Church Gov't Skeleton

Everything else goes here. Just be respectful, of course, but RP rules don't apply.
User avatar
K
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:33 pm
Guild:

Church Gov't Skeleton

Post by K » Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:16 pm

Note: This is only meant as an informal skeleton for the government of the church. Its contents are subject to discussion and revision by the church members; this is by no means a final draft. Many values and details are intentionally left out in order to be determined by the church and implemented accordingly. The terms of “church” and “congregation” are to be assumed as interchangeable terms for the purposes of the following statements unless otherwise denoted.

Fundamentals: Why and How Are We Doing This?
The basis of any and all governmental aspects are to adamantly adhere to the Scripture, which establishes all humans to be of equal value, each having one soul, and all incomparable to the Lord, in His infinite wisdom, grace, and might. This is to be accepted as gospel, that being defined as indisputable fact, by the leadership of the church. God's Word also shows that humans, while being of equal value, are not of equal talent, as we can readily observe. In order to establish proper, organized operations of the church body, we must agree that the talents that God gives to us can and should be used to lead and follow each other in accordance to what is most efficient for His Glory, which necessitates an established allocation of leadership roles, hence the present assembly and discussion. We all recognize that, although the establishments of mortals are flawed and doomed to eventually die, reflecting the status of their generators (namely those of us who are in attendance and formulating this leadership allocation), we must nonetheless formulate said establishments with the explicit purpose of assembling in a unified manner under God to do His Will.

Roles/Positions
Pastor, Leading Member
Definition: A pastor is a shepherd. The term is used to denote a church leader as a direct reference to the metaphor in which the members of the church are sheep, which must be assembled and led in accordance to the will of their master. This similarity reflects the responsibilities of both the pastor and the entirety of the church; the pastor is responsible for calling on the church when necessary, while the church is responsible for answering the pastor. The pastor is responsible for leading the loosely defined “grand direction” of the church, and the church is responsible for following the grand direction. Conversely, one aspect of the metaphor that should not be overlooked is the fact that the pastor is also a sheep, just as the rest of the church is, under the Great Shepherd. This holds cohesion to the fundamentals that we hold; the pastor is a fellow with the God-given talents to lead and teach (specifically in accordance to our Master's Will), not a superior being. A pastor is not a monarch or a president; he does not sit on a throne and wave a scepter, nor does he sit behind a desk and press a button, in order to simply direct others to his/her will. Just as a shepherd walks with the sheep, the pastor of our church should work with us, practice what (s)he preaches, and in all ways within his/her ability conform to the direction in which (s)he leads.
Uprising/Downfall: The qualifications of being a pastor... (I'm honestly a bit foggy on this part. After the qualifications are established, or, well, probably in the process, we need to go over how to elect one. It seems to me that it should just be a quick, simple election the way that we normally do things so that we have an agreement on whom has the gifts to be the pastor at the time. Since I'm basically saying that the matter of a pastor's uprising should be conveyed in your words, why don't you handle the downfall part, too? About all that I have on this is that the pastor should have gifts of teaching, preaching, wisdom, knowledge, and otherwise should have the qualifications of an elder, as well as being an ordained minister.)

Elders, Council of Experience
Definition: A step into an etymology lesson reveals the fact that an “elder” is simply a word for an old man. However, not every man that comes of a certain age defaults to the metonymic position, nor is the role limited exclusively to that literal interpretation. There is a distinction between the historic origin of the word and the actual definition of the position. If we can argue that we must adhere blindly to the etymology, we have drawn a line that we must then mirror when reading that “every man has sinned” and similar verses, excluding women from that statement and thereby uprooting our entire belief system. Just as we know that the latter statement refers to all of mankind's sin, we should know that the term, “elder,” refers to all people of age. By extension, we can derive the concept that “elders” are specifically people of wisdom. God does not wish us to be led by anyone and everyone that reaches a designated age with total disregard to the actual wisdom of the people in question. God wants our flock to walk with people who have learned from their years and have had years to study His Word. The age of an elder acts as an indicator that (s)he has had the time to learn enough that (s)he has a solid foundation in his/her beliefs, but the role is not assumed until a multitude of the church agrees on the unit's general competence. An elder's responsibilities are again a matter of simply sharing his/her capabilities for God. An elder is to convey his/her wisdom in the forms of expressing discernment and views on matters, acting as an advice council to the pastor, remaining available to teach classes and preach sermons when called, privately counseling individuals, and bringing matters to the other elders and the pastor, as well as any other ways that are found for said wisdom to be shared.
Uprising/Downfall: An elder must self-nominate and be recognized by a minimum of two thirds of the congregation's vote. In order for such a nomination to be considered, the person in question must be a member of the church, have attended at least __ Sundays, with a minimum of __ Sundays within the last _ months, and be of at least __ years of age. Votes will be cast on the basis of individual evaluations of trustworthiness, discernment, steadfastness, and overall wisdom. An elder must be available for communication with acceptable consistency, as an elder is to be a teacher and counselor to the congregation. Just as an elder is recognized by the church, so, too, may the church revoke the recognition of a member's status as an elder if necessary. A member may make a motion to revoke another member's elder status if the elder no longer meets the accepted requirements of continued elder status, as defined hence:
  • The elder is no longer a member.
  • The elder no longer meets the age requirement.
  • The elder does not attend fellowships regularly enough to keep up with current events and developments.
  • The elder has given sufficient reason, as determined by the voting members of the church, to find that the elder does not have the trustworthiness, discernment, steadfastness, teaching ability, and overall wisdom to be a reputable, respectable leader.
  • The elder has voluntarily resigned from the position.

An elder's status is successfully revoked if the majority of the voting congregation finds the member to be unqualified.

Deacons and Deaconesses, the Reliable Helpers
Definition: The definition of a deacon is not expounded on in great detail in the Scripture. In fact, the only explicit mentions of the word, "deacons," in the NKJV, are at Philippians 1:1 (where they are addressed alongside elders, though not defined), and in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 3:12-13 (where they are said to require respectable reputations). In Acts 6, a position is formed because the elders can not possibly contend with every minute aspect of every act within the church; the Apostles and elders could not afford the time to stop teaching, preaching, and counseling in order to do such menial tasks as waiting tables, passing Communion plates, et cetera. A deacon is not a "super elder," an "archbishop," or any other such superior officer; a deacon is simply a person whom, like an elder, is reputable, is publicly recognized as a reputable person, and is ready, willing, and able to perform tasks that the elders are too busy or otherwise incapable/excessively inconvenienced to perform. As a result, deacons should be as plentiful as those whom qualify, as should be the case with all other positions.
Uprising/Downfall: This is to mirror the uprising and downfall of an elder with the exception of the necessity of teaching capacity, with the stipulation that a deacon should be ready, willing, and able to reliably perform humbling works when called upon.

Members, the Congregation's Constitution
Definition: Members are simply the individuals who assemble as the church regularly in order to learn about the Lord, inclusive of the pastor and elders. All members are equivalently subject to regulations of the church. All members that qualify to vote on motions yield votes of equivalent value. Any member may pose an argument in a discussion for a motion.
Uprising/Downfall: An individual must first attend at least __ instances of assembly and fellowship and must be a Christian. An individual loses membership upon becoming an apostate, upon voluntary resignation, or upon loss of contact for __ consecutive __s. Finally, an individual immediately loses membership and all other roles upon death.

Note: Before continuing and reading the treasurer values, we should discuss whether we want a solitary treasurer, a financial committee, or a fusion. Personally, I would like to immediately throw the latter option under the proverbial bus for the following reason: The majority of the committee would only act as an advisory board for the treasurer, which is already handled by standard congregational rule in the form that we already practice, so it would be redundant. While this could be efficient for large, heavily-populated churches, I don't see the practicality in it for ours. Similarly, before addressing the values of the secretary, we should decide whether we want a single unit for all the paperwork, a group of the same (generic secretaries), or a segregation of individual aspects (scribe, inventory specialist, et cetera).

Treasurer, the Financier
Definition: The treasurer is a member that handles the finances of the church. The treasurer may authorize reasonable purchases with the church's money for the church's basic needs, including, but not limited to, paper goods, water, plastic cups, Communion vittles, utility bills, carpet shampoo, tissues, paper, writing utensils, and printer ink. The treasurer is responsible for refraining from drastically overstocking, excessively lagging in payments, or falling excessively behind on the matter of keeping such needs satisfied. The treasurer also handles the finances of greater transactions, such as donations to programs and ministries, structural renovations, and advertising, which are subject to congregational motions and election.
Uprising/Downfall: Any member of the church may be a treasurer. As in the case of elder status, one must self-nominate. By contrast, a treasurer requires a majority vote, rather than a two-thirds vote. A candidate should be fiscally responsible, voluntarily subject to the desires of the congregation, and regularly active in the church's fellowships. A member is no longer a treasurer upon voluntary resignation or the passing of a motion in which the member is deemed to be unqualified to hold the position. An individual also loses treasurer status upon losing membership.

Secretary, the Organizer
Definition: A secretary is a member that handles paperwork, acts as a scribe for important motions and other progressive documents, organizes paper supplies and forms, and generally performs what we may collectively call “office work.”
Uprising/Downfall: Any member of the church may be a secretary. Self-nomination is again the foundation of candidacy, and the requirement to successfully be elected is again a majority vote. The candidate should have sufficient organizational skills and be regularly active in the church's fellowships. A member is no longer a secretary upon voluntary resignation or the passing of a motion in which the member is deemed to be unqualified to hold the position. An individual also loses secretary status upon losing membership.

Elections
Process
All elections will be held by the same process. A member makes a motion, therein nominating the action to be taken. Another member seconds the motion, thereby agreeing that the motion should be considered. If a motion is not seconded, it is tabled. Any member who has attended at least __ fellowships in the last _ months may then speak on the subject upon raising one's hand and being called on by an elder or pastor. If a value(s) are addressed that involve a revision(s) to the motion during this time, the member who initially made the motion may choose to adopt the suggested revision(s). If that member does not do so, another member may move to table the present motion, upon which a member may move to vote on a similar motion with the suggested revision(s). After each member whom wishes to speak relevantly has done so, voting may commence, by which a pastor or elder asks whom is in favor, then whom is opposed, and all members raise hands in order to denote which values they each hold. Unless stated elsewise in the motion, including the requisites that are defined in this document and thereby assumed as stated properties of their respective motions (e.g. the two-thirds majority rule for election of a member to elder status), the motion will be carried (implemented as stated) or tabled (dismissed as stated) by majority rule.
Robert's Rules of Order (Revised Ed.) is adopted as the authority for parliamentary rules of procedure for all business meetings of the church and for all other meetings that demand voting of the church members, including committee meetings.
Voting Qualifications
Note: It seems to me that all elections should have the same requisites, particularly because categorizing them would be a rocky matter. That is, we could section off “position,” “financial,” and “all other” elections, for instance, but any such classification would require at least one item that is broad and really requires about the same qualities that are necessary for other elections. We need a broad term because we don't want to limit ourselves, so we may as well just have one catch-all, right?
In order to vote in any election, one must be a member of at least __ years of age and must have attended at least __ fellowships in the last _ months. The church finds that these prerequisites are sufficient for all elections because...
Another note: I wrote it like this because I think that you should be present enough to understand the matters and conflicts, but I don't want to prohibit action just because so-and-so missed last Sunday or doesn't often attend Wednesdays; that's why I didn't put a consecutive attendance order on anything.
All votes should be cast with disregard to race, sex, or any other characteristic that is not specified within this document to be relevant to any given matter.
Voting should be performed by private ballot for all position elections. All other elections may be held by the raising of hands unless any member of the voting congregation requests a private ballot.

Amendment Clause
Any item in this document is subject to amendment at any time, in the form of any revision, by five eighths vote of the congregation.

Baptism: Is it required for anything? We do it in obedient symbolism of our salvation, so it's something that Christians should do, but do we want to disable membership or participation in another role until it has been fulfilled? This matter must be discussed for consensus on the requirements of each position.

Zahari
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 12:45 am
Guild:

Post by Zahari » Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:38 pm

I think that baptism should be required for members. I believe in a second baptism as well; I was baptized when I was a child and had no idea what Christianity was and did it because of family and the type of church I was in at the time. They basically made a line with children and baptized them one by one. It's kind of sick actually, I can compare it to lining up pigs to a slaughter, since we as children had no idea what was going on and was just being good kids and doing what the grown ups told us to do.

People have to be conscious of what they are getting into for baptism. They are saying "I am devoting my life to Jesus Christ, my savior from this day forward". And like baptism, members are saying "I am being devoted to this church and its members, to help others in their walk as well as they help mine". There are people who come to my church all the time and are not Christian...I would not consider them members, since I believe 'members' are the reflection of what the church has and is teaching. We consider him a visitor, but it doesn't mean that we treat him any different (we don't get hung up over titles anyway). Anyway, that is why I think members should be required to be baptized.

User avatar
K
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:33 pm
Guild:

Post by K » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:02 am

Yeah, the whole church (or at least everyone that I've heard) agrees that baptism for the unsaved is a ridiculous and blasphemous ritual. I mean, what is symbolism if you don't understand it? Baptism is supposed to be done in obedience to God as a physiological representation of our deaths, burials, and resurrections into God's Will. Does that even remotely sound like something to do for unsaved people? Relatedly, we don't like "sprinkle" baptisms. Those, again, are made into just some ritual. If you're not plunged into the water, how are you showing that you die in the flesh? It's just a little splash... -_- The way that we figure it, if you have had a false baptism, the only thing to do is to get a real one, you know?

Right, right. My problem with requiring baptism for membership is as follows: What if you just can't get a hold of your baptism certificate? Let's say that I have to attend church for 4 consecutive weeks to be a member. The third week in, I hear that I need a baptism certificate to be a member (which is basically just the difference of whether or not I can vote for matters in the church). Well, I first have to call around to see where a copy of my certificate is. If it's not around anywhere, I have to request a copy from the reverend that baptized me, which will take God-knows-how-long. If it is around, it may still take a few weeks to get a hold of it. In the latter case, it's not a huge deal. What if I haven't been baptized before, though? Well, now I have to wait. Once I'm ready, I gotta' get the pastor to find some time, which shouldn't be a big problem, but I also don't want to be rude and have him cancel something. Once I'm baptized, our church isn't all bureaucratic-minded, so I don't think that I'd have to wait for a certificate to start voting, so that isn't a huge problem, either. In my case, so far, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem. What if i haven't been baptized or can't get a hold of my certificate... and I have some condition that makes it unsafe for me to get dunked? All of a sudden, there's some rather unreasonable hindrance for me. I may be informally recognized as an elder, for all my qualifications, but that one hindrance to my membership is severely debilitating. I've proclaimed Christ as my Savior; it's not like baptism is necessary for salvation, right? If we just have to follow Christ to the best of our abilities to be Christians, why do we have to jump through extra hoops to be members of a church? See the issue?
On the other hand, I think that, when we discuss it on Wednesday, we'll agree that such issues like that are generally not going to be a major hindrance, and, no matter what provisions we make, something will happen, and there'll be something that we'll just have to adapt to. By that reasoning, necessitation of baptism for membership shouldn't be an issue.

Thanks for this; this has reaffirmed what I intended to say to the congregation. ^_^

Kazuya
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:41 pm
Guild:

Post by Kazuya » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:14 am

Ah, for my church, we don't need to pull out a certificate (we are never given one, since we also believe that the transformation Christ does to you is before you are baptized in the first place). The only real restriction for us is time. We have to stay in the church for at least six months to be a full member. So, if you say that you are Christian, show through action and over time that you are Christian and you say that you have been baptized, we figure you to be telling the truth and not lying about something like that.

I agree that baptism is not necessary, of course not. The way my church looks at it is like this: if you have not been baptized, and you are capable of having a baptism, then we question why you haven't if you say you are already so devoted. If one doesn't want to get baptized because they don't feel as if they are ready or need to sort out things in their life beforehand (like myself before I was truly baptized), that's a different story and a logical explanation for the wait. However, the wish to not be baptized simply because of defiance is questioned and pressed by both elders and other members.

If one can't pull out a baptism certificate, that's something understandable since one can misplace papers like that easily (organization has nothing to do with faith, right?) or aren't given ones (like my church).

User avatar
K
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:33 pm
Guild:

Post by K » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:36 am

Right, that's agreed, as well. It's just a certificate to show that you have physically and openly gone through with the representation. Yeah, I figure that, too. I guess that, if given a moderate-long attendance requisite, a certificate check isn't required in the first place.

So true, so true. That's exactly how we figure it.

Very true. Haha, I always say that anyone who has a problem with organized religion (a term that refers loosely to just about any faith-based fellowship) should never have a problem with us. xD
Resolute Myth
phpBB [media]


Grey Ultima
phpBB [media]

User avatar
K
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:33 pm
Guild:

Post by K » Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:54 pm

Update: I added the Election and Amendment Clause sections.

User avatar
K
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:33 pm
Guild:

Post by K » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:10 am

Also, I came across some bible verses that you may want to consider, based upon our brief discussion of “elders” last night.



When you get some time, perhaps before next Wednesday night’s church meeting, you may want to look up:



1 Timothy 1:1

(States that the letter of: 1 Timothy is a command from God.)



1 Timothy 3: 1-7

(Speaks of Bishops – otherwise known as: overseers, pastors/teachers, and in this case is also believed to be synonymous with – elders.)



Titus 1: 5-9

(Gives example of elders being in the male description – also using the words “husband” (v 6) and “he” (v 9).)
I've read those verses, actually; we went over them in a Sunday school class recently. The books of Timothy and Titus are written by the Apostle Paul to some young pastors about what they have to do to get their churches set up and sanctified, right? Think about when they were written and put things into perspective. The Scripture boldly taught against many ancient, worldly principles, but, just as present-day society limits us in our practices, the society of their time restricted them much more. Here are some aspects to take into consideration:

In that time, women were property. By the times at which Paul is writing these letters, it had started to sink-in with Jesus' followers that women weren't just property and had talents of their own, but there was more than a little trouble in the revelation that they are our equals.

Women didn't own property, in that age. Furthermore, they didn't run businesses, they didn't hold political offices, et cetera. They didn't have any positions of responsibility. They weren't allowed to by the society in which they live.

When a marriage went wrong and it became public knowledge, the man was to be blamed, since the woman was viewed less as an equivalant partner and more as a dedicated property piece. In fact, the general testament of society at that time was (much like many still say today), "You have to keep her in line. She's a woman! Of course, she's going to give in to any man who beguiles her, and of course, she's going to be wild and stupid; that's what women are! It's your responsibility as a husband to keep her in her place." As a result, rumors weren't told as, "Hey, Mr. Reed's wife was caught in bed with my couzin. She's such a..." Moreso were they told as, "Yo! Mr. Reed's wife was caught in bed with another man, so he punished her by..." It was about what the man did, 'cause the woman's actions were expected as a default and were impertinent.



Now, an elder is to be elected as a person whom has been proven to be responsible and of respectable siritual character, right? That is seen indisputably through Titus. If society didn't give women a chance to prove themselves to be respectable, and if much of society wouldn't respect them even if it was proven, women couldn't be recognized as elders, right? Also, the mention of the elders as husbands is, when put into context, simply a statement against having polygamists as elders, for rather obvious reasons. This brings me to Titus 2:1-5. In a single breath, in a compound sentence, Paul addresses qualities of a man and the qualities of women. The whole book is about leadership in the church, so if the men and women are mentioned together, we can assume that they can qualify for leadership positions equivalently.Women couldn't back then; they had no ways to prove themselves except as good wives and mothers. The men had to prove themselves as good husbands and, much less so, good fathers (since, of course, child care was primarily a womanly matter), but also as good businessmen, good teachers, and overall responsible, spiritually strong people. Nowadays, women can do that stuff, too. Nowadays, though, we live in a more private society; we have many communication methods and thereby have sources that allow us to focus on news that we individually find to be pertinent. We have a lot of different things to do these days than they had back then. We don't rely almost solely on talking about and investigating each other for things to do; we have our own junk to deal with. This can be a very good thing: We don't have to each go into a personal investigation to have concrete proof of each other's qualities, the way that people were evaluated back then. In stead, we just trust in God's guidance and go by what little we can see of each other. Then, it comes to this: If you can see Brother Frank's actions, let's say, and evaluate him as a God-fearing, respectable man, can't you evaluate Sister Nancy by the same means?
I know that what I’m going to say is a bit lengthy, but please be patient with me, as it is about as comprehensive and final as I can be on the matter.



This topic… Whether or not females can serve as “elders” with the Christian church has been going on since the time of the apostle Paul.



There are two primary viewpoints.



#1.) The egalitarian (equality of ALL people) view holds that women can serve as

elders as long as they fulfill the requirements as outlined in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.



#2.) The complementarian (complementing each other) view affirms the opposite and states that women are not allowed to serve in the capacity of elder within the church of Jesus Christ.

I know that you are aware of the following, but please bare with me as we review 1 Timothy 3:1-7, where it says:



"The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil."

You’ll notice in this passage, the number of masculine pronouns (“he” and “his”). As a result, just a cursory reading of this passage would lead the average person to conclude that the role of an elder/overseer must be filled by a man. The phrase “husband of one wife” also indicates that the office of elder is assumed/intended to be fulfilled by men. The same points are also made in the parallel passage of Titus 1:5-9.

The passages that describe the qualifications and duties of elders/overseers do not open the door for women to serve as elders. In fact, the consistent use of male pronouns and terminology argue strongly for the office of elder/overseer being restricted to men only.



As with other issues in this debate, the question of women serving as elders is not a matter of chauvinism. In no sense is this a matter of men being superior to women. Rather, God restricts the office of elder to men only because that is how He has structured the church to function. Godly men are to serve as leadership, with women serving in the CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT supporting roles.



Now, my having said all of the above, please consider the following:



It is very important to not see this issue as men vs 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 Bible says, “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 (Elders) over men, which definitely includes preaching / teaching, and having spiritual authority.

Caleb, the common “objection” to this view of women in ministry, is the objection that you seem to make…



It may appear 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.



Another 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. Furthermore, 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.



It is also worthy of noting that: “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.

Caleb, here’s what I believe the Bible teaches as… “the bottom line”:



The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” for having male elders 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 GOD APPOINTED 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. As a result, God has given MEN the primary teaching authority in the church.

A VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:



Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helps (See 1 Corinthians 12 – RE: Spiritual Gifts). It has been my experience that much of the ministry within the local church DEPENDS on women!!



Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or things of that nature, only from having spiritual teaching authority over men.



The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit. 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 IN WHICH GOD INTENDED 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.



Caleb, by not having women serve within the church as “Elders”, does not make women less important, by any means, but rather it gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.



Well, I guess that’s it for now.
You've seen my website; lengthy statements don't bother me.



Aye, aye. I'm familiar. Of course, it's a matter of Biblical interpretation; if it was anything otherwise, we would simply look it up in the Scripture, we would agree on what it says, and the matter would be over. By the same matter, we know that this is a matter of leadership, not personal worth, because we all know that we each have different talents and callings, but one soul.



To begin, I'd like to point you to verses in the same chapter. Look at 1 Timothy 3-6. "...who desires all men to be saved..." "Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus..." "... a ransom for all, to be testified in due time..."

In those cases, we know that "men" refers to all of mankind. It is even stated as such in the same sentence; there can be no dispute on those. How can we be so selective in our interpretation? These things are written not just by the same divine inspiration, not just by the same author, but in the same letter!

Look, your main argument (and Rod's only, so far) is the etymology. Etymology is manufacted, while principles are deifacted. How adamant are we going to be about mere words? Where do we draw the line? Let's look at some notes about Greek: Just as they have the past, present, and future tenses, they have the perfect tense. We don't; their words in the perfect tense translate most accurately (in most cases) to our past tense. Does that mean that God was good, but isn't anymore, or that we don't know if He will be in the future? No! We have transposed certain instances of this discrepancy into our past participle, our present participle, and sometimes just our past tense for the sake of making it cohesive to our language and our comprehension thereof. By the same token, the Greek language also has the feminine tense, the neutral tense, and the masculine tense; these are actually recognized there as "tenses" in the same way that the temporal tenses are, unlike in English. If you take a look at how these tenses are used, the neutral tense is used for inanimate objects (as you'd expect) almost exclusively, right? Obviously, the feminine and masculine tenses are used for their respectively appropriate cases, generally. However, think about this: When we refer to a group of multiple individuals, no matter the sexes, our words are neutral, right? "They," "their," "our," "we," and the rest just have a plural property, not a sexual or a necessarily asexual one. This is not the case in Greek, along with plenty of other languages. In many languages, a group of women has a word for itself; there's a plural feminine word. Likewise is there a plural masculine word. However, when there is mixed company, they often use the masculine plural. Look at that again. When the word should be a plural neutral or, as is the case with some languages, a word that is specifically designed to be plural heterosexual, it's often said as the plural masculine. This is the kind of garbage that we ran into when translating the Scripture into English. Do you really contend that the masculine tense of our manufacted words is difinitive of the deifacted principles?

This brings us to the slippery slope: If we're going to bicker over the masculine sense here, where must we impose this limitation? Exodus 20:7 says, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain." Job 27:7-10 says, "May my enemy be like the wicked, And he who rises up against me like the unrighteous. For what is the hope of the hyprocrite, Though he may gain much, if God takes away his life? Will God hear his cry When trouble comes upon him? Will he delight himself in the Allmighty? Will he always call on God?" Do you see what I'm getting at? Why does our translation of "he," "husband," and "his" have to be so adamantly definitive in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus when it's clearly not elsewhere? We know that all PEOPLE have sinned, not just all men, and wwe know that it is not right for ANYONE to be alone, not just for a man to be alone, but we don't know that a reputable man whom does not practice polygamy is equivalent to a reputable woman whom does not practice polyandry?



Of those three objections that you list, I think that the third is almost entirely unfounded and thereby do not hold that particular one. However, the other two are legitimate, but you're dismissing them because Paul doesn't rant cyclically to state the obvious reasons in those two verses? Don't you think that your dismissal is more than a bit of a stretch, when put into perspective?



The rest of your argument runs entirely on the premise that God's setup for family management should be universal for all leadership. That is unfounded and not scriptural. The church and marriage are the same in the sense that we, the church, are the submissive wife, and God is the leading husband. That doesn't mean that our dealings between each other have to be a matter of ALL women submitting to ALL men, just as it doesn't have to be that way outside the church. In the military, if a superior officer (i.e. one with qualifications that put the subject in a higher position of leadership) is a woman, is that against God? No! God doesn't say that all women have to follow and submit to all men in every aspect of the world. He doesn't say that your employer, your manager, or your fellow employee with seniority has to be below you in leadership on the sole premise that she is a woman, right? Rod has admitted that he quit the Army and other occupations on this premise, and he has admitted that he is a chauvinist, because he is under the unscriptural value that God's system for the family is applicable to all of reality. Find me a verse that explicitly states that system to be the system for EVERYTHING, and I'll sit down and shut up.
Resolute Myth
phpBB [media]


Grey Ultima
phpBB [media]

User avatar
K
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:33 pm
Guild:

Post by K » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:33 am

Update: I'm closing in on the "final" rough draft of this church gov't skeleton. I added a stipulation to voting, I clarified the fact that elders must be teachers, and I added deacons. I crossed out my brief summary of the electoral process and replaced it with what Rod wrote. I left what I wrote as a strikethrough entry because it brings up the issue of who gets to speak on motions, an issue that the congregation may wish to make a provision for. It also expresses the process in lay terms. Oh, I also put another sentence onto my note about the uprising and downfall of a pastor.

Update 2: Right, that. I added on the obvious part about losing membership upon dying, and I mentioned the notion that voting should be primarily by private ballot.

Return to “Spam”

×

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests