Egalitarianism Vs. Complementarianism

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Must an elder also have a plurality of children? 1 tim 3.4. This cannot be the intended meaning. The meaning is that the elder must have good character and not a string of divorced and remarriages. I disagree with your interpretation also because celibacy was highly valued in early church leadership. If being married was a requirement we dont see it practiced.

Its true that there are more verses supporting the drinking of wine than female elders. Also...Jesus drank alcohol but never appointed a female disciple.

So you disagree with the scriptural qualifications for an elder, yet use these same scriptural qualifications to claim that women cannot have church leadership roles.

Can you please let me know what "scriptural basis" you have to say that women cannot have church leadership roles?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you disagree with the scriptural qualifications for an elder, yet use these same scriptural qualifications to claim that women cannot have church leadership roles.

Can you please let me know what "scriptural basis" you have to say that women cannot have church leadership roles?

You are misinterpretating the passage. This well known evangelical apologetics site explains why and provides scriptural basis:

https://www.gotquestions.org/women-elders.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are misinterpretating the passage. This well known evangelical apologetics site explains why and provides scriptural basis:

https://www.gotquestions.org/women-elders.html

Just answer the question. This link refers to the verses you have just said should not be interpreted literally, but rather according to your logic.

What is your scriptural basis to say that women cannot be church leaders?

Since everyone knows that an elder's wife is a church leader it seems beyond any reasonable interpretation of Paul's word in Timothy and Titus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just answer the question. This link refers to the verses you have just said should not be interpreted literally, but rather according to your logic.

What is your scriptural basis to say that women cannot be church leaders?

Since everyone knows that an elder's wife is a church leader it seems beyond any reasonable interpretation of Paul's word in Timothy and Titus.

The way I understand it is, all localities are antonymous. So elders are whatever the locality selects, male or female.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Just answer the question. This link refers to the verses you have just said should not be interpreted literally, but rather according to your logic.

What is your scriptural basis to say that women cannot be church leaders?

Since everyone knows that an elder's wife is a church leader it seems beyond any reasonable interpretation of Paul's word in Timothy and Titus.

The link interprets the verses you use differently to you and explains that the emphasis is on the man not the wife or children. I consider gotquestions a reliable resource for mainstream evangelical beliefs and it shows that your view is not a reasonable, average interpretation.

Did you read what it said about the average person?:

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.

So based on this paragraph your interpretation is not that of an average person and you cannot claim that yours is a "reasonable interpretation". I think many Christians would disagree that a elders wife or elders children or family dog are "church leaders".

You have no authority to declare that your own private interpretation is a "reasonable interpretation" given that I can find the majority of bible commentaries on biblehub explicitly disagree with your interpretation:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/3-2.htm

Benson:

the husband of one wife — This neither means that a bishop must be married, nor that he may not marry a second wife; which is just as lawful for him to do as to marry a first, and may, in some cases, be his bounden duty. But whereas polygamy and divorce, upon slight occasions, were both common among the Jews and heathen, it teaches us that ministers, of all others, ought to stand clear of those sins.

Barnes:
The husband of one wife - This need not be understood as requiring that a bishop "should be" a married man,

Poole:
he apostle commanding ministers to be the husbands but of one wife, doth not oblige them to marry, if God hath given them the gift of continency

Gill:
though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife

A literal interpretation of this passage as requiring an elder to be married is not a view held by the majority of bible scholars or churches in history. This then is a good example of you conducting "exegetical gymnastics" and stretching the truth or going beyond what scripture says to make the bible support an egalitarian viewpoint.

If the best support you can find for female elders is to infer that an elder *must* be married and to then infer that an elder's wife is also a "church leader" then this shows there is no strong basis for the egalitarian position.

Your view must take two "exegetical gymnastic leaps" to support female elders:

1. "Elders must be married" - not well supported by biblehub commentaries or gotquestions.org. We must therefore reject the thinking that this is an average or reasonable interpretation.
2. An elder's wife is a "church leader" - this would not be an average or reasonable interpretation, just as saying that the President's wife is the "President of the USA", or Bill Gates wife is the "head" of Microsoft (she is, or was, only a project manager). Although I can imagine a wife of a leader providing support and advice from time to time, this does not mean they could or should be seen as having equal authority.

[ZNPaaneah]

I get it. Paul said that a prerequisite of being an elder is "husband of one wife" but "got questions" says that doesn't mean "the husband of one wife" but rather that he is a man. Paul said that he raised his family well, but got questions says that doesn't mean he actually raised his family well, but rather that he is a man. I asked a simple question, what is your scriptural basis. You didn't need to give me all this, simply say "I don't have scriptural basis, rather I base this on got questions.

I have a different and radical interpretation. In my interpretation when Paul says that the elder is the husband of one wife, I interpret that to mean that he is the husband of one wife. Likewise, when it says he raised his family well, I interpret this to mean that he raised his family well. I realize that taking Paul as the primary authority over such luminaries as "got questions" is a radical and unpopular way to interpret the Bible.

But here is where it gets interesting. If the elder is the "husband of one wife" then that means you are not simply choosing the man, you are also choosing the woman (you know, the elder women who are charged with teaching the younger women -- i.e. church leaders). When the Bible says that the man shall be joined to his wife and the two shall be one flesh, I take that as well. I suppose got questions can explain that away as well. So if the man is the "husband of one wife" it stands to reason that the woman is the wife of one husband. If the man is credited with "raising his family well" it also stands to reason that the wife should also be credited with raising the family well.

Since two thirds of church members are women it stands to reason that you need both men and women church leaders, a position supported by Paul's charge to the elder women to teach the younger women.

Since the straightforward reading of Paul is logical, and much better aligned to the scripture than the gymnastic interpretation of got questions, why the need for such a twisted misogynistic interpretation? What happens if you have a man, your best Bible teacher, and he is not married, or is divorced, or his kids are the stereotypical "pastor's kids"? Well then, in that case you need someone to spin the word of God to make excuses.

Please note, "gifted teacher of the word" is not a prerequisite for an elder.

Your Bible teacher does not need to be an elder. But what the church needs from the elders is to be an example for the flock, and to counsel the saints to help them primarily with their marriage and family. Hence the prominence of these prerequisites.

[Evangelical]

My scriptural basis is the correct interpretation of the passages cited in the gotquestions article. It is confirmed to be a sound interpretation when considering what the biblehub commentators have to say. Most commentators say that the verse is prohibiting polygamy not celibacy. This puts your view at odds with the most reasonable and logical interpretation.

In short...if the elder is meant to be a husband and wife team or husband or wife then
1 Tim 3:1-7 would say 'they'...not 'he'.

[ZNPaaneah]

It would be a reasonable interpretation if the verse you quoted about celibacy referred to the position of elder of the church. Since it doesn't your "reasonable" interpretation is nothing more than a non sequitur with Catholic spin doctors explaining how their church leaders could be celibate.