and will.
Part of his work is to guide others in keeping the doors open, and that means balancing matters of bills, computers, buildings etc. It's part of the cross a minister carries to have to deal with those items, when all he wants to do is spiritual work exclusively.
I could go on and on, but I won't.
Hi Karen,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "We remember that no man or woman stands between God and ourselves."
Can you clarify? I cannot tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing with one of my comments.
Thanks,
Rick
"the earthly representative of Christ at the Divine Service " (as we all should be, yes?)
ReplyDelete'He is the equivalent of your O.T. prophets and your N.T. apostles." (wow)
"offering affliction to the comforted (pointing out their sin)"
"comfort to the afflicted (forgiveness and hope)" (Sounds like Jesus to me, aren't we all supposed to do this? Aren't we a royal priesthood?)
"No, 'he' is not the general pronoun in any of these items; it is the male's position." (Tell that to Paul's female co-workers, Junia in particular)
For example: I consider KB a pastor because he loves and cares for people (I don't know if he has been "ordained" and I don't care); he is true to our Father, and he would never put himself on a pedestal, which is what some pastor descriptions here described. KB is a humble and anointed leader. I have several trusted female pastors, as well. Their calling is just as biblical as anyone else's.
Ordination is a man-made creation. I am ordained in the RCA as an elder. I considered my objection to "ordaining" per se, however, as I knelt before a congregation, I realized that kneeling before them was, indeed, appropriate because I was and still am their servant.
Where was John the Baptist ordained in order that he could baptize? Which seminary did Paul, Aquila, Priscilla, Timothy, Junia, or Phoebe attend and graduate?
Man cannot forgive our sins, only our blunders or missteps with one another. Only Jesus can forgive us our sins; when the curtain was torn, any barriers between us and Him were removed.
I prayed to Father about this response, and was enlightened that two words were missing from the pastoral descriptions: Love and Jesus.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, however, we currently have an exodus of people AWAY from church for a reason, and I suspect it is the lack of humility, love, and true leadership in boxed churches that is driving people into home churches, or no churches at all. Mega churches now are the thing, where people can disappear, get their coffee and God-fix on one day of the week, instead of making God a daily, hourly, or even minute-by-minute priority.
I don't want to take over KB's blog with this discussion. I am a 100% Jesus freak and a committed egalitarian. Don't blame me. Jesus started it. :-D
Karen, you are one person who has an open invitation to take over my blog anytime you feel led :)
ReplyDeleteMy ordination to ministry was without ceremony but meaningful to me because of the names on the certificate. Having people (who I respect) believe in me and in my ministry are encouraging.
That said I think that ordination is extremely over-rated and can be empty of meaning when it is void on interpersonal relationship with the people who ordain you.
I was called and ministered before I was ordained ... ordination was not a qualification to walk in my calling and minister.
Agreeing with you 100%, Bob. :-)Especially the "I was called and ministered before I was ordained...ordination was not a qualification to walk in my calling and minister."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. I considered ordination to be a public affirmation that I was a servant.
Very late in this game.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons we changed the government in our church was exactly what Quip described.
We had a head pastor, and a board of directors. The only real power that the directors had was to fire the pastor... this was stupid.
It was my first time on the board and it took me two meeting to see that our government was a millstone around our and the pastor's neck. We began the process of re-writing our bylaws. Through much prayer and almost a year of deliberation, we moved forward with what we beleive was a more biblical approach. We changed our governemnt to a group of elders which the pastor was one of them. So far I am all for it. We went literally 5 months without a head pastor and the church continued to thrive.
If your pastor is feeling like a CEO, then there is something wrong.
My question is what litmus should be put on a head pastor? If numbers aren't a good indicator (which I think numbers are bogus), how do you rate a pastor.
When is it time for a church to tell a pastor it is time to go a different direction and who has the right to tell him that?
God Bless
Doug
Karen said: "I am a 100% Jesus Freak and a committed egalitarian." I'm happy you are proud of yourself.
ReplyDeleteBTW...love and Jesus are mentioned in my post. After all, what are the Gospel and Christ crucified? Are you saying those are not love and Jesus?
Whether you call it a "call", a "hiring" or whatnot, there is some set of qualifications for which you are looking. So, my question is, what are your qualifications? That drives what you believe a pastor is. All discussion on this topic bows to each congregations' expectations for the position.
Quip,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you in principal and I may be being a bit pragmatic here.
To me the real question is: "What are God's qualifications for the position of 'head pastor'." not 'What are ours.'
Karen, Codepoke, and I have been in a circle about women as head pastors and elders.
To me the truth of God's requirements far outweigh anything else.
God Bless
Doug
Yep, Dugalug, we have been. That's okay. I still think you're great.
ReplyDeleteQ-your comment about being happy that I'm proud of myself? Hmm. I feel that was a sarcastic comment.
I take no pride in anything but my Savior.
As far as love and Jesus...those specific words were not in your description, nor were they in mine....which leads us back to Dugalug's point...God has the qualifications for pastors. And we all missed that point in our human way of discussing what WE want.
I agree with Dugalug...God calls pastors, ministers, shepherds. I have no qualifications for my pastors. God just leads me to them. I'm sorry that some of you feel that women shouldn't be pastors, elders, etc. God certainly had no problem using women for ministers, nor did Paul. To deny women (50% of humanity)their gifts and calling is to deny His work and toss the ball to the dark side.
God doesn't necessarily call the qualified, but He will indeed qualify His called.
Karen,
ReplyDeleteYou recall that I have no problem with women as pastors (I even support and encourage this placement), it is women as head-pastors and Elders that I can find scriptures against... from Paul BTW. This stance hardly limits the 51 percent of humanity that are female.
Also BTW: ditto on the greatness! ;)
God Bless
Doug
Dugalug..lol on the greatness.
ReplyDeleteI know you can find translations "from Paul" against women in general, and I know which ones you will want to put out there, but, frankly, I believe in the innerancy of the Bible..properly translated. I know that comment will irritate. Sorry.
The RCA (Reformed Church of America) has no problem with women as pastors and elders nor do many other denominations, so the scripture discussions will basically get us nowhere.
Since our disagreement is about women as leaders in authority over men (that's another scripture that I believe is mis-translated) let's agree to disagree.
Thanks Doug and Karen for the dialog. I was wondering Doug if you thought that the limitations on women is limited to the church or if it extends to government and corporations?
ReplyDeleteI ask that because some folks that I discuss women's roles with like to differentiate the "sacred" and the "secular". This view troubles me because it seems to be an arbitrary differentiation that allows religious people to have different rules.
I think that both the sacred and the secular are governed by consistent kingdom principles. If there are limitations then I think they would be applicable throughout the kingdom ... but I could be wrong.
For the record, I don't see any issue with women in authority over men. So Karen, we can agree to agree on that...lol
ReplyDeleteMy issue is with two specific positions: Head Pastor and Elder. Both of which Paul's words are pretty etched in stone about. The looseness of translations, as well as a generally pro-male focus, I might concede may bias some translations, but these specific scriptures would be hard to weasle out of.
So KB, the answer to your question is a little convoluted. I do see that what applies in church, applies in the secular world. To me it comes down to the scripture let those leader who serve you best. If it be a women... well so be it.
There is a reference in Corinthians(or Ephesian... it is too late for me to remember right now...sorry) about women in roles that were traditionally men. I am paraphrasing but it says something like if a woman chooses to cut her hair short, like a man, let her assume the full responsibility of a male. In other words, it is not like a cafeteria where you can pick and choose what you like and don't like: you either take on maleness in its fullness or be a female. I think this sums up my problems with genders in the work force.
For instance, why should there be a difference physical entrance exam for males and females for a police force? Currently there are. My sister-in-law is a police officer as well as her husband, and they make about the same money, yet she cannot pass the same test that he passed to get on to the force. Am I missing something?
Also, in the past 3 years, my sister-in-law has taken over 9 months of paid leave, because of having 2 babies and another female-related issue. For a male, this isn't an option.
As an engineer, I tend to look at bottom lines more closely, and I have no problem if someone is pulling their weight, but if they are not, then we will probably have some issues.
I am betting that we will find out how many people are going to have problems with women in leadership when Hillary comes to town. Personally I think she is unelectable, mainly because she is a woman, and there aren't enough self-respectable southern gentleman who would bow to a female president.
I would be a liar not to point out that it would have to be one amazing woman for me to vote for her to be president (and that isn't Hillary). Perhaps another Margret Thatcher and Golda Mayer (sp?), those are two I'd have no problem standing behind.
God Bless
Doug
Doug, I guess I'm confused where you stand. What scriptures are you referring to as far as HEAD pastors and elders? Any descriptions Paul made about elders and deacons have the Greek translated as "one man woman" and "one woman man" It's a gender neutral (Greek language, not my opinion) statement that refers to fidelity in marriage.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you say if the best leader is a woman, so be it. So, if the best leader for a church is a woman, so be it?
I don't think that egalitarians are cafeteria picking, either. I believe that, as I've researched into the Greek and Hebrew, we don't need to pick and choose. Paul laid it all out there for us. He worked side by side with women, called them apostles, church leaders, deacons, etc.
The shorn hair verse...women in Ephesus who wore their hair short were generally slaves or prostitutes. I can see where that cultural item was of concern with Paul.
Many churches won't let anyone anoint with oil unless they are an elder or priest. Jesus, however, was anointed before His death by a woman and chastised those who criticized her.
Karen
ReplyDeleteGreat questions!
The common scripture which you are referencing is I Tim 2(i think it is 10 or 11, but I could be wrong). While this is a common scripture for egaltarians to sigh on, I see this to mean don't usurp authority period. It means that we should respect those who God has put over us.
I Tim 3 discusses Overseers and Deacons. An overseer is the equivalient of a head pastor or bishop.
Take I Tim 3:1. It says something like If anyone set his heart on being a overseer, HE desires a noble task.
'He', in this case is masculine. This is not like mankind, or in other places, where it is is gender matching. Paul, specifically limits this to a male role. This isn't something 'lost' in translation.
Also, you say if the best leader is a woman, so be it. So, if the best leader for a church is a woman, so be it?
No, that is constrained by scriptures like the one above.
God Bless
Doug
Karen,
ReplyDeleteOne more note, this is just one of a few of these references. I just happened to remember this one off the top of my head.
I know there are a couple more.
God Bless
Doug
Here we go again.....
ReplyDelete"I Tim 3 discusses Overseers and Deacons. An overseer is the equivalient of a head pastor or bishop. 'He', in this case is masculine. This is not like mankind, or in other places, where it is is gender matching. Paul, specifically limits this to a male role. This isn't something 'lost' in translation."
Paul does NOT limit to men. The translations limit to men."He" doesn't occur in the scripture you reference...only in the translations.
The word you say is bishop is "episkopos," one who watches over, a guardian, a scout, a watcher. This word did not become "bishop" or "head pastor" as you put it, until after the time of Ignatius in the early 2nd century. Paul did not pen "head pastor" or "bishop." It meant a guardian, and in 1 Timothy 3, he says "anyone" who desires to do this:
1 Timothy 3
3:1--
This is a TRUE saying, If a MAN DESIRES the office of a GUARDIAN he DESIRES a GOOD WORK.
The capitals are the words actually in scripture. The word "man" is mistranslated. It is "tis" or "ei tis" which means "whoever" or "anyone." There is no "he" in the scripture as "he desires a good work" The translation is really "whoever desires to be a Guardian desires a good work." "He"' has been added.
Also, English is the only language in which masculine and feminine genders denote male and female persons. In other languages grammatical gender is not related to biological gender, and this is difficult for English speaking people to understand. For instance, I studied German. Tables, doors, windows, etc., have either feminine, masculine, or neutral articles....das Tisch, die Tur, etc.
The Hebrew word for "Holy Spirit" is feminine gender and the Greek word is neutral. Is the Holy Spirit a female or is the Holy Spirit an "it?" The Greek word for "old woman" is neuter gender. The word "patris" which means homeland or hometown is rendered as "fatherland" in Bibles...but it is feminine gender. (Dr. A. Nyland)
1 Timothy 1-13 discusses the qualifications for men and women in church "office." Many translations of the Bible call these women "wives of deacons," but this is incorrect. The translation is "women." The word is "gune" and it means "woman."
1 Timothy 2:10: (The manner of women) "alla hos prepo gune epaggeliomai theosebeia dia ergon agathos." "But which is behooving to women professing God reverence through good works." So the women are "epaggeliomai" which means to proclaim or teach. ANd the women had to learn before they could teach. Just like the men:
1 Timothy 3:11-14 has also been translated:
A woman must learn and she is to learn without causing a fuss and be supportive in everything. I most certainly do not grant authority (epitrepo) to a woman to teach that she is the originator (authenteo)of a man, rather she is not to cause a fuss. (The Source New Testament With Extensive Notes on Greek Word Meaning)
So, women WERE to learn, unheard of until Paul; hupotasso means support, attach to; (even my current Greek dictionary doesn't support the "submission" definition) hupotasso doesn't mean submit except as to "submit papers to someone" or to mean support as in hold up. This makes more sense in relation to Ephesians where Paul tells us that Christians are to support each other. If we're all submitting to one another, what will get done? In Paul's culture some women were teaching that Eve was the originator of man (gnostic teachings and the goddess mentality of the times) Also Paul says "a womAn" singular, whereas before he was speaking of "women" plural.
Authenteo: only time this word appears in scripture. Doesn't mean authority over. It means "perpetrator, author" and even "murderer." It doesn't take the meaning "mastery over" until later centuries.
Picture this: we go to Jesus. "Father, we have a question!" And Jesus says, "What is your question?" (As if He doesn't know!) "May women lead churches?" What would Jesus say?
He revealed himself as Messiah to the Samaritan woman and she was the first evangelist. He healed the woman with the back complaint and referred to her as "a daughter of Abraham"--not a common phrase with rabbis. Women were denied the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant. (J. Lee Grady) He sent Mary Magdelene out (apostle means 'sent one') after his resurrection. He walked with women. Yes..the 12 were men. Jewish men. Does that mean that only Jewish men can become pastors? He walked with the 12 and some women. Jesus affirmed Mary's place when Martha got cranky. And, a woman was the one to anoint Him before His death.
Karen,
ReplyDeleteSigh... Yep here we are again.
For starters, what I don't know about Greek, I do know about Latin. Masculine and feminine do indeed denote gender in Latin, I must assume this is true in Spanish, Itatlian, French, and Portugese (since I am not fluent in any of these 4). I must say that to reference the rules of a hodge-podge language like English is a little silly don't you think?
Also, you know you are painting yourself into a corner with me, because I have no problem with women as teachers, pastors, or in authority over men. So here we go again.
Here is what you have stacked against your position:
Tradition: Not that this is a shock, but the position was held by males and the position of women, at best in the Jewish heirarchy was minimal. This predates Jesus.
Culture: Since the first century, there roles have been filled by men. Now I'm not a rocket scientist... well not exactly one, but I am sure you would agree that 2nd century churches understood more closely what Paul meant then say... you or me. Stick to your literal stuff all you like, but culture dictates some of this translation.
Translations: You are implying langue shouldn't by swayed by culture. I think it should most certainly be. The verses in I Tim 3 are translated as 'He' or 'Him' in almost all translations of the bible. I am hard pressed to flipantly go against the grain of literally thousands of theologians.
Did I mention thousands of theologians? Yep... check!
Now let's look at some of your statements.
Paul does NOT limit to men. The translations limit to men."He" doesn't occur in the scripture you reference...only in the translations.
Again I sight my points above. Taking in biblical, traditional, cultural, AND literal context, it does indeed limit this to a male role. The fact the Greek is woefully defficient is hardly my problem.
Picture this: we go to Jesus. "Father, we have a question!" And Jesus says, "What is your question?" (As if He doesn't know!) "May women lead churches?" What would Jesus say?
Mei Gonoito. Oh no wait, that would be Paul's answer. ROFL
I noticed you were a little light on explaining verse I Tim 3:11, which refers to the 'wives' of deacons. Again, this reference is not 'spouse', it is 'wife'. Again, I can't see how you can translate this any other way.
I see little to no exclusions in the bible for women apart from the positions of deacon and overseer (and yes bishops and head pastors are appropriate). I also realize that the real women's liberation movement started as Paul and John wrote their parts of the Gospels.
As I have stated plainly before, almost all of history, tradition, culture, theologians, and translations are stacked against you. Please forgive my bluntness.
I apologize for taking the heavy stance here, and I know I am talking to one who stands against what I believe. Still I know that God's Spirit flows through both of us. Whether we agree or not, I appreciate your sincerety and I love your insight. I know that God's truth will see all of us through this too.
God Bless
Doug
Forgive me...I don't know how to do the HTML tags to italicize.
ReplyDeleteDoug sez: "For starters, what I don't know about Greek, I do know about Latin. Masculine and feminine do indeed denote gender in Latin, I must assume this is true in Spanish, Itatlian, French, and Portugese (since I am not fluent in any of these 4). I must say that to reference the rules of a hodge-podge language like English is a little silly don't you think?"
Karen sez: Silly? English is kind of important to discuss here, since we're talking about English translations. It's important since the translators try to impose the rules of one language upon another. Since we're talking about Greek here as well, the masculine and feminine gender assignations do NOT apply as in the English. And you're incorrect about other languages; la, le, les, etc., are all gender articles that don't necessarily coincide with gender, particularly when they are referring to inanimate objects. I gave you examples, so I guess the Holy Spirit is a female. I didn't make up these rules, Doug. ....we're talking TRANSLATION here. NOT what SCRIPTURE actually said. Translators often apply their own language's idiosyncrasies to the translation. For another example: "kephale" means "head" but it means a PHYSICAL head...the Greek "head" doesn't mean "superior, chief, boss," whatever, like it can in English. That is an English translator attaching idiosyncratic meaning.
Doug sez: "Also, you know you are painting yourself into a corner with me, because I have no problem with women as teachers, pastors, or in authority over men. So here we go again."
Karen: Yes, we do disagree, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. You continue to exclude women as leaders of a church. Then, you contradict yourself when accepting the possibility of a woman as leader of the U.S. when we as Christians know that there shouldn't be a difference between the secular and sacred.
Doug sez: "Here is what you have stacked against your position:
Tradition: Not that this is a shock, but the position was held by males and the position of women, at best in the Jewish heirarchy was minimal. This predates Jesus."
Karen sez: Well, Doug. Hmm. This bias against women is a cultural an Jewish thing, so that makes it right? The Bible is clear. 'This predates Jesus.' So, since it predates Jesus, He is overruled?!
Doug sez: "Culture: Since the first century, there roles have been filled by men. Now I'm not a rocket scientist... well not exactly one, but I am sure you would agree that 2nd century churches understood more closely what Paul meant then say... you or me. Stick to your literal stuff all you like, but culture dictates some of this translation."
Karen sez: As I've said, these words were CHANGED from their original meanings and by the 2nd century, BECAUSE of the bias against women, they were changed to cause exclusion....against the teachings by Jesus and Paul for INCLUSION. These men were fiercely afraid of women taking over spiritual matters.
Doug sez: "Translations: You are implying langue shouldn't by swayed by culture. I think it should most certainly be. The verses in I Tim 3 are translated as 'He' or 'Him' in almost all translations of the bible. I am hard pressed to flipantly go against the grain of literally thousands of theologians."
Karen sez: You keep arguing about a gender designation that isn't in that verse. Language naturally changes. We can't help it. That's my argument. But you have to look at the meaning of the word at the time the word was written. Now, if we sing "Don we now our gay apparel" children giggle. They have little reference that gay meant happy in the old days. So, because it means homosexual now, the song shall be changed to the new meaning of the word and the original meaning falls away? Kinda changes the meaning and intent of the song, yes?
Greek did not have 'all the words' that we seem to require. They were added. HE in the scripture you refer to was ADDED. It WASN'T in the oldest copies of scripture manuscripts! Again, I refer to the literal. "He" was INFERRED by the translators.
Doug sez: "Did I mention thousands of theologians? Yep... check!"
Karen sez: Did I mention thousands of MALE theologians? Yep...check!
Doug sez: "Now let's look at some of your statements.
(Karen)'Paul does NOT limit to men. The translations limit to men."He" doesn't occur in the scripture you reference...only in the translations.'
(Doug)Again I sight my points above. Taking in biblical, traditional, cultural, AND literal context, it does indeed limit this to a male role. The fact the Greek is woefully defficient is hardly my problem."
Karen gasps: The Greek is woefully DEFICIENT?? So, now the Septuagint, which Jesus most probably used, was DEFICIENT? The fact is, Greek scholars now have their hands on papyri that is contemporary to New Testament times, and that IS indeed now your problem. These papyri give much insight to the original meanings. You're looking at the translations done AFTER these words were changed from their original meaning. This is important. The Greek is not deficient. It says it all. Will you raise your translation and say "This is my Bible" or would you raise the original scriptures and say "THIS is my Bible!!" ?You keep hanging onto traditional, cultural, historical context. They are human-made weakness compared to the Almighty. The Word of God is inerrant. The translations of man are not.
(Karen)'Picture this: we go to Jesus. "Father, we have a question!" And Jesus says, "What is your question?" (As if He doesn't know!) "May women lead churches?" What would Jesus say?'
Doug sez: "Mei Gonoito. Oh no wait, that would be Paul's answer. ROFL."
Karen sez: Um...Doug, it's mei gEnoito. Neither Jesus nor Paul would utter this in answer to the question.
Doug sez: "I noticed you were a little light on explaining verse I Tim 3:11, which refers to the 'wives' of deacons. Again, this reference is not 'spouse', it is 'wife'. Again, I can't see how you can translate this any other way."
Karen sez: That's because you're not looking far enough. You keep expecting me to defend word translations that are incorrect or words that aren't even supposed to be there."gune" means woman. Paul is discussing the job descriptions and includes women in his descriptions as being held to a higher standard. You keep referring to translations, instead of researching the meaning of Greek. Translators added all kinds of words, such as in Ephesians, "women, submit to your men" Submit" wasn't in that verse.
Doug sez: I see little to no exclusions in the bible for women apart from the positions of deacon and overseer (and yes bishops and head pastors are appropriate). I also realize that the real women's liberation movement started as Paul and John wrote their parts of the Gospels."
Karen sez: Jesus and Paul were at the helm of the real women's liberation movement.
Doug sez: "As I have stated plainly before, almost all of history, tradition, culture, theologians, and translations are stacked against you. Please forgive my bluntness."
Karen sez: Your bluntness doesn't phase me. But all of your argument is based upon man's doing...history, tradition, culture, theologians, translators...all human. Jesus and Paul changed it all. "stacked against" me? If Jesus is for me, what can be stacked against me?
Doug sez:"I apologize for taking the heavy stance here, and I know I am talking to one who stands against what I believe. Still I know that God's Spirit flows through both of us. Whether we agree or not, I appreciate your sincerety and I love your insight. I know that God's truth will see all of us through this too."
Karen sez: Likewise. Jesus never stood against what I believe. He would NEVER limit anyone preaching the Gospel in any capacity. I notice you have no answers for all of the women that Jesus included in His ministry, and Paul in his, nor about Jesus' inclusion of women..that He never said they couldn't minister or lead. That's all that matters. For more scripture insight for you, you might go to www.godswordtowomen.org. Thanks for the dialogue, I've enjoyed! Happy New Year, and may God bless you and your family with health and happiness this coming year.
You, too, KB...for putting up with us!
Karen,
ReplyDeleteWhoah! Sorry, I can't let this end.
In Spanish the adjective describing a fat man would be 'Gordo' while a a woman would be 'Gorda'. The same is true in Latin and Italian. I would say that gender is implied in most romance languages, including the hodge-podge languages like English. Again, words like 'wife' are indesputable, as in verse 11 of I Tim 3.
And for the record, as a language, Koine Greek IS defficient. It is the common spoken greek, not the traditional written Greek. If these texts were written in Hebrew or Traditional Greek, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Koine was the language of the common man, and that is why it was written as such. So the need of understanding of the context of what is written in imperative.
When I said, most theologians, I guess I should have said 'most MALE and FEMALE theologians.', but I thought that was obvious... my bad.
As far as your dismisal of almost all of historical, cultural, and traditional, as well as most theological views of the bible. I don't know what to tell you. Good luck with that.
Incedentally your comment about the greek use of the physical head 'Kephale'. If you didn't know the culture, you wouldn't know that greeks believed that the head was the center of life in the body. If this were a Hebrew culture, this word might have been the bowels. In our culture, Paul may have used 'Heart'.
As far as me dismissing (or light on answering the examples of) women in ministry, I thought that my position on limitations of women is very clear, and very consistant. Save deacon and overseers, and possibly some limits in the roles of husbands and wived, there aren't any. My view certainly accomadates the scriptures such a Priscilla, Aquilla, and others. And my view on the president is hardly dualistic view.
I noticed that you stated that certain word's definitions were changed in the second century to exclude women. Yet you pointed out that we are talking about 'English' translations. I wasn't aware that any English translation was around in the 2nd century. Also, the most complete text, the Codex Vaticanis, only dates back to the 4th century. I know some of the other less-complete codexes date further back to the end of the 2nd century, so when did these revisions of the text occur and by who?
Sorry my spelling of greek is bad(of course my spelling is no better in English), but thanks for correcting it. Still, I thought the comment was pretty funny. It was a joke, sorry it hit a nerve.
Unfortunately, for me, I tend to error on the side of conservative translation. Your views which may be correct, are a little to close to the edge for me. In addition, I think it is fair to point out that you have vested interest in your view of these scriptures being correct. I think that this may put you in the exact same position as the translators you are accusing of male bias. How is your gender-neutral stance that benefits your current position any different than this male-bias position? In my case, I have nothing to gain either way.
I've been to GodsWordForWomen, and it is interesting, but I could site hundreds of sites that back my, more mainline view of scripture.
Sigh, sorry sister that I've russled you so. I wish I could let things just go away, but I can't.
KB, I too am sorry for taking up too much room on your blog.
God Bless
Doug
Doug, why would you say you've "russled(?)" me so?
ReplyDeleteI enjoy hermeneutical discussions. The only thing that concerns me is when people are unable to discuss a subject without making patronizing comments.
Gender neutral is different than gender accurate. I seek the latter, not the former.
It's apparent that I haven't been able to make my case to you that word meanings since the originals were written have changed through the ages. This fact is one of the keys to accurate scriptural interpretation.
Take care!